Men of Faith

Posted in Iranians for Peace weblog.

Occupy, Resist, Produce

I wrote about “Game Theory” and the famous example of “Prisoner’s Dilemma” a few posts ago. The “Prisoner’s Dilemma” shows the conflict of maximizing one’s own interest against the common interest. This conflict and the tendency of self interest strategy to be the dominant strategy, has prompted many to declare the existence of a “selfish gene”, that no matter how much we talk about advantages of cooperation and value of common goods, the selfish gene will finally prevail and prevent any truly cooperative outcome to be realized.

In the fall of 2001, Argentina’s economy collapsed under the weight of foreign depth and as a result of IMF prescribed policies of extreme privatization, etc. When it was obvious that the bubble is bursting, the foreign investors and wealthy elite started pulling out their funds from the banking system, accelerating the collapse. The government froze all bank accounts in an attempt to prevent a complete catastrophe. In a short time, a country which was the model of stability and prosperity in South America turned into a poor and unstable country. Factories closed down, poverty and unemployment rose, and riots broke out.

Out of the chaos came a few attempts to establish a new order. A new order based on collective action and collective ownership. Factories that were abandoned by their owners and dismantled for selling them piece by piece, were taken over by the workers. They started creating collectives that operated the factories successfully. There were no bosses and no managers, and everyone got the same paycheck. Interestingly, their action was not driven by any particular ideology. It was born out of necessity to survive.

“The Take” is a documentary by a filmmaker/jounalist couple, Avi Lewis and Naomi Klein, which shows the taking of one of these factories. Here is a link to the website for the movie with lots of articles and interviews.

Whether these experiments are successful in large scale may still be uncertain. But the success of these social experiments shows that there is hope that common interest can be the common objective, and trying to achieve that is not against human nature. Perhaps, one day we will see cooperation as a dominant strategy in human society, and exploitation will be something for the history books.

Association for Protection of Child Laborers in Iran

Read this heart warming report about "Association for Protection of Child Laborers". This NGO is working in Iran to bring educational opportunities to the children who have to work to survive and do not attent regular school.

There is contact informatin in the report, if you'd like to help.

Say No to Another War.

This article is also posted in Iranian for peace Weblog.

Although it may seem that the US administration’s intentions in regards to Iran are more along the lines of making a threat to keep Iran in line rather than another military conflict, the possibility of another military misadventure by the US in the middle-east should not be ruled out. It is important for all those who oppose another war to speak up now and preemptively campaign against such a disastrous possibility.

Continue Reading...


If you agree with the following reasons, or have your own reasons to oppose war, please write to your congress representatives, write to the editorial boards of your local newspapers, talk to you friends, talk to your coworkers, write in your weblog, do what you can to raise the awareness against war.

1. War is not effective against terrorism.

Terrorists welcome bloody conflicts. In their own mind, war justifies their existence. They thrive on the vicious cycle of retaliation, the kind of retaliation that victimizes everyone, terrorist or not. A war does just that. It victimizes the population, breaks down their trust toward the powerful invading state, and creates sympathy and support for the terrorists at worst or apathy at best.

In this global community, we can not win the war on terrorism alone. If you ask your local police officer what the best weapon for catching the criminals is, he will tell you it is the tips they receive from public. In the neighborhoods that the community does not trust the police, no matter how much police force are brought in, they are not effective against the crimes. We need the trust and support of the population of the world, especially in the countries where the terrorists are hiding, to isolate them, cut their support systems, and bring them to justice. The war breaks that trust.

The war against terrorism is the war of winning hearts and minds with weapons of ideas and inspirations. Let’s go to them with the weapons of mass inspiration. Let’s go to them with the words of the U.S constitution and ideals of liberty and justice. Let’s win their minds over to cut the terrorists’ blood line. But not only words, but also action, political action. Let’s show them in our deeds that we treat everyone justly. Let’s show the people of middle-east, not just with words, that we support Palestinians in their aspiration for achieving a state along side Israel. These are the ways we can defeat terrorism.

2. War is not a tool of liberation.

In today’s world of communication, no state is powerful enough to block the flow of ideas. No state is powerful enough to control their population forever. No state was more powerful in controlling their society than the former Soviet Union. The break down of the 70 year old Soviet empire with its powerful secret police and its mighty army is the greatest testament to the power of the people in rising up and defeating tyranny. The 1979 Iranian revolution that toppled its powerful regime is another great example. There, too, existed a powerful secret police and wealthy elite who controlled the economy and the army but were defeated by a population fed up with dictatorship and tyranny.

In the eyes of the current tyrannical rulers in Iran, war is “a gift” from god. That was exactly their rhetoric during their conflict with Iraq. That 8 year war could have ended almost 5 years earlier, but the rulers had found it a “gift” that they could use to suppress their population. One of the worst periods of suppression in Iran’s modern history which included the horrific massacre of political prisoners took place during that time. They justified their tyranny by war. They justified their failures by war. They justified their aggression towards the world by war.

War as a tool of liberation undermines the people’s right of self-determination. U.S constitution recognizes the people’s right to charter their own destiny and take the matters in their own hand. Let’s live up to that decree and allow for Iranians to decide their own faith.

3. War is not effective against proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

The threat of war is counter-productive in preventing the proliferation of WMD. It accelerates its development around the world. What would other nations see in the way US handled Iraq which did not have WMD and the way it treats North Korea which does. They see nuclear weapon as a deterrent and they rush to develop it while US is busy with Iraq and Iran.

In today’s connected world, there are many levers available to pull for punishing rouge states. No nation is an inland. Even North Korea with its isolationist policy realizes that its survival is to sit at the negotiating table and work out an agreement. Iraq’s experience showed that UN inspection and international pressure was successful in preventing Iraq to develop WMD before U.S invasion. All political muscles should be put behind forcing Iran to open up to democratic changes, to open up the nuclear facilities to inspection, and respect international law.

If a powerful nation acts above the bounds of international laws and forces a single-minded agenda on others, it loses its credibility. When we act as a rouge state, we can not preach others against it.

4. War is costly.

Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and more than a thousand U.S soldiers have died and many more injured and maimed in US war against Iraq. U.S has already spent hundreds of billions of dollars on the war on Iraq. Another war against Iran, a country 3 times bigger and a population 4 times larger is going to be many folds more costly for both sides. How can we justify all these lives lost when we now know they were not necessary? We now know that the UN inspections and international pressure worked. We now know that Saddam was not able to produce weapons of mass destruction, and he had no capability for developing it for many years.

How can we justify spending billions on wars that are ineffective and damaging, while we face a great budget deficit and an economic hardship at home, while we have millions of Americans without health insurance or live under the poverty line, while we face challenges in finding resources for the education of our children? We should ask ourselves and our government if we have our priorities straight.

5. Learn from history.

If we do not learn from the past experiences, we bound to repeat the same mistakes. In 1954, US led coup toppled the democratically elected government of Dr Mohammad Mosadeq in Iran. That direct intervention in the affair of a sovereign country set the stage for 25 years of dictatorship and finally resulted in the current religious government. That coup terrorized the whole nation of Iran for many years, and they are still suffering from its consequences. Dr. Mosadeq’s government was the chance for Iran to develop a truly democratic society. It could have been the model of democracy in Middle-East that U.S is now hoping for Iraq to become. Iran could have been where South Korea is today, but even much more, because of Iran’s vastly richer natural resources.

Today in Iran, where 50% are less than 24 years of age, a young population is aspiring for democracy and freedom. They are increasingly disillusioned from the possibility of reform from above and are forcing their collective will from below at the grass-root level. Their movement needs to be nurtured and supported to bear fruit. Another direct intervention in form of a devastating war will set this movement back for many years. Even if a war is successful in toppling the current regime, there is no guarantee that a U.S installed replacement would get the support of the democratic forces in Iran. The same disappointment that the U.S faced, after toppling Saddam when they did not see Iraqis embracing their occupying forces, will be faced again in Iran even if a war is successful in toppling current rulers. The people of Iran have suffered countless invasions throughout their history and will not accept a foreign imposed solution for them.

I leave you with these words of Dr Martin Luther King from his speech about Vietnam War, at Riverside Church, 4 April 1967 New York City:

“…Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one's own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover, when the issues at hand seem as perplexing as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict, we are always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty. But we must move on.

Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak …”

The Threat Game

With all the rhetoric against Iran and recent news leaks about war plans, etc , it may be interesting to look at the “game” Bush and his gang are playing with Iran,. I wrote something about “Game Theory” a little while ago that may be useful for those interested in Mathematics of Games and how it gets applied in some real life situations. The “Threat Game” is another example of that.
Continue Reading...
Here is how the table of the game that describes the Bush’s strategy against Iran looks like:

Threat Game

		US
		War	Negotiate
Iran	Defy	(-50,-10)	(5,-5)
	Comply	(-10,-5)	(0,10)

At the first glance, it seems that US does better negotiating no matter what Iranian government does. If that is the “pure” dominant strategy of US, then Iran can choose to “Defy” and gain 5 points (Negotiate-Defy square). However, this is a non-zero-sum game and US can leverage the “threat of war” shown in the “War” column to force a negotiated settlement and change the result of the game to the “Negotiate-Comply” square and maximize its gain (10 points).

For this strategy to work, a few conditions must be present:

1. A man of words and not of deeds, is like a garden full of weeds!

A real possibility of acting on the threat must be there; otherwise, it will not be taken seriously. For example, in that table, if the probability of war is only 10%, you can show with calculation that it will not work (How?).

2. Great boast, and small roast?!

The one who threatens must show that he has the means to act on his threat, for example, the threat of war without a powerful army is useless.

3. Better an eye sore, than all blind!

The threat must carry a sever penalty if it is to come true for the threatened side (shown by the cost of -50 in the War-Defy square); otherwise, it will not be effective

4. Those who live in glass houses, do not throw stones.

The threat must not carry a significant cost for the side making the threat, if it is to come true; otherwise, it will not be effective (shown by the cost of -10 in the War-Defy square).

5. Carrots and Sticks!

To give more incentive for the “Comply” option, the threat maker can give some benefit to the other side in the “Comply-Negotiate” square (change 0 to, say, +3).

The policy of US towards Iran has almost all the elements of the “Threat Game”. Bush and his gang have shown through their rhetoric and also through so-called “leaks” about military plans against Iran (which were probably intentional), etc, that the “War” is a real possibility (number 1). They have the military with devastating fire power (number 2 and 3). Right now, they only show Stick and no Carrot, but they are counting on Europeans to hold the Carrot (Number 5). Their only weakness is number 4. Iraq situation showed that War in this region is costly for the US, and it is only going to be worse against Iran. So, it is absolutely crucial for US to succeed in Iraq, if it wants to get the desired outcome from the “threat game”.

Interestingly, Iran is also playing this game by bringing in two factions, one with aggressive postures that wants nothing short of the defeat of the “Great Satan” in the battlefield, and the other one which is showing flexibility and is after a compromise. They also take advantage of US weakness in Iraq and play their version of Stick and Carrot game. However, they ultimately want to get to a negotiated settlement but with as much gains as they can, and that is the most likely outcome of this game.

For Iranian people, however, it is a lose-lose situation. Their only way out is to take the matters in their own hand and bring about sweeping democratic change without a foreign intervention. It is quite a tall order, given the brutality of the regime, and narrow minded approach of the US; but, the Iraq experience should have shown Iranians that they could not rely on an invasion to bring about the changes they desperately seek. The recent activities around the “Call for Referendum” may be the catalyst to finally unite the democratic forces and create a viable movement to carry out this change.

Math Homework: “Revolution Game” – Create a table for a game where the players are People and their Government. The two options for people is “Revolt” and “Surrender”, and for the government is “Reform” and “Crack-down”. Put in the numbers and find out under what conditions people’s revolt will bear fruit!!

p.s. This article by Ervand Abrahamian predicts a higher probability for war.