Proud To Be English-Persian (English Mother, Persian Father)

Birth Certificate: Saamon (Mis-translation from Persian. Should be `Saman') Known as: Simon I was named Saamon Zohhadi and this is the name on my Birth Certificate. However, this is a mis-translation from Persian (Farsi) to English and should be `Saman Zohadi'. From the age of about 5 years old, my mother started calling me Simon. Most people know me as Simon. My Persian side of the family know me as Saamon (or Saman). Saman in farsi is سامان (Saman has 2 long a vowels) Part One Born and bred in Britain with an English mother and Persian father. I love both countries. English is my native language (although I am learning Farsi) and have an English mind with English-Persian blood and heart. A member of the Labour Party and supporter of the New Labour brand and a classless society. I don't like right wing or left wing extremism - they slow down progress. Why New Labour? Minimum wage, cold winter payments, lowest interest rates and inflation for decades, war on Saddam Hussein's evil regime, devolution, Good Friday agreement, intervention in Yugoslavia, record spending on the NHS & Education, Building Schools for Future programme etc. Blair was the best Prime-Minister since Winston Churchill. The recession under Gordon Brown was unavoidable & entire responsibility lies with the Lehman Brothers & the investment banks. The Conservatives believe in deregulation, so the situation would have been even worse, despite their hollow rhetoric. Also very proud of my Iranian bloodline. Although I am a Roman Catholic, it may surprise and confuse some people that I supported the revolution and overthrow of the last Shah and creation of the Islamic Republic of Iran although in my view it would have been better if Ayatollah Montazeri had succeeded Imam Khomeini and brought in a more moderate form of Islam. This is not a criticism of the leader of the revolution as post revolutionary Iran required strong leadership, after all, it was at war with Iraq and their was internal conflict. Was the clampdown against the opposition excessive ? Probably but in the turmoil of the time, innocent people were sadly killed. On the other hand, Imam Khomeini did not have a direct role in government and his responsibilty for any possible excesses are open to debate. Montazeri was right to bring the excessive executions and human rights abuses to the attention of Imam Khomeini but wrong to do it in a public way. It is a shame they could not remain allies. The future is now what matters and I hope that all Iranians, irrespective of their views, unite to defend and promote Iran in the world. My view is that we live in a diverse planet and other nations and cultures should be respected. Iran (Persia) is a great nation with an incredible history and future. It also is rich in art, poetry, music, architecture, modern film and general culture. A theocracy does work and a nation run on religious morality, discipline & spirituality is a worthy ideal; it is an alternative to moral decline and decadence and other failed political systems. The correct balance of living by a strict moral code and freedom of thought and expression will be achieved in time. The West is critical of the Islamic Republic of Iran but the Western view is out of context. Why? The main criticism of Iran was due to the taking of the US Embassy hostages. Yes, this was wrong but what about the wrongs the USA have committed against Iran ? CIA anti-democratic coup which overthrew a democratically elected Iranian President in 1953, CIA trained SAVAK in torturing techniques, USA blew up Iranian civilian airplane killing almost 300 people, USA supported Saddam Hussein's Iraq when they went to war against Iran even when they used chemical weapons (which alone killed over 100,000 Iranians) etc. As far as the Rushdie affair is concerned, did Imam Khomeini interfere in our internal affairs or did the West interfere in an Islamic issue ? Open to debate. The Rushdie affair was notable in that it was the first time that the far right in this country came to the defence of an Indian immigrant ! Also, of course, Rushdie is not the only "victim", innocent outraged muslims were killed in demonstrations against the `Satanic Verses' but liitle sympathy was shown by the western media for their deaths. Does Rushdie desrve the death sentence for the book? As a Catholic, I would say no but at the same time, in my view, the book should not have been written. Anyway, that is history and the death sentence no longer applies. Context is everything. Balanced reporting & perspective in the western media would be welcome. Being British, I live and enjoy a westernised way of life but do not have a blinkered and narrow view of the world. The USA may be the dominant superpower but it owes the Persians, Romans (Italians), Chinese, Turks, Greeks, Indians, French and the English to name but a few a debt of gratitude. We began the building blocks of civilisation, learning and knowledge before the USA was discovered. Without this prior knowledge and immigration (America is a nation of immigrants) then the USA would be a third world nation still on the intermediate stage of development. The only native Americans are the American Indians. Instead of skyscrapers the Americans would still be living in wigwams. Yes, America has since repaid that debt but the message is clear, a bit more humility and diplomacy would not go amiss. Being patriotic, I always support both Britain and Iran when in conflict with other countries. If there is a conflict between Britain and Iran then naturally I want the dispute to come to a rapid end and good relations to commence. I am proud of the sacrifice of my English Great-grandfather who was killed in WW1 and my Grandfather who fought in WW2. I would support Iran in a conflict against the USA and Israel. After all, every country including Iran has the right to defend itself. Who threatens who ? Clearly, it is Israel and the USA who are threatening to bomb Iran. Why? Because they believe (although there is no evidence to support their view) that Iran is developing nuclear bombs. Iran denies this (have we not learnt from Iraq on mis-information?). Nevertheless, even if Iran is developing nuclear weapons, don't they have the right to ? Iran's two biggest foes, Israel and the USA both have nuclear weapons. If you were advising Iran on national security, wouldn't you recommend that they have a nuclear deterrent. After all, don't we have nuclear weapons for the same reason. Again, the question has to be asked: Are Hizbullah, Hamas, the Arab countries and Palestine threatening Israel or is it Israel that threatens and attacks it neighbours? This is open to debate. Personally, I support an independent and free Palestinian State but also defend Israel's right to existence. Ironically, a nuclear Iran could force Israel to the peace table. No offence to the people of Israel or the USA. There are many things about American culture that I admire. It is just a case of patriotism and the right of a country (Iran) to defend itself from external aggressors. I do not want to see any human being killed and do not want Americans or Israelis killed but they should feel the same way about Iranians. I oppose all acts of terrorism and national aggression. Peace and co-operation is the only sensible way forward. I hope Israel and the USA refrain from a military attack. Otherwise, they should accept the consequences. They cannot expect Iranians to just stand in the way of bombs and not respond. The shooting down of the plane over Lockerbie and 9/11 and the London bombings were evil acts of terrorism but Iran was not involved in any of them. Moreover, Iran has not been involved in an offensive war for 3 centuries, true, do your own research. Iran was attacked by Iraq and defended itself. It has no modern history of invading other countries. I supported intervention in Iraq and Libya because innocent people have a right to be protected against evil dictators. Saddam's Iraq attacked both Iran and Kuwait and his eventual removal was justified. Yes, I sympathise with the innocent Iraqis that were killed by allied forces, however, many Iraqis were bloodthirsty when their army attacked Iran killing hundreds of thousands, many died from Saddam's chemical weapons. It is a shame that Iraqi civilians did not show Iranians the same sympathy. As far as Gaddafi is concerned, he was clearly insane and went to war with his own people, he also supported terrorism and was responsible for the Lockerbie bombing. Gaddafi deserved his fate as did Saddam. Intervention is sadly sometimes necessary to bring tyrants to account. Assad and Syria next ! What about the last election in Iran and the Green Movement ? In my view, although there may have been some irregularities in the election, I do not believe the amount of disputed votes would overturn Ahmadinejad's huge majority. If the result had been close, then the opposition would have a strong case, instead, it is weak. Therefore, the election result should be supported and the demostrations that took place were invalid. However, the shooting of innocent civilians can never be defended. Who was to blame ? Was it the government or was it the local militia (without authority) ? I don't know the answer to this. However, in my view, the majority in Iran voted for Ahmadinejad and the likelihood that the opposition candidate won the election is less likely. Clearly, any leader or government that kills innocent civilians cannot survive in the long term. If there are any future killing of innocent people on a scale equivalent to Libya or Syria then I would support the opposition. That point has not yet been reached and as a believer in democracy I support the elected government of the people.