Ms. Shirin Ebadi to find out about her ideas/statements/beliefs about Israel, its right to exist, the US support of Israel, and how this affects her notions about the US. There is not one mention of Israel in the article. Is this intentional on her part? The interviewer? I know better than most that the subject of US support of Israel, here on the pages of Salon, is like throwing gasoline on the fire. Gosh the Middle East is a complicated subject.

After reading the interview, one may surmise:

a) the regime in Iran is opressive & will use force (previously including death squads) to impress its will

b) the people want a new government

c) but, do not give any direct or indirect aid to us, because it will result in the "liberals" being discredited.

What a recipe for inaction! Does anyone seriously think that the current government in Iran is going to be overthrown from within - based on their previous inclination to use violent means to preserve their power? And what about the "non-liberal" poor in Iran that support the strict government there? The Bashiji militias (made up of the poor and uneducated) are also representative of the people there too.

Please do not get me wrong, I certainly do not support any kind of military action on the Iranians (at this time) other than a notification that if they ever do get the bomb that any use of it - covert or overt - would result in the vaporization of their country. But this article makes so clear the whole conceit of the middle east - "leave us alone to work out our problems, but let me bitch all day that you are not helping me solve them."

I just wish people like Ms Ebadi would state how we could help - rather than complain about anything that we do. But with the current price of oil floating the regime there for the next few years - I sincerely doubt that anything will change - with or without any "aid" from the West.

Mrs. Ebadi stated that Iranian progressives will not accept American money becuase it will be percieved by the current government as treason. Treason is punished by death. Death is a very unpleasent option to most people, even muslims. Then she went further to explain that a combonation of pressure from within, that's within Iran, by these same progressives and pressure via direct negotiation from the U.S. will have the greatest impact on progress toward democritization of Iran.

She warned that a military movement by the US will be met w/ resistence by average Iranians. They want to be colonized, invaded about as much as anyone here in the US. (I personally do agree w/ Pres. Bush but if we were to have to fight here on our own soil I would glady stand with him and my fellow Americans.)

So in answer she would like to see our government engage the Iranians and attempt to set things straight. Our current sabre rattling is encouraging an already oppressive regime to tighten its grip around the neck of its people in the name of national security.

Strangely familiar, no?

I disagree with you, Ironclad. Iran could change from within. They did it 27 years ago against the shah, and that was with his very murderous secret police fighting to the bitter end. We tend to forget that the shah was all powerful, and more draconian than the current band of crazy mullahs. Yet, he was overthrown. His excess did him in. So will the mullah's.

The best thing we can do for Iranian democracy movement is to leave their government alone as long as they don't attack another country. Any action on our part can only hurt those we are trying to help. Besides, Saudi Arabia is worse than Iran on women issues. We are very loudly silent on them. Why?

Iran changed from within once, it can most certainly do it again. I'm quite confused by the tendency of Republicans and conservatives in both parties to push for war with Iran. Shouldn't they be following Reagan's example with the Soviets? Glastnost and perestroika worked much much better than all of the previous military posturing to bring down the communist states of Eastern Europe. What Shirin Ebadi is proposing sounds about like that. Engagement, so that they can't use our posturing as an excuse to crack down on their own liberals in the name of "national security" thereby allowing the liberal afctions to work for change and reform. But wait, that would actually work and wouldn't earn Halliburton any money. Hmmm....

And if the administration starts using womens rights as an excuse to attack Iran after they've left the women of Afgahnistan to fend for themselves and continue to support the Saudi regime, I will have hysterics. I mean, women in Iran can go to University, drive cars, and (presumably with the help of their families) arrange marriage contracts which protect their rights beyond what their legal system is willing to provide them. Women in Saudia Arabia aren't even allowed to drive cars!

I will jump back in the pitch for another comment on this story and try to make an analogy why the Middle East is like the proverbial Tar Baby - you get stuck harder the more you push.

If you negotiate with Iran - you legitimize the government there and "betray" the aspirations of the educated. If you try to fight them - the "national card" gets played and you end up alienating everyone. God help you if try anything covert - the memories of the 50's CIA coup get trotted out in every discussion as the greatest crime against Iran. So, what do you do?

The first thing you do is realize that there is not (for the foreseeable future) going to be any "western liberal solution" to this area. This is the Middle East and the culture is primarily Islamic - so any government there is going to be more conservative that perhaps the West would prefer. The second thing you realize is that the best offense against Iran at this point is more of a theological battle for control of the Shia mind. Devolution of ideological powers away from Qum to Najaf (in Iraq) that would have more long reaching effects that any other on destabilizing the authority of the ruling clergy in Iran.

The third is a world recession that will drive the price of oil down and drain the coffers of the governments in the area. Let them go broke building atomic bombs - and then let them try to feed their people.

Negotiations with this group (normalizing relationships) would be nice - but it is not going to happen more than the level of a cold peace. And frankly, the educated people there know what the West is all about - let them have something to strive for instead of handing it to them on a silver platter.

The more you fight, the more you lose. Just let it ride and keep an eye on them (the nuclear program). Don't make mischief on them and at the same time smack down where they make mischief in Lebanon and Iraq. The system there is rotten inside, if you are just patient, it will eventually collapse of its own weight.