The American newspaper **** Christian Science Monitor **** has printed an article recently by two Iranian expatriates named Fariborz Ghaddar and S. Rob Sobhani in which emphasis has been put on the American dilemma about its relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Stating that the American administration is at a loss as how to handle its affairs with Iran, the writers in a shameful, groveling and abject manner have begged America to support any secular movement in Iran due to the fact that only through a secular government in Tehran, America can be certain of achieving its past profits in the country in addition to ensuring its presence both in Iran and the region toward its national security and interest in the Middle East.

The writers, somewhat disgracefully go on to say that America should not waste its diplomatic and political energies in apologizing to Iran for its past interference in the internal affairs of the country, but instead must concentrate on its true friends in Iran who can be found within the new political and media reform groups much the same way they did with the dissident movements in the old Soviet bloc.

The two Iranian Americans have maintained in their article that the Iranian people voting for Mr. Khatami at the last presidential elections did so because of their wish for the establishment of a secular government in the country. It is not clear upon what bizarre deduction they have reached this extraordinary conclusion. By disparaging the Islamic system and vilifying the adherents of the revolution, they scandalously offer abject blandishment and adulation to the American government through promises of profits and bounties from the oil routes of the Caspian Sea to the presence of their multinationals in the oil fields of the south. They also offer the American manufacturers the consumer market of Iran's 70 million population. On the international scene they beg the Americans to come to Iran and work with their friends and admirers toward containment of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the restraining of the Islamic movements in Pakistan and Afghanistan, establishment of a pro-American group with Turkey, Azerbaijan and Georgia and above all using a secular Iran as a moderating force in the tense Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

The writers in a somewhat simple-minded and shallow approach to more than two decades of the Iranian revolution not only have shown their total lack of understanding of the concepts and aspirations of the Islamic state, but seem to think that the solution to all national and international problems must be found only through Wisconsin Avenue. It is surprising that the writers do not know that at the end of this avenue the White House is white only in facade.

Inside is the red color of the blood of millions of people of the world who have paid by their lives for the aggressions, repressions, bullying and colonizing policies of successions of American governments whose visions of hegemony and unipolarization of the world have brought nothing but misery and poverty to the populace of almost every continent in the world.

Iran has already experienced the American presence on its soil and will not easily forget the degradation and anguish inflicted upon them.

Those Iranians who have left their country for what they think are greener pastures of America are not competent or eligible to say what is good or not good for Islamic Iran.

The Iranian people do not need their prescription for their welfare. They have chosen their own path based on their faith and belief on their own religion and culture.

The American government is fully aware that the only way to resumption of ties is acknowledgement of past mistakes and an offer of apology to the Iranian people.

P.2