The Economist and me

Last week I got an email from The Economist to review an article the had published. I noticed that, what they wrote was the usual boring synopsis of the recent events, with no solutions. Wiki was better reading. I gave the author my blunt remarks and never got a reply.

Well guess what? In this week's Economist they are going on about non violent resistance. But still they managed to put a cynical comment like this.

Indeed some Iran-watchers believe the president's efforts to promote change have helped the regime to quash even those reformers who have no foreign links. “It puts a target on the back of every dissident,” says Afshin Molavi, a writer on Iran.

Non-violent protest | They shall overcome—but perhaps not always | Economist.com

When will they ever learn. Iran, like all other nations, has to non violently change. It has to start with peace, so that it never turns into violence. And even if it did, the people who turned it to violence will be mistrusted.

The people of Iran will go on General Strike, and no one can taint it, be they the liberals that defend the Seyyeds, by stating on their behalf that the US is behind the strikers. Fact is that the US wants the Seyyeds to be enemy number one, and to keep the people of Iran under pressure, and more importantly under developed.

What would the US, EU and Far Eastern companies do with new competition from new products from a new modern Iran? It has the best location, the best mineral resources, and a young population that can build it, and bring it to the glory of ancient Iran that it had, before the Seyyed ancestors ever came around again in 13th Century AD.

Iranians have already wiped out the Seyyeds from their minds. The rest is just a matter of time, and the Nowrooz Spirit will keep the peace as we all march on.