Letters from Iran

Letters from IranWhile winds of change have been blowing through the Arab world, Iranians have been forced to wait for political reform.

In 2009, in the aftermath of an election that saw Mahmoud Ahmadinejad controversially returned to power as president of the Islamic Republic, millions took to the streets of Tehran to protest against the result. But the demonstrations were brutally repressed and the hopes of the green revolutionaries were dashed.

Since then Iran has closed itself off to international media scrutiny and it has been difficult to determine exactly what happened to the many thousands of dissidents arrested and imprisoned during the protests, or the current scale of political opposition to the regime.

Yet as this film reveals, that opposition is still alive and kicking and just as eager for change as before. Letters from Iran paints a fascinating portrait of the aftermath of the Green Revolution and a country holding its breath.

Watch the full documentary now

Ratings: 8.53/10 from 15 users.

More great documentaries

122 Comments / User Reviews

  1. I see a problem here but I can't say that problem is larger than one that exist in USA or similar world power countries. Movies like this made my country, Serbia, as world treat. I would like to see better Iran but as far as I can use my brain, whole this movie is bunch of nonsense.
    I don't know that Iran attacked some country the way USA, Britain and rest of Nato did. Even Russians started to attack other people countries (Syria).

  2. This documentary made me feel so many emotions than any other I have watched. The story of the Iranians makes you mad, sad, shocked & crying while leaving you in disbelief that these atrocities can occur in this century. My heart is with the Iranian people.

  3. they have the god given right to speak truth,if theu object then there against god.

  4. I can only send out my best wishes to these poor, tortured souls. Let there be peace for their sake, not mine.

  5. If I were to tell you what gives, I'd have to deal with all the little Paulettes. A little more than I need right now.

  6. Is Ron Paul the next Prez?

    1. Well he could be the next Prez.....but not of the US.

    2. Why not? I heard RP has all the support from the military and the other s*umbag loser candidates are s*umbag loser candidates. What gives. He sounds like the man for the job.

    3. @drinker69 & lakhotason

      -(Quote) : "Scumbag"...

      Where's the "Moderator"?
      Does it depend on where does the IP# is from?
      Is it French numbers or English ones?


    4. @drinker69,

      Not that important. One of the other as well as for a Democrat, the day after he enters the white house, he must meet with his bosses.

      From there, he corrects his programs.
      Better yet, simply print the document his bosses gave him.


  7. @lakhotason,

    :-)) :-)) :-))

    Goody indeed.
    They never defended it indeed.
    But had a revolution of their own just as you guys.

    Thinking of this, I've been in many countries, China, Iran and for sure the USA, but never been in France.
    The Brits? No need to spend $.$$ on the plane ticket, they'll come to you as when need be, otherwise...

    Nevertheless: - "Eliminated polio"?
    Not done under threat?

    This being said, did I heard on the international news that one of your Republican nomenee was racially targetted for having a bit of a too international status? Humm?


    1. Yep. Bill Gates on his own dime. No cases of polio in India this year.

      Mitt Romney was ridiculed for speaking French. It's a thing with Americans. Kind of silly if you ask me. Mitt and the ridicule are both silly.

    2. From Private Eye - (magazine)

      US Republican race frontrunners emerge.
      The candidates appeal to Republican supporters

      Mitt Romney - I'm white

      Rick Santorum - I'm white and I'm not Mitt Romney

      Newt Gingrich - I'm white and I'm not Mitt Romney nor Rick Santorum

    3. Three Blind Mice.

    4. @lakhotason,

      Stil, much better than being a deuce of spade as you are.


    5. Maybe we can get the Dalai Lama to mediate between America's politicians and Iran's politicians. And since America is honoring Martin Luther King right now, we could honor him by remembering what he said about war and hate.

    6. @lakhotason,

      The Dalai Lama just like anyone else know that no-one mediate or negociate with americans. Anyhow, they go on their own pretending that everyone else approved.

      Matin Luther King? Didn't the USA burn all of what he wrote?
      Anyhow, he didn't had time to fit the mess just to see what here below. Grow up old man!


  8. It was never my intent to bash America any more than I would bash any other country including my own. In fact, before now I've pulled people up on this site for unjustly attacking American posters, and I completely understand that it's not the people of America that are responsible for foreign policy. By the same token, it wasn't the British people responsible for the Empire of past. It was a few very powerful business interests, so big in fact, they had their own private armies. And yet bashing British people with that particular stick is as much an internet staple, as is bashing Americans. It all gets very tiresome, and certainly doesn't encourage any meaningful debate.

    The sad truth is though, behind every war are businessmen and ringing cash registers....sad but true. Governments themselves are just business corporations looking to gain leverage of one sort or another, and war gives them plenty of opportunities. I can no more speak highly of my own country as I can any other, when it comes to conflict. The only true heroes in any war are the brave souls who end up dodging the bullets.

    As for Iran, I just can't accept that that other countries can claim any moral high ground, and tell them what they can and can't do, especially given what we know has gone before. As I see it, Iran has as much right to nuclear technology as anyone else. And if the governments of the west are really concerned about peace and stability in the Middle East, then they need to back off and respect Iran's sovereignty. We would certainly demand it for our own countries.

  9. greed has swallowed this world...you won't find any good ruler in any of the countries....what my eyes sees everywhere is of citizens suffering while the riches and nobles enjoying them suffer....no humans are perfect yet they claim and they seems to know that the laws they made for their people and for the rest of the world are perfect...its a shame that people can't do anything but only try survive while begging for their lives, their children, their freedom, their religion and for their culture....:/

  10. If it were all about military dominance why would we offer to do the same for the Soviets? Seems that is contrary to military dominance.

    No we did it because it needed to be done.

    1. @lakhotason,

      Minute there...
      In regard to the CIA covert operation to overthrow Modssadeth, you couldn't know about that b-coze you're a simple USA citizen as you once mentioned.

      So, even though if you'd had been mature in those days as much as today, you would have simply kneel and follow the leash.
      I never seen citizen citizens approving knowingly of the CIA coups or murders abroad in "Covert" CIA operations.
      The US Senate and US Gov. admins would have had the idea you just mentioned?

      Who's gonna swollow that, not me.
      I seen the faces of the EX-CIA agent on tape.
      They made it for the pay.


    2. Pierre, even simple US citizens know this. I surely hope you were joking.

  11. propaganda movie. did not watch. jesus wept.

  12. Oh gee, sorry how politically incorrect of me to assume your brain can process what I said. My mistake to think it does not need to spelled out for you. We can leave it at that, spent too much time with people who need their hand held to think their way through a sentence or statement. I will speak slowly next time and be specific with every little detail. If " we " is not good enough for you, then too bad.

    1. Wasn't even asking you. But since you mentioned it go ahead and speak slowly and be specific with your details. I would really like to know who you purport to speak for.

  13. I'll take answer B.

  14. As I said, the truth is, we need a good culling anyways, the idiots have taken over the asylum from where I sit.

  15. There are the innocent Iranians, then there is the Government, which is not so innocent. Noone here can argue the fact they support terrorist organizations and make threats through those proxy's. It is a tough moral judgement to make on this issue for most intelligent people. You have the puppets of the Military Industrial complex salivating at the prospect of another Mid East War and its spoils { aka Oil} and on the other side, you have a bunch of religious nutcases running a Country who believes the Iranian peoples destiny is to bring about the coming of the 12th Imam and to be the ones to start the ball rolling. Tough call either way. Fcked if you do and fcked if you do not. What would some of you do if you were in a position to fix both problems? I am curious what all the experts and blah blah blahers have to say, since some of them spew nonsense and pap-fed Gov lies. It would take a bit of thought how to fix it. Ignoring them as Dr Paul has suggested is not really an option when you compare that with the 12th Imam speech. It will be same the same people crying when they bring about WW3 and nobody did anything about them. It is a complex issue and requires complex thinking. There is no easy fix that any politician can promise to repair instantly if you vote for them. Starting WW3 is not an accomplishment or fix.

    1. "Noone here can argue the fact they support terrorist organizations and make threats through those proxy's"

      They don't support terrorist organizations. The U.S. and Israel do, but not Iran.

  16. Manon Loizeau? she is not independant, she is French/British and works for BBC.

    I ask every body here to look up her pictures on line and compair them with the pictures of Neda Agha Soltan, the girl who is supposedly dead. they are both the same person.

    The western spies and propandas used to be smart, but now they have become dumb and dumber, day after day. No body believes in this kind of trash, any more.

    Ahamdinejad is the legitimit president. Even the Rockefeller Research Fundation predicted that he gets 60% of the votes two months before the 2009 election. And thats when they geared up to get ready in organizing their show and by fooling some inicent Iranians.

  17. One thing to keep in mind is the speech the President gives to the UN each and every single time he has spoken there, about the 12th Imam. This speech in my mind, should be taken seriously. No matter what I think about the want for War by the Western powers. If what he says, is what he and the religious crazy's in Iran really do believe, then it is no wonder the West takes them seriously. They seek to bring about the Armageddon so that he may return. Read up on it, decide for yourself if those clowns having Nukes is really a good idea. That is, if the Ayatollahs are true believers and not just corrupt old men. If they really live and breathe this speech, then I would say, Tehran would look good in a shade of burnt orange. It depends how you look at it. They seem to want War by this speech, and the West seems to want to oblige them. Therefore it is inevitable.

  18. Before anyone watches this and starts freaking out, and saying we need to remove Ahmadinejad, know that he was a democratically elected president. Also note that this is not the full story of Iran. In Tehran there are public schools with playgrounds full of children. Women with fancy clothes, shopping at high end stores like Dolce & Gabana. So before you start irrational thinking, remind yourself that Iraq once was like this. Once, long ago before America came in, removed power, which led to an uprising of the pseudo-anarchistic Islamic fundamentalists. This is not America, sure, but do they want to be America? Probably not, so why should we force our ways onto people who are perfectly fine living in the world they choose. Remember that no country is perfect. Before we start thinking that none of these things ever go on in an American society, your wrong. When is the last time you ever herd of a Gacey, or Bundy type serial killer ever come out of the region? Never. Yes, there is crime, but you can always name ten worst crimes that happen in America for every one around the world. Dr. Ron Paul 2012

    1. No I don't know Ahmadinejd is the democratically elected president. Is that your position?

    2. If we take the Mullahs word for it, yes, he was elected. If we do not, then he was installed through election fraud. What do you believe?

    3. This is one of the most douche bag comments I have ever read.

  19. All this fighting since 9/11, me myself? I am completely tired of this BS, the lies, the blatant propaganda of every f'in side of every stupid argument about all of this. Tired of listening to endless debates by the know it alls and the know nothings about right wrong, good bad, smart, stupid, tired of all of it to the end of my last nerve. People are stupid and sadly for a lot of us, they get a say and an opinion too. I really do hope those mullahs block that straight and the shitestorm comes. Separate the men from the boys and make it survival of the smartest and fittest. If there are truly that many stupid people on this planet who think everything since 9/11 is an accident, and that the same people that have all of our gonads in a vice this time around are not willing to blow Iran off the map, then we need a good culling anyways. This is Iraq all over again, not necessarily saying this doc is proof, but saying if you cannot process this onslaught of propaganda at the whim of the Military/Industrial/Corporate/Governmental cabal, then you are seriously in need of a new brain. I have had enough with stupid people not seeing through it all. If you cannot deal with the truth, then at least think ahead a bit. Some of the comments I read here pretty much blow my mind when it comes to logic and insight.

  20. The testimonies of these people are being used by war mongers to try to kill more Iranians.

    Exactly the same thing was done with Iraq.

    In the name of human rights, freedom and democracy they try to persuade the populous to support a war.

    where are the documentaries and letters from Iraq? where are the videos of the crying mothers of the millions dead in Iraq?

    1. Yawn.... Blah blah blah....

  21. Nayirah (testimony) refers to the controversial testimony given before the non-governmental Congressional Human Rights Caucus on October 10, 1990, by a female who provided only her first name, Nayirah. In her emotional testimony, Nayirah stated that after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers take babies out of incubators in a Kuwaiti hospital, take the incubators, and leave the babies to die. Though reporters did not then have access to Kuwait, her testimony was regarded as credible at the time and was widely publicized. It was cited numerous times by United States senators and the president in their rationale to back Kuwait in the Gulf War.

    Same old S**t a different day!!!!

    1. This is why I was like the only person defending France in 03. France clearly saw through all the bullshit that the US presented to them about weapons of mass destruction. France's MP on Foreign Affairs stated that what the US was trying to do, was a break in international law. They literally came to the UN, made an hour long demonstration on how, Saddam was hiding WMD's that pose immediate danger to "our" allies. Moussad even came out and supported France's claims, that the US was BS'n all their so-called "facts". People, wake the **** up before it is to late, vote Ron Paul or we all die. There is literally no other choice. Get our boys home, who have been fighting for the agenda's of 50yo fat men in D.C. who have never been out of their little office to witness what war really is. We are not World Police, and it clearly states in our constitution that we should not interfere with the civil conflicts of foreign nations. Their borders, their problem. Why risk the lives of innocent soldiers? It says a lot when Dr. Paul receives the most donations from active military personal than any other candidate including Obama. Vote Dr. Ron Paul 2012, and you will see that this man compares more to Jesus Christ 200 years ago, preaching to the disciples, than he does to a political clone.

    2. If you feel that Iraq had the right to invade Kuwait then why is it so wrong for the United States to invade Iraq? Your decision making revolves around your anti-American bias would seem to be the only reason.

  22. This documentary in some ways (not all ways) reminds me of the massacre in Bejing in 1989. Many young people were killed. Look how much China has changed since. The people eventually won. I have hope for these people.

  23. It makes me very sad to see (if this doc is true) that people live this way. I feel sad for all people in the world who live with any type of regime that violates human rights like this. sad

  24. So what is the point of yesterdays announcement to the world of the nuclear enrichment facility which is "immune to military attack"(As if it would be possible to enrich uranium in a "hot zone") What is the point of even suggesting the beyond absurd reason for the facility as the emergency need for cancer treatment use? Could it be they know no matter how blatently ridiculous the excuse is it will used by anyone wanting to give them cover?

  25. Why can't the Middle East just adopt a Middle Earth mentality and try and live in peace for once for fack sake. Honestly, this is getting old. Chill out and find the nearest(whats the Arabic/Farsi word for) Shire, locate some short peeps known as Hobbits and smoke the stinky pipe of peace with them. When you're done have a nice restful sleep then wake up and eat the Frodolicious pancakes Samwise makes for you. Bid them farewell and take that new experience of glad tidings and merriment back to the Mid East and try and spread it throughout the land. Try not to blow anything up in the process.

    1. I'm most definitely with you, Bilbo. Seems like the whole world is fighting over a horde of lost jewelry, don't it? People everywhere let power get under their skin, and the next thing you know they're all decked out in black robes and committing whatever corruption is necessary to keep everyone else's necks under their heels.

    2. they can't live in peace because of religion. And I question the tolerance of islam when only muslims can get withing a 20 km radius of Makkah or Medina. I recently watched a news story of how churches and mosques were opening up themselves in America to each other. This is a good start. But you still as an infidel cannot get within 20 km of Makkah. It may seem insignificant but these small things can change perceptions. Us and Them set ups don't help.

      I am an athiest though but see that tolerance of religions has to take place before we can take any lasting steps at peace in our time. Or if you all became Athiests we could get there sooner. :)

  26. ... War mongering is coming, again.

  27. Considering the U.S. and Israel are perhaps weeks away from triggering yet another endless middle-east war, this docuganda comes at a perfect time, wouldn't you say?

    1. Could be that Iran is triggering another endless war.

    2. Not likely. The last time Iran went to war was back in 1980 with Iraq, and they didn't initiate that conflict either. How many wars has the U.S. been involved in since 1980? Besides, the U.S. has already made the first strike against Iran through sanctions. They have started the war without having fired a single shot. That will change soon though, however. You cannot expect to starve a nation forever without some kind of retaliation.

    3. It is not the US alone imposing sanctions and sanctions are not a act of war. Your comment seems to imply that Iran is an innocent. I really hope you don't think that way.

      The United States is not about to allow some whacked-out religious fruit cake to build a nuclear weapon and I don't think you would want that either.

    4. The whacked out religious leaders abound in the USA as well-and the US uses them to pump up war-and who are you to allow anything by anybody else-is this how we get a nuclear power thinking they can bomb a non nuclear power so that they dont' get a bomb? Fr*ak you and your US wont' allow this or that-and your own people should tell your government the same!

    5. Rant and rave all you wish. I am not advocating what the US should or should not do. I'm just telling you what the situation is, not what any of us want it to be.

      Now the reality is the US is not going to allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. And you know damn well who and what I'm talking about when I say whacked-out religious fruitcake. That's another reality.

      Now you can express self righteous indignation or you can discuss a feasible solution.

    6. people like you were once backed up by whacked-out religious fruitcakes... now you are just part of the problem!

    7. People like I?

    8. whacked-out religious fruit cake? wow it is the best depiction of the USA so far... we certainly dont want that ONLY USA have nuclear weapons, thats for sure

    9. Who are these "we" you seem to speak for?

    10. Firstly, the sanctions being imposed on Iran by the U.S., Canada, and the UK are undoubtedly an act of war. To say otherwise is simply incorrect. Sanctions are meant to be an alternative to military intervention. However, more often than not they are rather used to strangle a nation of essential goods, weakening it before taking military action.

      Secondly, if my comment implies innocense, than it stands to reason that you're implying guilt. Of course this would be ridiculous because a sovereign nation with it's own legal charter cannot be held guilty by foreign law that it clearly does not recognize.

      And I would most definitely not like nuclear weapons in the hands of "some whacked-out religious fruit cake", eight years of George W. Bush were terrifying enough. Although, are you absolutely positive that Iran is building nuclear weapons? Or perhaps, more conceivably Iran is hiding its nuclear weapon facilities in the same undisclosed mystery locations Saddam Hussein was hiding his WMD's?

    11. But I will say that sanctions are not an act of war and I am not incorrect.

      And it does not stand to reason that I am implying guilt. As for nations following international law, it is of little matter whether they recognize them or not. If every nation is allowed to go its own way then you and I wouldn't be having this conversation. Don't take my word for it, just glance through history.

      Yet still you avoid the question. How should we resolve the problem? It does little good to just sit and pontificate. And what of Iran's explicit threat to close the Strait of Hormuz? Should we allow Iran to do that? Or should we enforce international maritime law? It's another problem neither you or anyone else responding have addressed although I have asked more than once. All I hear is self-righteous, avoiding-the-point chatter.

      PS. Your list of nations imposing sanctions is woefully inaccurate.

    12. Can't help feeling its going to get messy.

    13. It's going to be a blood bath on all sides. This is why I support the Iranian people. They and the American people want no part of this. It is ironic that the common everyday Americans and Iranians rather like each other. Just wish our governments would understand that.

    14. "How should we resolve the problem? It does little good to just sit and pontificate. And what of Iran's explicit threat to close the Strait of Hormuz? Should we allow Iran to do that? Or should we enforce international maritime law?"

      But what is the state of international law in this case? I don't claim to be any sort of expert in these matters, but the brief research I've just done, seems to suggest that the UN convention on the law of the sea, and relevant transit passage provisions has not been ratified by the USA or Iran. So it would seem that there's little more than a gentlemen's agreement with regard to shipping access of Iranian territorial waters, and the shipping lanes of the straits it would seem, pass right through them.

      Personally, I would suggest that for once, the west should read the writing on the wall, and stop with this nonsense assumption that cheap energy is some sort of birthright, and if other countries don't agree, we bomb the sh*t out of them, or destabilize them by some other means, until we get what we want.

      It's the west that really needs to change IMO, and until we do, we will just become increasingly vulnerable over time.

    15. You are correct that neither the US or Iran has ratified UNCLOS. The US though has agreed to abide by it until certain problems are addressed and the US Senate ratifies the treaty. It is however the law and that law states that the passage through the Strait of Hormuz is international water.

      Whether it is the West's birthright to cheap energy or not, I know of no country the West has bombed the sh@t out of to take its oil. On the contrary, oil producing countries are more than happy to sell the West all the oil it wants and even at that the country which is the USA's largest supplier of oil is the infamous terrorist haven of Canada.

      In short, it's not about the oil.

    16. From fomenting coup d'états and deposing democratically elected leaders in the 1950's, so as to replace them with friendly despots, sponsoring and training terrorist groups, to invasions and "shock and awe" bombing campaigns, the history of the west's involvement in the middle east can almost always be tracked back to the control of oil, and this is no exception.

      In short, It's absolutely about oil, and it always has been.

    17. No, the history of the West's involvement in the Middle East begins with Europe's colonization of the Middle East. (Note - I'm assuming we are speaking of modern involvement) Now when you say West I'm also assuming you include the USA. The USA had no part in what Europe was doing. That needs to be made clear on that point because it is important. That is because the problems in the Middle East are largely due to European colonization. In fact if you take a look around the world you'll see that's the problem anywhere Europe has been.

      In my opinion, it's not about the oil. Oil certainly is a factor and the US drinks more than its fair share, but the responsibility for the problems in the Middle East rest squarely on Europe.

      And it is the Europeans who try to obfuscate and their preferred weapon of choice is always to claim it's about the oil. It's not. It's about a situation created by Europe which simply threw its hands up and walked away when that situation needed to be corrected.

    18. I don't disagree that European involvement in the middle east pre-dates that of the USA, but none the less, Iran had a democratic government in place in the early 1950's, so it's from that point that I'm mostly concerned with. Apologies for not making that clearer.

      It was around this time that America started to concern itself with the affairs of Middle Eastern countries. In part, this was probably due to the cold war, and America's concern over Russia expanding it's sphere of influence, but the continued interference since then, is almost certainly about oil.

      The coup that successfully deposed the democratically elected Mosaddeq in 1953 was a joint operation by the CIA and MI6, and the man on the ground that oversaw the operation was Theodore Roosevelt's grandson Kermit Roosevelt, who was a CIA officer. This is all clearly documented, and beyond dispute, and it was absolutely about oil.

      What exactly is going on in Iran right now? I doubt that the public in the west will be painted a clear picture, and it's fairly safe to say that the mainstream media won't help to clear up the picture any. But it does seem that when Iran got itself another strong protectionist leader that doesn't bend to the will of the west, the propaganda machine has been fired up again, and conflict seems inevitable.

    19. I agree with what you are saying. I know all about what the US government did in Iran. And shame on us. I sincerely mean that.

      Yet here you have given me the opportunity to illustrate what I along with many of the ordinary American people believe. We honestly see
      Europe and it's colonization process as the heart of the world's problems. Here we have a continent of nations which has completely destroyed any nation it saw fit, murder and enslave, steal everything it could get its hands on, but most importantly lay waste to all social and cultural bonds within the nation. And this continued past the mid-twentieth century.

      Then Europe commences to kick-off not one but two world wars. In the space of twenty years or so, America, who wanted nothing more than to be left alone, got dragged into 2 world wars. That second war resulted in pretty much the destruction of Europe and the US was left with cleaning up Europe's mess. Then, unable to hang on to her colonies, Europe starts granting independence to those colonies. Now that may sound like a good thing until you remember the society of the nation and their coherence as a people was destroyed. And therein resides the problem. Europe also saw fit to arbitrarily create nations out of thin air. Iraq and Pakistan being two of them. Don't have to tell you how well that's working out.

      But the point is, Europeans seem to have severe cognitive dissonance concerning the depth of the problems they created. The US had little choice to follow the road we were given although we could have taken greater care of those we met on that road. But the absolute gall of Europeans to point the finger at everything America does is nothing less than appalling self-righteousness. They cannot seem to grasp who caused this chaos. Whew.

      Now again the onus is ours and I think the only possible solution would be for the US to force Israel to give up her nuclear weapons but that's going to be a hard row to plow. I truly believe Iran can be convinced not to build a weapon if Israel has no weapon. I see no other way out of this madness.

    20. I don't believe that any European who has a reasonable grasp of history, fails to appreciate the damage that has been done over the past few hundred years. On the contrary, we're very aware of it. There really is no cognitive dissonance. It's just not possible, because the fact of the matter is, when the British empire and preceding empires for that matter, were formed, everyone knew they were doing it, hell they were proud of it at the time, some even saw it as God's work.....that and making a shed load of money of course!

      The point it, it was openly documented, at the time celebrated, and has since been the subject of much study. It's taught in schools, or at least it was when I attended. Granted, we got nothing like the full picture, but enough was taught to pique the curious mind into further study.

      The notion of a valiant America clearing up all the mess left behind after WW2, is a nice myth, but it's nothing more than that. The truth of the matter is, as British influence crumbled, America sensed it's time had come, and quite predictably seized it. And so began the rather more covert American empire.

      This isn't an empire that's going to be taught about in schools though. Whereas the British empire was created by marching into countries and taking them by force, America has mostly employed more subtle but just as damaging means. You don't even have to look very far for examples of this. Recent South American history is littered with examples of North American interventions, CIA sponsored assassinations, coups, all manner of attempts to destabilize countries, so that the asset strippers can move in.

      I'm not going to let Britain or Europe off the hook here though, because where American style disaster capitalism had led, European companies have followed, and also taken advantage of this new economic model.

      Britain's empire was built by companies like The East India Company, and America's by companies like Halliburton and Bechtel.

      Same sh*t, different day! ;)

      Where all this leaves Iran, who knows! As for your suggestion that America first forces Israel to give up it's nuclear weapons, so as to persuade Iran not to pursue them...I just don't see that happening. I suspect that Israel has too powerful a voice in Washington for that to happen.

      I think it's all going to get a lot worse before it gets any better.

    21. Well. That the US rebuilt Europe after WWII is no myth. I have no idea why anyone would say otherwise. Hell we even offered to do the same for the Russians (they refused it). Seriously, I'm stunned you would even suggest that.

      You brought up South America. Once again European colony. Sure there were things done that can only be called despicable but that was a small part. Europe left behind a continent and a population so shattered it was almost unable to function.

      And that goes exactly to what I was saying. Once again you pointed the finger at the US without even acknowledging how deep the damage is that Europe is responsible for. Two world wars in less than one generation; the second coming closer to damn near sending us back to the dark ages than you might be aware of. Raped and devastated colonies cut loose to fend for themselves with no idea of just how to do that. No, we didn't step into any role, we were pushed. This is the world Europe left behind for the US to deal with along with dealing with another European power which was the mirror image of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union. And all the while the US only wanted to be left alone. And that is no myth either.

      Quite seriously Earthwinger you glided right over that and immediately started in on America. Europe did leave a mess and there was only the US left to deal with it. And now Europeans can only say they don't like the way America dealt with it. How huge.

      What's particularly interesting is Europe is in the longest period of peace in its history. This period began on May 9, 1945 and continues to this day. Why you ask? Because the US rebuilt it and parked 300,000 troops there to defend it. And yes we still have troops there today. And the reason we keep troops there is because we are not about to allow Europe to start another world war. It has a history of doing just that.

    22. @Earthwinger,

      Just wanted to underline a llttle thig Earthwinger.
      There was hard proof (Much better than the hidden Iraqi WMD:-) plus a few corroborations from Ex-CIA agents (Retired abroad) to the effect that some Sheel's Tycoons pushed to get the democratically elected Mossadeth overthrown, the Iranian president at that time.

      I do have that docu on my hard drive. One of the Ex-CIA agent (Livng in Belzile (If I remember well) at that that time) shown his his CIA operation order (Document) in that docu.
      Plus the other documentations & and corroborations.
      I think that the whole dates back to the early 50's.
      Before the Salvador Allende murder which gave way to the Perrononist dictatorship is also quite well documented.
      We ain't goona too far in the list though, please?

      Just wanted to say that in no way what so ever, the MI5 was discussed in that docu. Not even a doubt...
      And Shell worldwide headquater is located in Neverland.
      If one wants to move specialised chemicals, the decision comes from a windmill. But for sure, they're money money makers.
      One of these "We the Corporates" who owns the decisive votes.

      Next, I wrote a litle anecdote about a business trip (Rather technical) I made in Iran quite a few years back but I deleted it.
      -I still work for the same company, so... Cannot.

      Anyhow, imagine the americains, getting rid of some ~ (20-40) millons human beings in Iran and come back, once more emptied handed!...
      At best, a few $USD trillons on the credit card of the USA citizens.
      I short, we'd later discover that again, it was a matter for the "We the Corporates" of selling weapong to the "We the Peoples" through their creditors, the communists.

      I dunno what's their problems in the states, but Heck, it's about time that they'd solve it!

      That's rounds it off.


    23. The point about the rebuilding after WW2 is that it certainly wasn't done out of the goodness of their heart, as has been suggested. It was all about strategy and military dominance. The UK alone ended up with over 100 American military bases, most of which are still here. And as for war debts, the UK only just finished paying them off in the last ten years or so.

      America certainly didn't lose out in the deal..

    24. And you know that money England owed us from WWII. That big huge debt that that dwarfed all other debts? Uncle Sam tore up the IOU. Tore up the ones for Russia and France too.

    25. So if you are an industrial chemist are you not complicit in "We the Corporates?

    26. @lakhotason,

      (Quote) : "The USA had no part in what...), sound the same as "I ain't part of them", huh?
      I guess that the acceptance of that type comment depends from "Who" it comes from.

      I'll recommend your pardon ASAP.
      I'll recommend your sole on my next meeting with him, Ok?
      Meanwhile, repent, say a few prayers and promess that you'll keep from sinning.
      Go in peace and multiply yourself by trillions.


    27. I would add that the oil that Iran has is of no use to them if they can't sell it. The world is only to eager to buy it except many worry about the religious rhetoric coming from the leaders of Iran. Ahmadinejad has publicly stated that he prays for the day that the 12th Imam returns. However, for that return to happen the world must be in chaos. Would the Iranian leadership initiate conflict if they believed that it would hasten the coming of this Imam? A terrible situation with no real resolution in sight except for the democratic removal of the religious zealots.

    28. Let us say for a moment that I am an invading force, and you are a small brigade occupying an outpost. Rather than attacking you head on risking possible casualties to my forces, I decide instead to dig-in and siege your outpost severing your supply line. I have not fired a single shot at you, but my actions will certainly be viewed as an act of war by those sieged wtihin the outpost. Moreover, those imprisoned within the outpost are now faced with two options, remain besieged and risk slow death, or take action as a final act for survival. Today however, this is an unlikely scenario on the scale of nations. The modern method of sieging a nation is to impose sanctions, effectively cutting off vital supplies.

      What question did I avoid? You have not presented me with a question to avoid. Though you certainly avoided mine. Nonetheless, I will attempt to shed light on your new question regarding the Strait of Hormuz. Unfortunately you are asking the wrong question. The question should not be, "should we allow", or "should we enforce international maritime law". Perhaps the question should be, why has Iran threatened to close the strait in the first place? The answer of course being that due to international sanctions aggressively spear-headed by the U.S., Iran is using what little strategic options it has in an attempt to lift the imposed sanctions that have already begun to strangle its economy and further degrade the living standard of its civilian populace.

      I am trying desperately to understand your eagerness to decimate a population of 74 million. Do you honestly believe Iraq has these WMD's? Sorry, I meant Iran and its nuclear weapon facilities? Even the U.S. Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta has been quoted saying,

      "Are they (Iran) trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they're trying to develop a nuclear capability, and thats what concerns us."

      So unlike the other 30 or so soverign countries that get to benefit from nuclear power, Iran does not because the U.S. says so? Come on, you have to think objectively to what is going on here. The U.S. knows Iran is not capable of developing nuclear weapons and has ulterior motives with Iran, that much is obvious.. to most people that is.

      P.S. I was not inaccurate. There are new and ongoing sanctions by those aforementioned nations. I could dig up published evidence, but I feel it is a waste of my time. Do so with your own time if you wish.

    29. OK here goes.

      What does your scenario have to do with sanctions? No one has invaded Iran.

      What does Iraq have to do with Iran?

      Where in anything I've written do I express an eagerness to decimate the population of Iran? Quite the contrary.

      I did not say you were inaccurate. I said you were woefully inaccurate. Because I have researched this, I know you haven't. These sanctions were put in place by the UN Security Council by a vote of 12-2. Right there something must tell you that your little three nation list comes up just a tad short.

      Let me use your own argument in your next assertion. You say what the US is doing is obvious. Well then don't just say it - prove it.

      Finally, what I have been asking all along is for anyone to offer a solution to this very real and dangerous situation. And each time all I hear is the same self-righteous blather. Sorry but that is what it is.

    30. All you hear is rightous blather, and all I'm hearing is nonsensical rhetoric.

      My simile illustrating the characteristics between siege warefare and modern sanction warfare is clear. I'm afraid I cannot simplify it further for you.

      The process leading up to the invasion of Iraq has everything to do with Iran, and U.S. foreign policy in general. Again, sorry I thought the comparison lacked further elaboration.

      The U.S. is an archaic, empire-driven nation which prefers the, 'command and conqure' policy above diplomacy. Most people living outside of the U.S. knows this to be true, and also knows the U.S. is more interested in Iran's oil, serving Israeli interests, and taking control and disrupting its trading policy with China, than its fabricated nuclear weapon facilities. This one, I did not expect you to get.

      I did not assert the sanctions on Iran were limited to those nations either. Would it have been more appropriate for me to have listed every nation? More rhetoric.

      My solution, albeit a simplified one, would be for the U.S. to focus on its own irate citizens and crumbling economy. Perhaps there are more countries than just the U.S. in this world, and the empire building policy is becoming outdated and unwelcome with other soverign countries not already under control by Western interests.

      And your conjecture that I know nothing on this subject is very arrogant on your behalf, although I am not left astonished either.

    31. And still no answer. Wonder why I knew that.

    32. Just because you do not understand or agree with it, doesn't leave it unanswered. Perhaps you would elaborate further what was left unclear so that I could assist you.

      I wish not to leave you unsatisfied.

    33. No I'm perfectly capable of reading the same old blather. But I do invite you to read my response to Earthwinger.

    34. Read it. Looks as though I will be the one to leave unsatisfied.


    35. correct, and that is why, my friends, Japan attacked America at Pearl Harbor. Economic war will cause actual War at some point. History has proven this time and time again. That was one example, there are many, many more.

  28. And wouldn't you know it. Another conspiracy theory emerges. Where do these people come from?

    1. They are the Men in Black, trained to spread disinformation !!!!

    2. The Big Bang and all that follows is a conspiracy. Beat that MIB.

  29. Excellent

  30. i don't see it as anti Iran. maybe i am too naive on this subject but i see people struggling to bring about change and improve their rights and freedoms. they are sharing their struggles and desires with us at great risk. now before someone accuses me of supporting an invasion i am strongly against that option. but i feel that as fellow humans there is no harm in hearing their plight and maybe amplifying their voice.

    1. you are right you are naive... you are part of the same voices and thinking that killed millions of Iraqis... you want to do the same to Iranians!

    2. @Far Spam
      first off i never supported the invasion of Iraq (and neither did my country). second i stated that i do not support any invasion of Iran. but that doesn't mean that i do not see the struggles of the people. you claim it is anti Iran another claims it is pro Iran (buy the regime time) still others claim they are actors. i am sure there are conspiracies but does everything have to be? does anybody have proof that this isn't what it claims to be? why can' this doc be about the people of Iran who are struggling for basic rights and a dream for a government that mirrors their views and ideals? or is that dream only for us westerners?

    3. again the same talk when it came to Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan...blah blah blah...

      Iraqis deserve a government that reflects their views.. Iraqis are suffering,...Iraqi want democracy just like the west...blah blah blah...

      Millions died.. for what!

    4. @Far Spam
      ok i understand now. you have no desire to answer any questions or provide any evidence for your claims. don't muddy the waters by bringing up Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan as far as i can tell the doc and the posts here aren't implying the same tactics should be applied to Iran. you have made claims and until you back them up i will not answer any more of your unfounded and misleading posts.

  31. much love

  32. More anti Iran propaganda.... Yawn....

    1. Its All Driven By the God of Oil.. lol

    2. Excellent.. Anti Iran?? Sounds like you are or should be in the regime @Far Spam. I hope your not condoning torture, murder and lack of civil rights. I don't think listening to Iranians is anti Iran. They are humans as "over the edge" said and right now need our support against a brutal regime. Your yawn in the face of those mothers grief is very very cold. So i guess they can't count on your support. Sad and heart wrenching..

    3. you do realise the interviews in this Doc were filmed in europe ' made to look like middle eastern' right? Those people you say are "counting on our support" actually live in London and are actors.

      Weak prey, thats why young men go into the army, kill everything they see and then return, regret every moment, only to kill themselves..

      thickos like you and Bush are why wars go on. your more gullable than my dogs.

    4. @wcb123
      you have proof that "Those people you say are "counting on our support" actually live in London and are actors." or are you just spreading your own propaganda?

    5. In the end, the demands a growing number of Iranians are harboring for change in their country will be bulletproof. I don't believe the uprisings of '09 where actually filmed anywhere in Europe, were they? So what difference would it make, supposing you were right, if a mother (what evidence do you have that these are actors?) had to cry out about injustice from the safety of another's house, unless it was to ensure her a greater chance of living long enough to see a better day for her country BY THE HANDS OF HER OWN PEOPLE?
      The location is irrelevant...The idea is everything.

    6. The old are you?

      There is no doubt many Iranians want change. Their shitty economy, low wage, and very little liberty are some of the reasons. The US neo-con intention to go to war with Iran is not exactly altruistic as this propaganda have you believe. If US foreign policy where to really pursuit an activist foreign policy that hold on to ideal "principles", we would be fight wars all over the world, because "repressive regimes" are rather common. This leave the only, main foreign policy on the table, and that is the neoconservative view of foreign policy. A foreign policy that uses ideals like liberty, and democracy as a mask to seek for the consolidation, and expansion of one 's own national interest. In the case of the US, empire expansion, and hegemony.

    7. I'd advise YOU to read some of MY posts before you try to preach this information to ME. None of it is anything I need to hear, since it accords precisely with beliefs I've had for decades... You won't find ANYONE on this site with less of a warmongering or Conservative mentality than I have.
      Stay on point! I'm talking about what the Iranian people want, and ONLY what THEY want.

    8. Ok, Mir P.
      What do you think "Iranian people" want? How do you go beyond the propaganda( which politics is mostly about), and come to a decisive conclusion for what a whole people want? Better yet, suppose you know what they want, what can be done about it?

    9. I'd leave the U.S./Western propaganda out of it completely, and leave it for the Iranians to decide entirely for themselves. If they found it suitable to live under a repressive regime, fine. If they wanted to take it into their own hands to do something about changing that, fine. I take an entirely non-interventionist policy about it, believing they have the right to decide for themselves what it is they want, up to and including a (possible) nuclear weapon, since I don't believe they are suicidal. Now...having said that, if a revolution occurred there and THEY, the revolutionists, felt it necessary to make an appeal to the U.N. for some type of assistance, I wouldn't be opposed to considering it, if it was clear a majority of Iranians were in favor of that. Otherwise, I'd have to let the chips fall where they may, and trust the Iranians to do what was best for themselves, as any other country has a right to do, whether or not we happened to agree with it. But...having said THAT, if they decided to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, for example, they'd have to know that would be nearly as suicidal as using a nuclear weapon, and that is NOT my politics talking... There would be consequences from a choice like that one, no matter what I might prefer, because other countries would also have a right to do something about it. Iran does not own the Strait, nor is it the only country using it for crude oil transportation.

    10. This seems to be what I am thinking as well. Yes, closing down the Hormuz strait would be bad for them. They are playing with fire.

    11. LOL well seems I have started a s**t storm again!! I am not an American nor Iranian and both those governments clearly have their voices. I believe in people and supporting the persecuted human no matter race country government or religion. Ive read them all and some pretty disturbing stuff. You want to make the statement "they are all actors" with no evidence of ANY kind. I guess that frees me up. You are either stupid or that sound like propaganda from a totalitarian regime so you must be one of their mouth pieces here sent to spread disinformation. An unintelligent one at that, but of course you couldn't get an intelligent one they are all trapped in their own universities. As a person in the regime how much do you paid a day to cover up the murder/rape /torture of innocent men women and children? Shame on you!! When the people rise up... what are you going to do then? Jump the fence like the coward you are? Shame on you!! Grow a pair will you? Quit your job with the Gestapo fight for your people for once!! Shame on you!! Defend your mothers. Stop lying. Shame on you!! You are a disgrace to your race country and religion. Shame on you!!!

    12. I haven't watched the documentary but I know that Imperialist interverntion anywhere in the world is not good and must be resisted. And definately anything put out by the corporate media in the West has to be looked at with a jaundiced eye especially by their own populations. We have never intervened anywhere in the world for humanitarian reasons and that is the truth of our history. Our military wages war on behalf of the military industrial complex and their interests not the interests of the people which they deliberately confuse in furtherence to their hegemonic agenda.Good to see so many skeptics on this web-site-the "mob" is certainly more rational than its' leaders.

    13. You really care about "humans"?

      I bet you will be cheering if they drop a nuke on Iran... "take that brutal regime" ..... ""yeeehaaa for freedom and democracy"..."yeehaaa for human rights"...

    14. So what should be done if Iran takes it upon itself to close the Strait? What is your solution?

    15. who cares if they do!

      what is it to you if they close it... are you serious...

    16. Just as I imagined your answer would be. Could have bet money on it.

    17. Yes I do. No I would not.You have the right nickname. In reply to your comments.

      Blah blah blah... yawn...

    18. You just can't seem to fathom that someone would champion freedom, human rights and democracy and also be against starting a war with Iran. Everything must pass through your anti-American filter to allow it any legitimacy.