EU sabre-rattling on Iran to hit population, not regime
News From GUE/NGL Brussels 02/02/2012
EU sanctions against Iran are politically naïve, negligent sabre-rattling according to GUE/NGL MEP Cornelia Ernst speaking ahead of today's European Parliament vote on a resolution on Iran 's nuclear programme.
"We condemn the Iranian regime for its catastrophic human rights violations, repression of religious minorities and persecution of human rights activists but embargoing Iranian oil through the de-facto ban on trade with Iran 's central bank ultimately just impacts the population."
"This is also a boost for the Iranian regime in advance of the elections in March when there is still no proof of a nuclear weapons programme, just secret service suspicions and allegations. We need the escalation of human rights dialogue and serious negotiations for a nuclear-free Middle East . This is the task of the EU, not the aggravation of the current situation" she said.
Also speaking before the vote, Sabine Losing called for a phase out of nuclear power and for worldwide disarmament of "gruesome" atomic weaponry.
"This aggressive economic war will destabilize Iran and limits the possibilities for progressive opposition in the country. It seems very likely that, as usual, global peace and human rights will fall victim to the interests of the United States and Europe ."
Translated Sunday 29 January 2012, by Isabelle Métral and reviewed by Derek Hanson
The effects of sanctions and embargos are mostly felt by the common people. Ahmadinejad's government pursues the same policies despite the West's injunctions.
From our special correspondent in Tehran.
In Tehran's great bazaar, crawling and majestic as ever, just as in the one in Tajrich on the mountainside, a foreigner will meet with friendly smiles and fraternal signs. But the shock comes right after, on finding that there is not one Western traveller, just a very few Africans, or Chinese. In two years everything has changed. Also troubling in the side-streets are beggars holding out their hands, and fugitive vendors in the oh-so- stylish underground. Iran, where it is now impossible to fly non-stop owing to the embargo on kerosene against Iran Air Company, is on the list of unsafe destinations. The French Foreign Affairs ministry has issued a communiqué warning that it was dangerous to visit Persia. So the war has already started, a "psychological war", and an ill-advised one, against a state whose leaders supported a demonstration against the United Kingdom outside the UK embassy where British flags were burnt.
The tension, which has been building for eight years, suddenly grew worse last November 8. An IAAE (International Agency for Atomic Energy) report evoked the "possible military dimension" of Iran's nuclear program. Iran denied it and invited the IAAE to come back. US President Obama and French President Sarkozy – there was a time when Paris did not automatically follow Washington; these days Paris pre-empts Washington's demands – now demand an embargo, not just on the banks but also on Iran's oil. Now Iran is OPEC's second biggest oil exporter. Iran draws 80% (90 billion euro) of its foreign currencies from its oil sales. The European Union, where Iran exports 18% of its oil, to some countries' great displeasure, feels constrained to agree to that measure despite its extraordinary consequences, of which none of the top officials seem to be aware.
Japan, one of those US allies that have kept close ties with Iran, seems to be resigned, but South Korea - both these countries import 10% of their oil consumption from Iran – is bent on resisting the injunction. Never before in the course of history have US pressures been so strong. Tehran has planned a retaliation. If the worst comes to the worst it will close the Ormuz Strait, the transit route for 40% of the world's oil exports by sea, which Iran co-manages with Oman. "It's ever so easy," explained Mohammad Rea Rahimi, the vice-president. And to prove his point mentioned the Velayat 90 manoeuvres in the Gulf in late December. "We ask the other countries in the Persian Gulf to join us," he said, pointing to the "intolerable" presence of the US army all over the region or nearly, and obviously ignoring that its "partners", the monarchic dictatorships that enjoy the West's unquestioning support, are in debt to the US. The closing of the Strait would immediately trigger a US military retaliation. We would be placed in the "logic of war".
But no doubt Iran is not isolated. Chinese, Russians and Indians have replaced Westerners in the oil and gas sectors. Mahmud Ahmadinejad, who is rumoured to have lost the favour of the Guide, Ayatollah Khamenei, keeps vaunting the "excellence" of Iran's relations with Russia, China, Turkey, and Caucasian countries and many African and Latin-American countries. If Syria is going through a storm, Iran now has allies in Bagdad and Beirut. For Ahmadinedjad, setting relations with the West above any other is a "cliche".
And then there is the "Islamic awakening" (Tehran will not call it the Arab Spring). In Tehran's eyes the Islamic successes in Tunisia and Egypt are good omens. "Of course they will not model themselves on Iran," Ahmadinedjad concedes. Gaddafi's fall is a blessing in his opinion. Unlike the Western press, the Iranian press also mentions daily uprisings in Saud Arabia and in Bahrein. But it is more timid on Syria.
Already Iran, the Iranian people, are suffering from the sanctions. Wages do not rise proportionately to the galloping rate of inflation (+20%), the rial gets devalued by the week, while the minimum wage (250 euro) stagnates. There are few prospects for the Iranian youth who hunger after democracy, social justice and peace, and are remarkably well educated. "We are caught in a vice. The embargo, the prospect of a war frighten us. This regime is all in the service of the privileged people, who can make the best of it," says Maliheh, a twenty-two-year-old female Art student .
Another defensive ploy used by the religious rulers is to prove that the embargo has a limited impact. Thus foreign investments in Iran have gone up by 124% in a year according to (unlikely) official figures. On December 21, it was Yalda night, the longest night, according to a millennial tradition from the ancient zoroastrian religion. Never had the State TV broadcast so many culinary recipes – with fruit if possible – and advice in order that Iranian families enjoy that precious time of reconciliation when everyone makes wishes…
Banned by the West, this country of 75 million inhabitants, exalts its culture, its roots, in order to conjure away a dull future. The general elections in March, in which the former "modernist" president Muhamad Khatami might stand as candidate, will also be a crucial day for the region.
One. In 2005, when the Iranian Reformist president Mohammad Khatami handed over the executive body to the new government, Iran’s foreign relations were at the peak; and attempts by the Zionist regime and radical strands inside the US ruling board to pressurize Iran had fallen in vein due to Iran’s cordial relations with its regional and international partners. Unfortunately, in the Ninth Administration, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced and enforced a new diplomatic agenda; the outcomes of which were seen in the Ninth and Tenth administrations. During these years, complicated challenges against Iran have emerged. Despite being dubbed as “crumbled papers” by the president, international sanction resolutions have hit hard the people and regarded by the experts as deleterious to the national interests.
Along the pressures (largely manifested in UN-approved sanction resolutions), human rights’ allegations caused by certain domestic measures served as pretexts that provided an opportunity for the enemies of the country to portray Iran and the Islamic Republic as an unreasonable entity. Today, in this critical, complicated situation, controversies over the alleged assassination plot of the Saudi ambassador to Washington by the IRGC Qods Corps, is a new challenge thrown at Iran that is already running the gauntlet. If left open, the new chapter can serve as a prelude to increase international pressures and pave the way for intervention in Iranian affairs.
Two. More time and intelligence is required to talk about the latest US’ allegation, which have been met with enthusiasm by Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf Cooperation Council member; but even by building our analysis upon the Iranian officials’ reaction, which was categorical rejection of he accusations, the magnitude of Washington’s dangerous game would not become less, since it was voiced at the highest judicial and political levels of the US’ ruling system. The US president and security officials keep on insisting that there are adequate credible documents which call for international and regional action against Iran. Now the foreign policy experts face these questions: what are the objectives of the US, the West, Saudi Arabia and other parties supporting the plan? Will the new US’ measure have follow-ups? Or is this merely the propaganda dimension of a larger plan?
Three. The Arab World is undergoing popular movements: three Arab dictators have been deposed and three other are on the brink of transformative changes. Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries have faced waves of opposition after Syria, Yemen and Bahrain. The Arab government must carry out some reforms in their modus operandi or otherwise be prepared to face the same problems.
There are few Middle East countries, such as Turkey, that have survived –and even taken advantage of- the situation due to their relatively democratic rule and impressive economic record. Turkey used much of its democratic capacity to take the helm of the Arab movements, while Saudi Arabia failed to do so and Iran's efforts to influence the movements have fallen flat due to the post-2009 election unfolding events. Washington’s anti-Iranian plan could have been prepared as a response to Iran’s domestic and foreign situation and the Arab World’s developments. The US does not want the pro-democracy wave of the Arab World to turn into an anti-US and anti-Israeli wave, hence efforts to aggravate the already plagued-with-misunderstanding relations between Iran and Arabs.
Four. Cognizant of these threats and the recent regional developments, the former Iranian president called for vigilance against foreign threats. Khatami’s message served a dual purpose: for inside, to preclude any measures which are conducive to foreign intervention, and for the outside, to know that Iran would not yield to pressure, despite the domestic differences.
Five. The high-ranking Iranian officials should heed the concerns expressed by the Islamic Revolution’s sympathizers and to understand that the key to regulating current threats away is to cut off certain political groups from the diplomatic decision-making process.
International Association of Iranian Journalists in an open letter to American journalists demanded them to ask Ahmadinejad(Why are Iranian journalists in prison and banned from writing?)
Here is this letter:
Editors, reporters, journalists and writers in the United States,
The International Association of Iranian Journalists (IAIJ) calls for help in freeing your Iranian colleagues.
Dear Fellow Journalists,
As you are aware, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad , after the controversial and disputed presidential elections is again on his way to the United States.
Like previous years and visits, this illegal president of the Islamic Republic will meet members of the American media and like in the past will claim that Iran is the freest country in the world. He will again deny that there are human rights violations, censorship of the media, and suppression of freedoms in Iran.
As journalists, we would like to inform you once again that Iran is the largest prison for journalists in the world. Today, there are
some 18 Iranian journalists behind prison bars. In the most recent attack on journalists, a woman web-blogger received 50 flogging lashes as punishment for criticizing Ahmadinejad's policies. This journalist and blogger was flogged simply because she was doing what all her journalistic colleagues are supposed to do around the world: reporting news and life around her.
The judiciary-security apparatus of the Islamic Republic of Iran has arrested these journalists, reporters, bloggers and writers and, after repeated tortures and confinements to solitary cells, has sentenced them to long prison terms and/or banned them from using their pens altogether.
Banning professionals from media activities is a new policy of the judiciary officials of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which has expanded over the last 2 years. The ban imposed on Ahmad Zeidabadi to engage in media activities for life, on Jhila Bani-Yaghoob for 30 years, on Badrol Sadat Mofidi for 5 years and on Massoud Lavasani for 10 years are only a few examples of such sentences passed against Iranian journalists.
Iranian journalists currently face the most dreadful conditions in Iranian prisons. They are even denied the rights that other prisoners enjoy for which they have resorted to hunger strikes on
numerous times. Hoda Saber, a journalist and human rights activist, was the latest victim of such persecution who resorted to a hunger strike in. Unfortunately he lost that battle and her life because of disregard for his calls by prison officials.
Dear Fellow Journalists,
Please ask Mahmoud Ahmadinejad this question:
-Why are these journalists in prison?
We earnestly call on you to unanimously ask him to free your fellow journalists in Iran from prison.
Prisoners urge UN investigator to visit Iranian prisons
Payvand Iran News 06/24/11
Six Iranian political prisoners held at Rejaishahr Prison in Karaj have urged Ahmad Shaheed, the United Nations special rapporteur for Iran, to inspect Iranian prisons. Saham News reports that the prisoners have also called on Shaheed to visit their families.
The signatories, who include detained teachers, journalists and political activists, write in their letter that they were arrested for their "civil action though participation in the presidential election of June 12, 2009" and efforts to create "change and democratic developments in Iran's political situation and Iran's human rights activities."
They maintain that their activities "are based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other United Nations conventions and resolutions" that the Iranian government is required to follow.
They write that their "peaceful activities" are being labelled as "soft sedition" and "anti-Revolutionary" by the government and used as an excuse to arrest them and interrogate them "under inappropriate conditions and severe mental and physical pressure."
Their letter draws the UN rapporteur's attention to "unfair trials, beyond what the law allows, held in secret without the presence of a defence attorney." They add that they have been subjected to "long prison sentences and exile, held in sub-standard prisons and forced to live under inhumane and un-Islamic restrictions for prisoners and their families."
Some of the signatories to the letter are also part of a group of six prisoners at Rejaishahr Prison who are currently on a hunger strike to protest the deaths of two other political prisoners, Haleh Sahabi and Reza Hoda Saber. Their strike was inspired by a similar campaign by 12 prisoners at Evin Prison. They started their strike following reports that prison authorities beat Hoda Saber, who was also on a hunger strike, and delayed in taking him to hospital, which the prisoners claim resulted in his death.
Iranian authorities have said that Shaheed, the UN rights investigator, will not be allowed to travel to Iran. They have accused the West of using human rights issues as a political tool against its enemies.
CPJ Committee to Protect Journalists August 17, 2011
Dr. Ahmed Shaheed
U.N. Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran
Asia, Pacific Unit, Iran Desk
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Palais des Nations
CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
Dear Dr. Shaheed,
Ahead of your report on human rights in Iran
to the U.N. General Assembly in September, I would like to take this
opportunity to provide you with an assessment of the country's state of press
freedom as documented by the Committee to Protect Journalists. Authorities were
detaining 34 journalists when CPJ conducted its annual worldwide census of
imprisoned journalists on December 1, 2010, making Iran,
along with China, the
world's worst jailer of the press. In reviewing these cases and their developments,
we have identified three distinct and worrying developments to which we would
like to draw your attention.
Uncertain prison
terms
Authorities are maintaining a revolving prison door, freeing some prisoners
on furloughs even as they make new arrests. The furloughed journalists often
post six-figure bonds andendure enormous political pressure to keep
silent or turn on their colleagues. In March 2010, the government crackdown put
52 journalists behind bars,
according to a survey conducted by CPJ, at the time the highest number of
detainees we recorded in a single country since December 1996.
A recent example of this policy is journalist Ahmad Zaid-Abadi, who was
imprisoned in June 2009 and granted a 48-hour furlough on August 4 after
posting US$500,000 bail, according to the news website Rooz
Online. Two days later, Zaid-Abadi turned himself in to authorities as required
but was told that his furlough had been extended. One day later, on August 7, Rooz
Online said, authorities summoned him back to prison, where he remains. Zaid-Abadi
was sentenced in 2010 to six years in prison, five years' exile to Gonabad, a
city in Khorasan province, and "lifetime deprivation of any political activity"
including "interviews, speech[es], and analyses of events, whether in written
or oral form." He was awarded the UNESCO/Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom
Prize in 2011 and the World Association of Newspapers' Golden Pen of Freedom
Award in 2010.
Prison sentences in Iran
may also be increased without any due process, a retaliatory policy recently
used against Mohammad Davari, who is currently serving a five-year sentence. One
year was added to his jail term after he signed open letters and
statements for political prisoners this past year.
Davari, the editor-in-chief of the reformist news website Saham
News as well as a trade unionist and teacher, has been tortured and
pressured to make televised confessions implicating leaders within the
reformist movement, news reports said. In 2010, CPJ honored Davari
with its International Press Freedom Award.
CPJ has found that furloughs and arbitrarily increased sentences make a
mockery of formal sentencing and are simply a manipulative tactic used by the
Iranian government to coerce prisoners into providing information, restrain
them from engaging in protest actions inside prison, silence their grievances, or
motivate them to cooperate with prison officials and interrogators.
Inhumane treatment
Imprisoned journalists suffer from the crowded and unsanitary conditions
endemic to Iranian prisons, but they also face additional punitive measures
such as the denial of family visits and placement in solitary confinement, CPJ research shows. Some have
been denied medical care. Hoda Saber, editor of the long-defunct magazine Iran-e Farda, died in Evin Prison after
suffering a heart attack on June 10, news and human rights reports said. Six
hours passed before he was taken to a hospital, news reports said. Saber's
wife, Fariden Jamshidi, said that hospital personnel told her that her husband's
life "could have been saved had prison officials brought him earlier."
Saber had been imprisoned in Evin Prison since July 2010 in relation to
his political activism, CPJ research shows. The journalist had been on hunger
strike since June 2 to protest the killing of another journalist and activist,
Haleh Sahabi, who died from a violent blow by security personnel at her father's
funeral the previous day.
According to one account, the reformist news website Kalemereported, 64 prisoners in Evin Prison's Ward 350, which
is reserved for political prisoners, issued a statement saying that Saber was
severely beaten at the prison infirmary where he was initially taken.
A lack of due
process
Iran targets lawyers
who provide legal counsel for journalists. Writer, lawyer, and human rights
activist Nasrin Sotoudeh is one example. Sotoudeh, who has served as legal
counsel for several journalists imprisoned in Iran,
was sentenced in January to 11 years in prison. The state claims that in
advocating for the rights of her fellow Iranians, Sotoudeh engaged in "propaganda
against the regime" for which she was given a one-year sentence. It also found
her guilty of "acting against national security" and "violating the Islamic
dress code (hijab) in a filmed speech," which brought her an additional 10
years in prison. The court also banned her from practicing law and from
traveling outside Iran for
20 years. This additional punishment begins after Sotoudeh's release from
prison. Her appeal is pending.
One way of measuring the deteriorating climate for Iranian journalists is
to consider the number of journalists forced into exile. According to Journalists in Exile, CPJ's 2011 special
report, at least 18 Iranian journalists have fled their homes in the past year.
Iran topped the list (tied
with Cuba) for the second
consecutive year as the government continued a crackdown that began with the
disputed 2009 election. CPJ's 2010 survey found that at least 29 Iranian
editors, reporters, and photographers had fled into exile; the country's total
exodus over the past decade is 66, behind only Ethiopia
and Somalia.
I am certain that you share our concerns regarding these developments,
which are part of a pattern of human rights violations in Iran. Therefore we would be grateful if the
deplorable state of journalists would find its due attention in your report and
we would be pleased to provide you with any additional information you may
require.
Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.
Saeed Kamali Dehghan guardian.co.uk Thursday 21 July 2011 19.49 BST
Iran's former culture minister, Ataollah Mohajerani, has criticised the country's supreme leader for restricting access to literature after Ayatollah Ali Khamenei publicly attacked "harmful books" and likened them to "poisonous" drugs.
In a meeting with librarians and officials from Iran's book industry on Wednesday, Khamenei spoke out against books "with a cultural appe arance but with specific political hidden motives.
"Not all books are necessarily good and not all of them are unharmful, some books are harmful," he said, according to his official website, Khamenei.ir.
Mohajerani who was culture minister until 2000 under the reformist president Mohammad Khatami, said the ayatollah was worried about "literary, philosophical and social" books that might raise questions about his legitimacy as the supreme leader. "I think that he is very much concerned about books that can either implicitly or explicitly target his position as the supreme leader and also his legitimacy."
He had fallen foul of the ayatollah when he was at the ministry as he favoured greater cultural openness and removed thousands of titles from the lists of banned books. Some analysts believe his lack of deference to the hardline ayatollah was another reason he came under attack from conservative clerics which finally forced him to resign. Numerous publications were closed down after he went. He currently lives in exile in London.
In his speech, the 72-year-old Khamenei, whose pronouncements are often interpreted as official guidelines, refused to give more details on which books he deemed "harmful". However, titles ranging from uncensored version of Plato's Symposium to Louis-Ferdinand Céline's Journey to the End of the Night and works by James Joyce, Gabriel García Márquez, Kurt Vonnegut and Paulo Coelho have been banned in recent years by Iran's ministry of culture and Islamic guidance which vets all books before publication.
According to Mohajerani, Khamenei is a fan of fiction and closely follows publication of novels and other literary books.
"Those responsible in the book industry should not let harmful books enter our book market on the basis that we let them [readers] choose [what they want to read]," Khamenei told cheering crowds.
"Like poisonous, dangerous and addictive drugs which are not available for everyone without restrictions … as a publisher, librarian or an official in the book industry, we don't have the right to make [such books] available to those without knowledge," he said. "We should provide them with healthy and good books."
Mohajerani said: "His comments stem from a traditional clerical mentality that clerics guide people as shepherds guide their sheep, this is a viewpoint that doesn't have any place in today's life."
Although Iran's constitution prohibits censorship, publishers are required to submit all books to the cultural ministry where they are usually checked by three separate people charged with censoring words and phrases or labelling them as "inappropriate" for publication.
The supreme leader's comments come weeks after several writers complained about the time-consuming procedure of book publishing; some said they have waited several months and even years for permission.
Mohammad Mohammad-Ali, a celebrated fiction writer told the semi-official Isna news agency in a recent interview that he had waited for over two and a half years for permission to publish 10 of his books, but only one had so far been approved for publication.
Hassan Homayoun, a journalist and poet who has monitored censorship in Iran has published on his blog a series of comments made by censors.
According to Homayoun, in review of a poetry book, a censor commented that it lacked appropriate rhythm. With regard to a book by Gholam-Hossein Saedi, the censor said it contained sexually-provocative material and was too ambiguous and allegorical. In review of a book written by celebrated writer Mahmoud Dolatabadi, a censor said that it was too depressing.
Censors go as far as advising writers to substitute certain words with other "appropriate" phrases, should they wish their book to be approved.
In an interview with the semi-official Ilna news agency, another writer, Mohammad Baghaei Makan, said he was asked to change "wine" to "coffee" in a text he wrote in which he, ironically, expressed contempt for wine.
According to Ilna, words such as "kiss", "beloved", "wine" ,"drunk", "pork", "dance", "rape", "dog" and "meditation" are among others frequently asked to be substituted.
Shahriar Mandanipour, an Iranian novelist and a victim of censorship in Iran, has written a novel based on his experiences. Censoring an Iranian Love Story, published in 2009, follows the journey of a fictional writer who meets the man responsible for censoring his book.
In the face of book censorship in Iran, many celebrated writers such as Mahmoud Dolatabadi and Reza Barahani whose books are banned in Iran have chosen to publish their books in other languages outside the country.
New Iran public execution video highlights 'brutal' death penalty
21 July 2011
Graphic new video footage of a public hanging in Iran this week highlights the brutalisation of both the condemned and those who watch executions, Amnesty International said today.
The video provided to Amnesty International was shot on 19 July, and shows the execution by hanging of three men in Azadi Square in the city of Kermanshah. The men had been convicted of rape.
The three men are shown standing on top of buses as guards drape ropes fixed to a bridge overhead around their necks, before a crowd of onlookers including children.
The crimes for which the men were condemned and the execution is announced over a loudspeaker, then the buses are driven away.
"These latest public executions underline the continuing horror of the death penalty in Iran," said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, Amnesty International's Deputy Director for the Middle East and North Africa.
In the video, numerous people are seen photographing or filming the execution.
"Not only those executed, but all those who watch public executions, including, children, are brutalised and degraded by the experience. These public displays of killing perpetuate a culture of acceptance of violence and bloodlust, rather than a belief in justice," said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui.
"We have also been informed that the arrest, trial and execution of these men took barely two months, which raises serious questions about the fairness of the trial."
Tuesday's hangings are part of a continuing rise in the number of public executions in Iran since late 2010, and a rise in executions overall.
The authorities have acknowledged at least 28 public executions so far this year. Amnesty International has received reports of at least another six which the authorities have not acknowledged.
"It is deeply disturbing that despite a moratorium on public executions ordered in 2008, the Iranian authorities are once again resorting to this inhuman practice." said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui.
According to UN human rights experts, executions in public serve no legitimate purpose and only increase the cruel, inhuman and degrading nature of this punishment.
"All executions violate the right to life. Those carried out publicly are a gross affront to human dignity which cannot be tolerated," said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui.
The executions follow several widely publicized gang rapes of women this year in Iran. In some cases, officials blamed the victims for failing to adhere to the official code on dress or gender segregation.
"Executions after speedy unfair trials are no solution to the extremely serious problem of rape in Iran, which feeds on the acceptance of violence against women at all levels of society," said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui.
"The Iranian authorities should be aiming to combat this culture of violence rather than perpetuate it through these public displays of brutality."
Iran comes second only to China in the number of executions carried out annually. The Iranian authorities do not publish official statistics on their use of the death penalty, despite repeated calls for transparency by UN human rights bodies.
UN guidelines on the use of the death penalty, in those countries that retain this punishment, state that it should only be used for the most serious crimes. This is understood as meaning intentional crimes with lethal or other extremely grave consequences. Most executions in Iran relate to drug-trafficking offences and rape.
Judiciary officials of the Islamic Republic of Iran have reported that 140 individuals have been executed in the province of Khorasan on charges of "smuggling addictive drugs." Human rights defenders on the other hand contend that on average two people per day have been executed during this period, thus raising the number of secret executions to higher than what the judiciary authorities proclaim.
In an exclusive interview with Rooz, Iran's 2003 Nobel Peace laureate Shirin Ebadi said, "According to confirmed information that we and other rights defenders have received from inside prisons in Iran, which includes names of individuals who have been executed, the number of executions is almost two times as many as have officially been announced."
Second Official Acknowledgement
The deputy director for social affairs and crime prevention at South Khorasan province's judiciary recently announced that 140 "smugglers of addictive drugs" had been executed in 2010, and added, "The Revolutionary Court acts with full force against those who engage in the trade of addictive drugs."
Mehr news agency reported that during an achievement recognition ceremony for outstanding staff of the South Khorasan province's judiciary, deputy director Mohammad Bagher Bagheri made the announcement about the execution of 140 individuals and said that some 38,000 files had been processed in this regard, which he asserted indicated "comprehensive planning, action and management by judiciary managers of the province."
In recent weeks, officials of Iran's judiciary have made several announcements of unannounced executions in 2010. Prior to this, Mashhad city public prosecutor Mahmoud Zoghi had announced that a number of executions related to crimes for illegal drugs had been carried out in the Vakilabad prison of Mashhad since the beginning of the current year, of which only three months had passed (the Iranian calendar year begins on March 21).
The revelations of secret executions a year after they had taken place come as human rights activists assert that secret executions are carried out at this very moment in prisons across Iran.
In the most recent case, the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran announced that 25 prisoners had been secretly and en-masse executed on July 3 (Tir 12) at Ghezelhesar prison in the city of Karaj on drug related crimes, and called for the end of this "deadly trend" while also demanding the announcement of the details of the executions that have taken place over the last two years in prisons across Iran. The ICHRI has also lodged its protest regarding the absence of reports by judiciary officials over the high number of executions.
They Are Lying
Speaking to Rooz about the delayed announcement of these executions by Iranian authorities, Shirin Ebadi, the head of a group of human rights attorneys said, "The regime denies these executions because it pursues a policy of not being transparent and or publicly announcing its actions. But since defenders of human rights pass the names of executed individuals to different organizations, particularly the United Nations, the Islamic republic is now forced to reveal some of these to prevent further disgrace."
Ebadi continues, "If these executions took place legally, if the judiciary was fair, the relevant court would have made (the appropriate) announcement and informed public opinion of its work. But when people are secretly executed you can be sure that the judicial process was not fair and the defense rights of an accused person were disregarded. When the executions were leaked outside and passed on to other countries and international organizations, the regime was forced to accept some of its responsibilities. But I will stress that even at this level of disclosure they are lying. In other words the number of executions is greater than what they claim."
Human rights groups have repeatedly expressed their concerns about secret executions in Iranian prisons, particularly Vakilabad prison in Mashhad.
Prior to the announcement of the secret executions by judiciary officials of the Islamic republic, Amnesty International's annual report published in April/May confirmed the execution of 252 individuals in Iran on drug related charges in 2010. The report adds that another group of 300 individuals were also executed in the same period based on its "reliable received sources." AI also reports that the Iran has confirmed execution of 190 individuals in the country in the January – June period, but it adds that another 130 individuals had been executed in addition to that without being announced.
The Visit of the Special UN Rapporteur
The rapid increase in the official number of executions in Iran and the news of secret executions has raised the concerns of other governments and human rights organizations.
The Un Human Rights Council recently issued a resolution calling for a report on the condition of human rights in Iran for which it appointed a special rapporteur. Ahmad Shahid, the former foreign minister of Maldivia was subsequently appointed to this position, which prompted different responses from officials in the parliament and others in Iran.
Two principlist Majlis deputies Zohre Elhian and Mohammad Karim Abedi, judiciary chief Sadegh Larijani, and foreign ministry spokesperson Ramin Mehmanparast are among those who opposed the visit of the special UN envoy on human rights.
Ebadi pointed out that even if the Islamic republic does not allow Shahid to come to Iran, he will have other sources such as individuals outside Iran or even those inside Iran – with due regard for their safety - to fully learn of what is going on inside Iran. "He will also benefit from the reports that I and other human rights defenders have prepared in this regard," she said.
In recent days some human rights activists have suggested that should the UN rapporteur not be allowed to travel to Iran, he should visit neighboring countries such as Iraq where a large number of victims of human rights violations in Iran reside and interview the victims. This way they can also assist in connecting the rapporteur to victims inside Iran who may be interested in presenting their experience in such violations. She also requested all individuals who had knowledge of human rights violations in Iran to present their reports and documents to Mr. Shahid without any exaggeration.
PRESS RELEASE - Iran: The PCF demands the release of all imprisoned trade union activists
French Communist Party Paris, June 7, 2011
The French Communist Party (PCF) strongly condemns the new arrests, following the 1st of May celebrations, of trade union activists in Iran, notably in Kurdistan.
At a time when the people of the Arab world and beyond are rising up for democracy, freedom and social justice, the Iranian government response to popular aspirations is simply systematic repression. The Tehran regime and its representatives have no legitimate place within the International Labour Organisation when they continually stifle the freedoms and trample on the rights of workers in their country.
The French Communist Party reaffirms its solidarity with the Iranian democrats. It demands the release of all imprisoned trade unionists. It gives its support to the rally organised, in response to the call of the trade unions, in Geneva on the 9th June 2011
Haleh Sahabi defied human law to defend moral, divine law; her life writing a heroic legend of the future. ALJAZEERA June 2, 2011
Haleh Sahabi, 54, was a distinguished Quranic hermeneutician, a religious comparatist, a women's rights scholar, and a committed activist to the cause of her people's civil liberties. Haleh Sahabi was sentenced to a two-year prison term after she had joined a rally in front of the Iranian parliament in the aftermath of the contested presidential election of 2009.
While serving her term in jail, Haleh Sahabi was informed of her father's impending death. He was the prominent Iranian dissident Ezzatollah Sahabi (1930-2011), a revered democracy activist, known and admired for his mild manner, open-minded generosity of spirit, a liberal demeanor, and a commitment to non-violent activism on a religious-nationalist platform for over half a century.
Haleh Sahabi was briefly allowed out of prison to be present for the final days of her father's life. Ezzatollah died, at the age of 81 on May 31, 2011. Millions of Iranians in and out of their homeland were saddened by his death, deeply grateful for his moderate and caring positions, even those who did not agree with him.
His funeral began on the following day, June 1, under tight security control, and - according to a number of reliable eyewitness accounts- including those of Ahmad Montazeri, the son of the late Grand Ayatollah Montazeri, and Ahmad Sadr Haj Seyyed Javadi, an aging opposition politician - a band of organised plainclothes security forces began to disrupt the funeral, ridiculing and humiliating the attendants, and moved to snatch the body of the deceased from those who were carrying it for a proper burial.
Haleh Sahabi, leading the funeral, tried to prevent the disruption, while holding on to a picture of her father. The picture was violently taken away from her by a security agent and she was hit on her side. She fell to the ground in the scuffle and soon after died of a cardiac arrest.
The International campaign for Human Rights in Iran holds the plainclothes security forces responsible for Haleh Sahabi's death, and has called for an official investigation. "The shameful actions of government thugs in this incident reveal a deep contempt for traditions that belong to all Iranians, and they have resulted in a tragedy," said Hadi Ghaemi, spokesperson for the campaign. Shirin Ebadi, the Iranian Nobel Peace laureate, has declared Haleh Sahabi's death,"intentional murder".
In Sophocles' Antigone (circa 442BC), we learn of two brothers who died fighting each other opposing sides of Thebes' civil war. The new king, Creon, decrees that one of the two brothers, Eteocles, will be honoured, while the other, Polyneices, will suffer the public shame of not being given a proper burial.
Antigone, one of the two sisters of the dead brothers defies the royal decree and decides to give her damned brother Polyneices a dignified burial. She considers it her duty, even at the cost of defying the law of the land.
Over the centuries, Antigone's courageous and principled stance, made against the royal decree, has been the source of the most cherished reflections in the entire tradition of Greek inspired humanities. For more than 2500 years, Sophocles' tragedy has been the source and inspiration of the most enduring and insightful reflections on the nature of citizenship, political dissent, civil disobedience, moral obligation to one's family, duty to one's God, and the rule of law. So much so that is it impossible to imagine the Greek foundation of any claim to humanity and civilisation without Antigone and other tragedies of Sophocles.
We - Arabs, Iranians, Afghans, Africans, Asians, etc - are in an inaugural moment of our renewed claims to our history, humanity and dignity.
Today in the streets of Tehran, Kabul, Baghdad, Damascus, Cairo, Tunis, Tripoli, Sanaa, Manama, and scores of other major and minor cities from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean, our people are busy writing the allegorical parables of our future claims on who and how and what we are. Our people are writing new legends, crafting new metaphors, coining neologism for our emerging poetries.
Modern day heroes
Remember today the names of Hamza al-Khateeb, the 13-year-old Syrian boy who was brutally tortured and mutilated by Bashar Assad's agents in Syria; or Mohammed Bouazizi, the young peddler who set himself on fire out of economic desperation in Ben Ali's Tunisia; and Neda Agha Soltan, the young Iranian pro-democracy protester who was cold-bloodedly murdered by the security agents of Ayatollah Khamenei. They join the names of Abeer Qassim Hamza al Janabi, the 14-year-old Iraqi girl gang-raped and murdered by US troops and Muhammad al-Durra, the 12-year-old Palestinian boy murdered by Israeli sharpshooters as the iconic parables of a dramatic unfolding of a renewed accord of a people with their destiny.
They are the dramatis personae of the living legends that our posterity will read in their history books, literary genres, moving poetries. The brutish regimes that rule over our lands will in one way or another come to an end and will leave behind nothing for their leaders than ignominy and infamy.
In Antigone, we are faced with the law of the land contravening the rule of traditions. But here and now, facing a vicious and wicked regime that is over-anxious about its own lack of legitimacy, Haleh Sahabi wrote in her living memory a different drama.
The Islamic Republic is so terrified of any public gathering, especially over dead bodies of its dissidents, precisely because this is the manner in which it took over from the previous regime and that it abused to outmanoeuvre its ideological rivals in order to stay in power.
The Islamic Republic is a republic of death and dying, a republic of fear of the living and thriving. Haleh Sahabi did not break any law to honour her father's right to a dignified burial. She exposed the banality of the evil that rules over some seventy-odd million human beings, a banality that has not even the decency of allowing a dignified burial of an 81-year-old father, without causing the death of her mourning daughter too.
Ezzatollah Sahabi lived a long and fulfilling life. Haleh Sahabi was cut down halfway through her dignified extension of her father's causes into unchartered territories. Antigone defied a human law to observe a divine mandate, a moral commandment. Haleh Sahabi defied the ghoulish last shrieks of a dying theocracy to lay the foundation of a new ennobling legend for her people: The legend of Haleh Sahabi - the daughter who did not allow the body of her noble father stolen by ignoble fiends.
How many brute and cruel tyrants have come and gone? But we only remember the glorious, the defiant, the courageous Antigone.
The Ben Alis, the Mubaraks, the Gaddafis, and the Khameneis of our history too in one way or another will eventually become a boring footnote in some future history book - the titles, themes, and empowering dramas of which will blossom around the names of Antigone and Haleh Sahabi.
Tonight Haleh Sahabi, a daughter who came out of prison to bury her father and honour his passing to eternity, sleeps prematurely but peacefully in the vicinity of that father.
Among her other courageous endeavours, Haleh Sahabi was a member of the "Mothers of Peace", a group mostly consisting of mothers whose children had perished at the hands of thugs employed by the garrison state to preserve it a little longer, each woman committed to reduce the intensity of violence in their homeland.
Somewhere between defiant daughters and mothers of peace, the future of Haleh Sahabi's homeland is in very caring and capable hands - the hands of the living and the life-givers. Like Antigone, Haleh Sahabi is now the budding seed of an ennobling tragedy that will sustain her people's renewed struggle to demand and exact their inalienable rights to freedom and liberty, for the dignity of daughters and sons being allowed to bury their fathers and mothers in peace.
Rest in peace, gallant sister, our own mighty Antigone: Haleh Khanom Sahabi.
Hamid Dabashi is Hagop Kevorkian Professor of Iranian Studies and Comparative Literature at Columbia University in New York. He is the author, most recently, ofIran, the Green Movement, and theUS: The Fox and the Paradox(Zed, 2010).
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
Sahabi's family memembers: Regime Even Feared Sahabi's Corpse
Sahabi Father and Daughter Die a Day Apart By Fereshteh Ghazi June 2, 2011
While Ezzatollah Sahabi, the leading figure among Iranian national-religious activists, and a quiet critic of the Islamic regime, passed away on Tuesday after a month-long comma, his daughter Haleh Sahabi died due to a scuttle with security forces during her father's funeral ceremony on Wednesday. Close family members spoke with Rooz about the father's death, and said that the Islamic regime feared the corpse of Sahabi as much as it feared him when he was alive.
While the father is said to have died after being in a comma for one month, the daughter Haleh died while she was at her father's funeral and as she was confronted by security agents who are reported to have tried to snatch a photograph of her father from her. Haleh was a recognized civil and human rights activist in her own right with wide respect in Iranian society.
Perhaps the best examples of the regime's fear are the pressures that emerged on the family members of Ezzatollah's death immediately after his death by the country's security forces. Intelligence and security agents dictated to family members in no uncertain terms that a quick and quiet burial of Sahabi the father was the way to go with the death, despite the family's resistance and protests to this. Haleh Sahabi and Yahya Mashayekhi, the child and a grand-child of Sahabi told Rooz before Haleh herself was killed that because of this pressure they had to change the mourning ceremony from 8:30am to 7am, when fewer people could gather and join the procession from the deceased's house to the cemetery, which was a short distance away.
Mr. Mashayekhi said in this regard, "We accepted the change of an hour and a half simply to prevent any more larger requests that could have prevented the ceremony altogether. "
Ezzatollah Sahabi had been hospitalized on April 29 this year because of a stroke he had that completely paralyzed him and putting him in a comma at Modarres hospital in Tehran. His daughter Haleh Sahabi told Rooz late on Tuesday that even though her father had passed away at 2:10pm, she and others were told of this only at around 6pm.
Security Agents Had Been Prepared to Bury Him
Prior to informing his family members of Ezzatollah Sahabi's death, security and intelligence agents positioned themselves around Sahabi's house in the town of Lavasan. According to a Rooz reporter, there were agents from Babai autobahn to the door of Sahabi's house covering a distance of about 15 kilometers.
Security agents also had stationed themselves in front of Sahabi's house, where a number of members of Nehzate Azadi (Iran Freedom Party) and national-religious council members were arrested and subsequently released after a few hours of interrogations.
Reza Tajik and Yasser Maasoomi were among those who were interrogated at the ministry of intelligence after being detained in front of Sahabi's house on Tuesday.
But security agents did not simply stay outside. They entered Sahabi's house repeatedly where they stressed that the deceased had to be buried rapidly, issuing threats to use available regulations of the provincial security bureau.
Sahabi's grandson Yahya Mashayekhi told Rooz, "Intelligence agents pressed for a short mourning ceremony and a quick burial, something that his family did not accept. Then they threatened that we would have more problems if we did not comply."
Mashayekhi said that such pressures had existed since the day Sahabi went into a comma, a month earlier. They dictated the terms for the mourning ceremony, the burial etc, indicating that they had already thought about the events that would be taking place after the death of Sahabi.
His daughter Haleh, who at the time of her father's death was on leave from prison told Rooz, "We held a quick memorial ceremony and want to walk the short distance from his house to the cemetery, but are not sure they will accept that."
Fear of the Corpse
Dr Mohammad Maleki was a close friend of Sahabi and is a member of the religious-national council who told Rooz that the insistence of security and intelligence agents that the burial take place quickly and without fanfare indicated how scared the regime was of Sahabi's corpse because of his national popularity and appeal. He added that these agents had even threatened to take the corpse and bury it themselves before the public arrived if their demands were not, something that Haleh also alluded to.
The last time Haleh Sahabi saw her father was during the Nowruz (New Year) holidays in late March when he went to visit her while she was held in Evin prison. She said he looked and felt good then. "Before asking about how I was, he asked about how other student prisoners such as Haleh Bahareh were doing in prison, and expressed his concern over their fate because they were at the time barred from any visitations and in a hunger strike."
Haleh told Rooz on Tuesday that she did not realize why prison officials had given her leave, a few days prior to her father's death. "It was when I came home that I realized that my father was in hospital and under what condition. When I saw him at the hospital, he was unconscious but I read out some poetry for him and talked with him while he could not respond. His eyes occasionally turned wet with teardrops," she said.
Her son Yahya said he was not sure how long prison officials would allow his mother to remain on her out-of-prison visit.
Haleh told the Rooz reporter that in the last two years, Sahabi had been concerned about the Green Movement, while fully supporting it. "He had faith and believed in the young generation," she said. "This generation understands the course of dialogue and fairness and rejects lies," she quoted her father saying. She said that in her last visits from prison, her father who was still on his feet prior to his comma, talked about his own experience in prison as a way to ease her pain and predicament.
Sahabi was one of the most influential activists belonging to what is in Iran known as the national-religious groups. He was among the most popular and respected politicians and activists known for his honesty, sincerity and love for Iran. In a public letter in 2010 he prayed that God save Iran or end his life. "Where can I take the pain of the young women and men of this country," reflecting on the many imprisoned activists who have been jailed since the disputed 2009 presidential elections.
Reactions to Sahabi's Death
While government media in Iran refrained from publishing the news of Ezzatollah Sahabi's death, political and religious groups and individuals published condolences and memorial statements on the occasion.
A number of right-wing newspaper while not publishing the actual news of the death, published the condolence message of Hashemi Rafsanjani. Some reformist and independent newspapers in contrast published not only the news of the death of this reformist but also stories on his life and his role in Iran's political landscape, including photographs.
Iran Farda had many articles on Sahabi and mourned the passing of what he called was Iran's dignity.
The council that includes the religious and national political groups, which was headed by Sahabi, published a statement on the occasion, saying that "everybody was a Sahabi from now on." The statement said that Sahabi was an inclusive activist who wanted Iran for everybody, for which he spent many years of prison and torture. It said that he was concerned about the fate of Iran, during his final days, lamenting that he had not done anything for his homeland.
Shirin Ebadi, Iran's only Nobel Peace laureate also commented on the event saying his only concern was Iran, which may end up in ruins.
Hashemi Rafsanjani, the head of the powerful State Expediency Council also sent a condolence message, as did Ahmad Montazeri (the son of the late reformist grand ayatollah). The message of the latter said that those who subjected Sahabi and others to torture and suffering would be questioned in the other world.
The Teachers Association of the Qom Theological Seminary also issued a statement calling Sahabi a role model for the youth and someone who strived to advance the cause of his country.
Among senior clerics, ayatollah Sanei and Bayat Zanjani both sent wrongly worded condolence messages, praising Sahabi for his political ethics and freedom loving dreams for his country, who had played an important role in the establishment of the Islamic republic of Iran.
Iran's largest student alumni organization, Sazemane Danesh-Amookhtegane Iran Eslami (aka Advare Tahkim Vahdat) also sent a condolence message expressing pride and sympathy for a man who saw the prisons of the Shah's regime as well as those of the Islamic republic, because neither had any toleration for any dissent. The student group called on all students to participate in the memorial and mourning ceremonies related to Sahabi.
The Coordinating Council of the Green movement also issued a statement, calling Iranians to participate in the passing of Sahabi.
Iran Participation Front, which still has many of its supporters behind bars, also issued a statement lauding Sahabi's lifelong efforts for his country and Iranians.
Morning Star Online Tuesday 15 February 2011by Our Foreign Desk
Hard-line Iranian MPs urged the judiciary today to hand out death penalties to opposition leaders for fomenting unrest amid ongoing anti-government rallies which have so far claimed one life and left dozens wounded.
Clashes broke out between security forces and protesters on Monday when thousands of opposition supporters rallied in solidarity with the popular uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia.
The pro-government Fars News Agency reported that a bystander was shot dead at the hands of protesters.
Today the official IRNA news agency quoted MPs as saying that "Mehdi Karroubi and Mirhossein Mousavi are spreading corruption on earth and should be tried."
The charge of mofsed fel-arz, or spreading corruption that threatens social and political well-being, carries the death penalty in Iran.
Iranian police reportedly continued to use electric prods and tear gas against protesters in Tehran today in an attempt to prevent scattered demonstrations from coalescing.
Jailed Iranian trade union leader Mansour Osanloo has been taken to hospital after suffering chest pains this weekend that may have been caused by a heart attack.
International Transport Federation general secretary David Cockroft said that if Mr Osanloo, who has been locked up for four years, "hadn't had his life threatened, been beaten, arrested, re-arrested and held for years he would today be a well man.
"His maltreatment is part of a campaign to crush his voice and that of his trade union, the Vahed Syndicate."
If US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has the interests of the Iranian people at heart, she should stop claiming the brave campaigners on the streets of Tehran, Isfahan and other cities as her allies.
Her opportunism is used by Iran's Supreme Leader regime to falsely paint the demonstrators as US stooges.
Clinton claims that the Obama administration took a consistent line as revolutionary events unfolded in Egypt.
It was against violence, it supported universal human rights for the Egyptian people and it backed political change that would guarantee positive outcomes.
And she insists that Washington is committed to those three principles for Iran.
For some reason, the secretary of state sees no need to include the peoples of Yemen, Bahrain, Algeria, Jordan, Libya and Saudi Arabia in this festival of peace, human rights and positive outcomes.
If she had not already rewritten history, she would recall that Washington was paralysed in the face of Egyptian mass resistance to the brutal Mubarak dictatorship that the US had succoured for three decades.
Against violence?
Mubarak's Egypt was Washington's partner in crime in torturing extraordinary rendition victims.
It routinely brutalised its own citizens while its thugs murdered hundreds of people during the Liberation Square protests.
When Clinton observed today: "History has shown us that repression often sows the seeds for revolution down the road," she could have been speaking of Egypt, but she wasn't.
As usual, she was referring to Iran, with which the US is obsessed.
While Mubarak's brutality was rewarded with a £1.5bn US annual arms handout, Tehran has faced decades of sanctions, leading many to imagine mistakenly that the Iranian regime is an anti-imperialist stronghold.
Consider Khamenei's response to the popular upsurges in Tunisia and Egypt, which he saw as drawing their inspiration from Iran's regime and opening the way to an Islamic state.
Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood rejected this interpretation, speaking of "the Egyptian people's revolution not an Islamic revolution."
It stressed that all strands of religious belief, Muslim and Christian, together with secular political groups were involved.
The insincerity of Khamenei's welcome for revolutionary change in north Africa was exemplified by his government's ban on a demonstration proposed by opposition figures Mir-Hussein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi.
Both were subject to house arrest and were refused permission to leave their homes by police.
Despite the ban and a paramilitary show of strength along the main road linking Tehran's Revolution Square and Liberation Square, thousands of people took to the streets, where security forces used tear gas, batons and firearms to reassert control.
The protest, supported by all banned progressive organisations, chanted slogans proclaiming death to the dictator, comparing Khamenei to Mubarak and Tunisia's Ben Ali and urging the police to back the people as Egypt's soldiers had done.
As in north Africa, the growing gulf between rich and poor in Iran proved a mobilising factor, with the government worsening the situation recently by withdrawing price subsidies for electricity, bread and petrol.
The theocratic regime has attempted to frighten the opposition by a wave of executions - 86 so far this year - and dozens of government MPs demonstrated in parliament, demanding that Mousavi and Karroubi be hanged as "corrupt."
Regime change from theocratic dictatorship to popular democracy is as vital for Iran as the other countries demanding change, but there must be no interference by the US in this process.
Iranian Dissident Says Planned March Will Test Regime
By NEIL MacFARQUHAR February 8, 2011
Mehdi Karroubi, an Iranian opposition leader, said Tuesday that a demonstration planned in Tehran next week, nominally in solidarity with the protest movements in Egypt and Tunisia, was a test both for the Iranian government and its opponents.
Since Tehran is painting events in Cairo and elsewhere as the long-awaited regional blossoming of its own Islamic Revolution, to deny a permit for such a march would show that its position in support of the Arab movements is fake, Mr. Karroubi said in a rare interview from Tehran, conducted via an Internet video link.
For the Iranian opposition, events in Cairo mirror the post-election protest movement in Iran in 2009, not the 1979 Islamic Revolution, and could give new life to the Green movement for political reform, which Mr. Karroubi said had largely been battered into submission by government oppression.
"Any kind of event that involves the rise of the people and the fight against dictatorship in the Muslim world and in the Arab world is in our benefit," said Mr. Karroubi, 72, speaking in Persian from his home, where he is largely isolated. "Next Monday will be a test for the Green movement - if the government issues a permit, there will be a huge demonstration and it will show how alive the Green movement is."
Both sides in Iran are invested in the outcome in Egypt because of possible repercussions at home. There is an imperfect connection between the two worlds: the ancient enmity between Persians and Arabs has extended into the modern era, amplified by the fact that most Iranians are Shiite Muslims while Arab countries are overwhelmingly Sunni.
But events in one can echo in the other. For instance, Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has gained widespread popularity among Arabs in recent years for his tough posture toward the United States and Israel.
Tehran has tried to leverage its stance on the Arab-Israeli dispute into a means to influence Arab countries. Now it seeks to portray the political unrest in Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere as the long-delayed rippling of the Islamic Revolution through the neighborhood. Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, gave a prayer sermon last Friday lauding the demonstrators.
Mr. Karroubi, a former presidential candidate and Parliament speaker, said that all the news in the official Iranian media tends to highlight statements from Islamic organizations and focus on Western concerns that the Muslim Brotherhood is about to triumph in Egypt. Hence the pressure on the Iranian government to allow the protest march through downtown Tehran to go forward on Monday despite the risk that it could be transformed into an antigovernment rally of a kind not seen in a year.
"If they are not going to allow their own people to protest, it goes against everything they are saying, and all they are doing to welcome the protests in Egypt is fake," Mr. Karroubi said.
Some analysts and opposition members criticized the planned march and suggested that the government was unlikely to issue a permit, further demoralizing the movement. It is also unclear how many people might turn out, and there is some sense that the Green movement lacks the kind of clear aims that inspired protesters in Egypt.
"There is no consensus in the Iranian opposition of what they are trying to achieve - is it the reform of the Islamic republic, the end of the Islamic republic?" said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "It is tough to recruit people to the street for ambiguous ends."
Mr. Karroubi, while conceding that public activism had faded in the face of a harsh crackdown, said the Greens were still working for the kinds of basic rights they have always sought: free elections, freedom of assembly and freedom of speech.
The movement has tried to highlight the incongruity between the Iranian government's oppression at home and the fact that it welcomes political protests elsewhere.
The Web site of Mir Hussein Moussavi, the other main opposition leader, recently displayed two pictures side by side. One showed the Egyptian police beating a protester, while the other was a similar photo of Tehran security forces. The Egyptian protester was labeled "heroic" while the one in Iran was an "agent of imperialism."
Mr. Karroubi said he was living under near house arrest, with two or three cars full of guards outside his house for most of the day, turning many visitors away. He had not talked with a foreign journalist in about six months, he said, although he has occasionally answered questions via e-mail. For the video interview, he wrapped a headset around the back of his neck because it would not fit over his white turban.
Mr. Karroubi said he was able to plan the call for a protest with Mr. Moussavi because the two had met recently at a wake, but otherwise they have had limited contact. They have not decided yet whether a march through downtown Tehran should be silent, he said.
Should the young Egyptian protesters succeed in fomenting change, that would bring added pressure on the Iranian government, Mr. Karroubi said. It would mean that both Turkey and Egypt, the most populous states in the region, are more democratic than Iran.
"It will show that Iran has been left behind, that it has not gone forward with the principles of the revolution that everything should be based on the vote of the people," he said.
Still, he noted that while a failure of Arab protests would be a setback for the Greens, the reform movement would still continue.
"It could have a bad effect in Iran, but not that strong," he said. "We have our own demands and our own desire for freedom in our own society - we were promised freedom with the revolution and never got it."
Artin Afkhami contributed reporting from Washington.
130 academics appeal to Khamenei for release Mr. Ebrahim Yazdi
January 25, 2011
The Supreme Leader, Ayatullah Sayyed Ali Khamenei
We are writing to appeal to you for the immediate and unconditional release of Dr. Ebrahim Yazdi and all prisoners of conscience in the Islamic Republic of Iran whose sole offence is to speak out peacefully against the policies of your government. Their detention and abuse is an unjustifiable violation of internationally accepted norms of human rights and international law and is surely an affront to all religions that are based on the principles of justice, legality, and compassion. Furthermore, the detention of these prisoners of conscience is in violation of Iran's own constitution and laws as well as Iran's international obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, both of which the Islamic Republic of Iran has formally endorsed.
Ebrahim Yazdi is a man of honor who has for over 60 years devoted his life to democratic reforms in Iran and the promotion of respect for human rights throughout the Muslim world. Before the revolution, for two decades, he lived in exile where he worked tirelessly to expose the abusive rule of the Pahlavi monarchy. After the 1979 Revolution, he served with dignity and loyalty as Iran's Foreign Minister under Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan. While in office, these two exceptional political leaders, opposed on principle the summary and arbitrary executions of enemies of the Iranian regime being carried out at that time. They later resigned in protest against the seizure of the US embassy in November 1979.
Ebrahim Yazdi is today the Secretary-General of the Freedom Movement of Iran (Nehzat-e Azadi Iran). He and the Freedom Movement have unequivocally insisted that their activities rely only on legal and non-violent methods of political opposition. He opposed the continuation of the war with Iraq after the expulsion of Iraqi forces from Iranian territory in 1982. As a believer in national reconciliation he has devoted himself to dialogue and mutual respect between Iran's various political and social groups and has championed social and political reform and minority rights. For over thirty years, Ebrahim Yazdi has been a voice for moderation inside Iran, rejecting all initiatives by Iran's governing elites that lead to violence, cause enmity within the society, and involve denials of human dignity. He has bravely criticized illegal government actions and the concentration of power in the hands of a few.
Dr. Yazdi has been arrested three times since the 2009 presidential election in Iran. At the time of his most recent arrest on October 1, 2010, he was attending a prayer service in a private house in the city of Isfahan. Police violently attacked the home and took him and several others into custody under the pretext that this was "an unauthorized prayer service". Ebrahim Yazdi is now 80 years of age and in poor health. Indeed, at the age of 80, Dr. Yazdi is the oldest political prisoner in Iran and one of the oldest captives held anywhere in the world. Your government has subjected him to repeated and lengthy imprisonment as well as debilitating interrogations, definitely contributing to his need for emergency open heart surgery. Continued imprisonment may result in further severe deteriorations in his health.
We respectfully appeal to you to instruct your government to release Ebrahim Yazdi and all other non-violent prisoners of conscience in Iran, including Nasrin Sotoodeh, Mohammad Nourizad, Mostafa Tajzadeh, Abdullah Momeni, Majid Tavakkoli, Farid Taheri, Emad Bahavar, Bahareh Hedayat, Jafar Panahi, Leila Tavassoli, Mahdiyeh Golroo, Mohsen Mirdamadi, Feizullah Arab Sorkhi, Emaddedin Baghi, Mansour Osanloo, Issa Saharkhiz, Masoud Bastani, Ahmad Zeidabadi, Hoda Saber, Nazanin Khosravani, Mohsen Safaii Farahani, Reihaneh Tabatabai, Sajedeh Kinoush Rad, Mohsen Aminzadeh, Abdollah Ramazanzadeh, Farzaneh Roustaii, Mehdi Mahmoodian, Zhila Bani Yaghoob, Bahman Ahmadi Amoui, and Fariborz Raiis Dana.
We appeal to you to end this disregard for human rights that will eventually destroy all trust between your government and Iran's citizens and block national dialogue and reform through reliance on the democratic institutions and practices of civil society. Wherever normal political activities of citizens is prevented and punished, other less peaceful means of change become inevitable. The regime of the late Shah of Iran is a telling example of the political consequences of such a degeneration of the Iranian governing process. Against all odds, with admirable courage, and at great human sacrifice, the people of Iran were ultimately successful in removing Shah's powerful, yet abusive regime. The goal of the Iranian Revolution was to realize its inspiring vision of independence, freedom, constitutional governance, and popular sovereignty. Again, we appeal to you to release all prisoners of conscience in your prisons and to start a forthright dialogue with the Iranian people to bring that noble vision back to
life and turn it finally into a reality. The people of Iran deserve nothing less.
Richard Falk
Albert G. Milbank Professor of International Law Emeritus, Princeton University
Research Professor, Global Studies, University of California-Santa Barbara
A copy was sent to:
1. Ayatullah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Head of the Assembly of Experts and Expediency Council, Islamic Republic of Iran
2. Ayatullah Sadeqh Larijani, Head of Judiciary, Islamic Republic of Iran
3. Dr. Mahmood Ahmadinejad, President, Islamic Republic of Iran
4. Dr. Ali Larijani, Speaker of the Majlis, Islamic Republic of Iran
5. Mr. Mohammad Khazaee, Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the United Nations
This statement has been sponsored by 130 eminent academics from across the world.
World Festival of Youth support the struggle for democracy in Iran!
The struggle of Iranian youth and university students attracted a lot of attention during 17th World Festival of Youth and Students held in December 13- 21, in South Africa. Representaives of 50 democratic and progressive youth organisations from Portugal, Britain, Ireland, Norway, Germany, Russia, South Africa, India, Nepal, Sudan, Iraq, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, USA, Venezuela, Western Sahara, and many others supported a comprehensive statement in solidarity with their counterparts in Iran.
We, the undersigned representatives of the Youth and Students organizations participating in the 17th World Festival of Youth and Students in South Africa, 13- 21 December 2010, express our solidarity with the youth and students of Iran in their struggle for peace, democracy and socialism.
We are horrified to learn that hundreds of Iranian youth and university students have been arrested in Iran in recent weeks and are subjected to tortures and maltreatment for just demanding justice and respect for freedom of expression and organization.
We are concerned to learn that in Iran trade unions, women, and youth and student organizations are attacked for daring to support the demands of their members for peace and progress. University campuses are occupied by the police and military forces.
We have learned that the hundreds of leaders and well known activists of the Iranian university student movement have been arrested and are subjected to degrading tortures to force them to renounce their views. Miss Bahareh Hedayat, Milad Asadi, Majid Tavakkoli, and other leaders of Iran's university students movement, have been sentenced to long term imprisonment. They are imprisoned just because they demand basic democratic rights.
There are also confirmed reports that trade unions are dissolved and are not allowed to operate freely in the country. Trade union leaders, such as Mansour Osanlou, the leader of the Public Transport Drivers Union in Tehran are also imprisoned.
We declared our support for the popular struggle for human rights, justice, democracy, peace in line with the policies of the festival movements and WFDY.
We call for the immediate release of all political prisoners in Iran and for the anti-communist dictatorial regime in Iran to fully respect the UN Charter and the UN Convention on Human Rights, and all ILO conventions on workers' rights, of which it is a signatory.
We declare our total and unequivocal opposition to any foreign intervention in Iran under any pretext. We believe that such adventures are against the interests of the Iranian people. We declare our opposition to the economic sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council and the European Union and all threats of military actions against Iran.
We emphasize that the future direction of political developments in Iran can and should be decided only by the Iranian people themselves. Neither theocratic dictatorship nor intervention by any foreign power should feature in the future of the country.
Iran's Security Forces Arrest Death Row Victim's Family
Habibollah Latifi, a Kurdish law student, was convicted on 3 July 2008 of Moharebeh (enmity to God) by the Sanandaj Revolutionary Court for alleged association with banned groups and sentenced to death. His execution was scheduled for 26 December 2010.
On the morning of Sunday 26 December, in addition to members of Latifi's family, hundreds of people from across Kurdistan gathered in front the Sanandaj Prison and demanded that the authorities halt Latifi's execution. The prison governor then appeared in front of the crowd and promised that his execution would not take place. However, at 10:00 pm. that night, over 30 security personnel raided Latifi's father's home and arrested members of his family and others present at the house. After searching the house, the security personnel also confiscated the family's computer.
Reports from Sanandaj indicate that, suspiciously, Internet connections have since slowed to snail's pace and telephone connections have also been interrupted. There are also unconfirmed reports of multiple arrests of activists in the city.
Habibollah Latifi, who was studying at Azad University in the south western province of Ilam, was arrested on 23 October 2007 in Sanandaj, the capital of Kurdistan province. His trial was held behind closed doors and his attorney and his family were prevented from attending.
On December 24, 2010, Amnesty International called on the Iranian authorities to halt Latifi's execution. Malcolm Smart, Amnesty International's Director for the Middle East and North Africa said, "We are urgently appealing to the Iranian authorities to show clemency, halt the immanent execution of Habibollah Latifi, and commute his death sentence." Malcolm Smart added, "It is clear that Habibollah Latifi did not receive a fair trial by international standards, which makes the news of his impending execution all the more abhorrent."
According to news from Iran, the regime has temporarily postponed the execution. This is at least in part the result of international protest against the sentence and the fact that Jalal Talibani, the Iraqi President, himself a Kurd, has asked for a stay of execution.
Negotiations on Iran's nuclear program are due to start again shortly, and once again the European Union is called upon as a "mediator." This is no minor challenge. With Iran insisting on discussing Israel's nuclear capacity and the United States preparing a tougher uranium swap agreement, a deal seems as far away as ever. Nevertheless, the EU, a lead negotiator since 2002, is a trusted US ally as well as Iran's most important trade partner, so no actor appears better placed to broker a mutually beneficial agreement. But is the EU still willing to play the part?
From Mediation to Confrontation Up to 2004, EU mediation appeared rather successful. Iran had acknowledged Western concerns over its nuclear intentions, temporarily and voluntarily suspended uranium enrichment, and opened up to more stringent inspections. In turn, the EU recognized that suspension was not a legal obligation under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) while welcoming it as a voluntary confidence-building measure in the process of verifying Iran's commitment to peaceful nuclear technology. Neither the United Nations nor the International Atomic Energy Agency found proof of a nuclear weapons program, and the way seemed paved for a comprehensive agreement. In a surprise move, however, the EU suddenly abandoned its mediating stance and agreed on a common Iran strategy with then US president George W. Bush. The EU's 2005 proposed Framework for a Long-Term Agreement bluntly asked Iran to go beyond its NPT obligations and renounce pursuit of any nuclear fuel-cycle activities. Changing the legal basis of the negotiations, away from the NPT, guaranteed, ex ante, Iranian refusal of any "generous" proposal. Over time, incentives offered to Iran in exchange for abandoning its nuclear activities were gradually decreased as well. The 2005 Framework still promised Iran support for its World Trade Organization candidacy and facilitated access to advanced technologies and spare parts for civil aviation. It also guaranteed enhanced trade relations, recognized Tehran's role in Iraq and Afghanistan, and spoke of a possible regional security agreement. In the 2006 5+1 Package, in contrast, security guarantees virtually disappeared. In exchange for accepting rigorous inspections and suspending uranium enrichment, the 5+1 Package offered little more than a "conference to promote dialogue and co-operation."(1) Promises of economic cooperation were now worded far more vaguely as "improving Iran's access to the international economy," "the possible removal of restrictions," and "possible access to US and European agricultural products, technology and farm equipment."(2) The June 2008 Package was no better. It even explicitly suspended Iran's rights under the NPT until international confidence in its nuclear program would be restored while disregarding Iranian concerns about the Israeli nuclear arsenal. Rather than trying to work out a mutually beneficial solution, it seems Brussels used its position in the negotiations to manoeuvre Tehran into a corner and make sanctions "unavoidable." In this carefully orchestrated scenario of increasing demands and decreasing incentives, Iran's 2009 acceptance of the West's uranium-swap proposal caught the EU, and indeed the whole West, by surprise. In order to avoid an agreement, European leaders virulently denounced Iran's request for guarantees on when and how its uranium would be returned and joined the US in a rush to sanctions. Even when a nuclear swap deal was officially brokered by Brazil and Turkey, the EU still refused to take "yes" for an answer. Jason Ditz quite accurately observed that "in the long run it seems the only objection to Turkey's deal was that it stood in the way of the sanctions, which seem to have been an end unto themselves."(3) Indeed, not satisfied with UN Security Council Resolution 1929, the Union approved "by some way the most far-reaching sanctions adopted by the EU against any country."(4 ) These decisions indicate a major shift in EU foreign policy. Long reluctant to adopt coercive measures, the EU has today become one of the most ardent advocates of crippling sanctions. What underlying policy objective led to this policy shift?
Making Sense of Sacrifice Whatever the objective may be, it must be important enough for Europe to sacrifice its economic interests. In 2007, the German Finance Ministry calculated that tough sanctions on the Iranian economy could cost Germany over €2 billion.(5) Even more striking than the strictly financial cost is the loss in market share. Laurent Maillard, writing for AFP, describes how Western sanctions have opened the way for Chinese companies. Between 2006 and 2007 EU-Iran trade decreased by around 7 percent.(6) Italian-Iranian trade, still on the rise in 2007, equally dropped from €6 billion to less than €4 billion in 2009. Over the same year, German-Iranian trade dropped another 5.8%. Although EU trade with Iran increased again by around 10% during the first half of the current year, this was mainly a consequence of changes in oil prices and exchange rates on the one hand and a lack of compliance with political directives on the other. The Italian government for example vouched that Italy's bigger companies had suspended their transactions and that the rise concerned primarily small and medium business owners not tied to the government. In turn, Chinese competitors, such as ZhenHua Oil, are steadily replacing EU companies. Significantly, and in sharp contrast with EU sanctions, a Russian-Chinese partnership between Lukoil and Zhuhai Zhenrong resumed fuel supplies to Iran just a few weeks after the EU adopted its latest unilateral sanctions. Iran's nuclear stance is unlikely to warrant the new policy. Even while nuclear talks were still ongoing, EU member states were already pushing their national companies for divestment.(7) Concern over Iran's nuclear program simply fails to justify these economic sacrifices. For all the hysteria surrounding it, there still is no proof of a military nuclear program. And even if such a program existed, knowledgeable experts such as Martin van Creveld and General John Abizaid, as well as Israeli policy-makers Ehud Barak and Tzipi Livni, have all admitted that an Iranian nuclear weapon poses no real threat to Western security interests.(8) Western nuclear superiority is such that an Iranian bomb would have a deterrent effect at most. In fact, rather than destabilize the region, an Iranian nuclear weapon might actually re-stabilize it by neutralizing Israel's comparative advantage. Like the 2003 Iraqi WMD crisis, the Iranian nuclear crisis is hence very much an artificially created crisis.
If not Tehran's nuclear stance, what then explains Europe's change of heart? The answer dates back to 2003. The Iraq war accentuated the fragmentation of EU foreign policy formulation. The Union simply split down the middle: France and Germany led the anti-war bloc, while the UK, Spain, and Central and Eastern European countries aligned with the US. In order to defend its interests in the world, the EU desperately needed a unified and autonomous foreign policy, yet the first serious Franco-German attempt at such a policy had failed utterly. Not only did Europe appear more fractured than ever, with EU-US relations at an all-time low, Washington made clear that it would not tolerate an independent EU military planning centre separate from NATO's SHAPE (Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe). General Henri Bentégeat, then President of the EU Military Committee, suggested a way out: "if France normalizes its relations with NATO, European defence projects will become easier to progress." And indeed as France reintegrated itself into NATO's military command, the EU Lisbon Treaty set up stronger military cooperation between EU member states, incorporated a European mutual defence clause, and created a single representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy to whom EU military chiefs report. In international affairs as well, the Union decided to take one step back: from a more independent stance on Iraq, Brussels returned to bandwagoning with the US on Iran. Sarkozy sought to square the circle thus: "The more we are friends with the Americans, the more we can be independent."(9)
Reaffirming transatlantic relations is hardly the only motive behind Europe's change of course. The recent Franco-British agreement on the creation of a Combined Joint Expeditionary Force preparing troops to deploy on operations together illustrates an increasing acceptance of the idea, even in Eurosceptic Britain, that EU member states need to stick together to defend their interests overseas. And just as Afghanistan is considered a test for the political will of NATO member states to sustain complex commitments together, the Iranian nuclear issue is thought to offer a similar chance to unite EU member states. The artificial sense of urgency surrounding it helps build a remarkable consensus among them. That consensus-building is facilitated by the central role that Iran plays in many of the (soft) security challenges facing EU member states. Energy is an obvious example. Since the Islamic Revolution, access to Iran's energy resources has had to be negotiated with a more nationalist government. In recent years, moreover, Tehran has gradually strengthened its negotiating position by diversifying its trade partners. The country went to great lengths to develop trade relations with non-Western powers such as India, Japan, and Turkey, as well as various African and Latin American nations. Not without success, as Sino-Iranian economic ties illustrate: while commercial ties between Beijing and Tehran amounted to only 400 million US dollars in the mid-nineties, bilateral trade between them surged to 14.4 billion US dollars in 2006 and 21.2 billion in 2009.(10)
Consequences for Europe were far-reaching. Tehran had never been keen on adapting its foreign policy to European security interests, but especially since 2004 increasing South-South cooperation has offered it the possibility to compete for political and economic influence. Politically, Iranian policy clashed head-on with the objectives of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP), designed to enlarge Europe's sphere of influence, in both Lebanon and Palestine. In a similar vein, Tehran helped Hezbollah defeat quasi-member state Israel, forced the West to the negotiating table over Iraq, and has the International Security Assistance Force, including most EU member states, asking for its support in Afghanistan. Iran's international relations complicate matters for the EU economically as well. Earlier this year, for example, Turkmenistan opened new export routes to Iran and China for its gas resources. By diversifying its markets, Ashgabat can now charge higher (market) prices for its gas. The European Union as well as Russia is an obvious loser.(11)
Choice and Consequence A challenge to Western predominance in the Middle East and Central Asia, Iran came to be perceived as a useful vehicle through which to solder relations with the US and strengthen foreign policy unity within Europe. Sanctions then became the logical policy choice. Used against about two dozen countries since 1980, they are not only the most widely accepted negative policy instrument among EU member states, but also perfectly in line with US policy. Insofar as they are designed to contain and weaken Iran, however, their effectiveness can be doubted. With the possible exception of Libya, sanctions alone have never been terribly effective in achieving policy or regime change. More often than not, they impoverish the population and strengthen the regime. Iran is unlikely to be an exception. Suspicious "that the West's focus on the nuclear issue is merely an excuse -- an opening wedge -- to achieve regime change," the Iranian government will not cede any ground without a fight.(12) Internally, it is extending the hold of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps over the country and its economy, a move paradoxically facilitated by the withdrawal of European companies. Internationally, it is using regional and international ties to circumvent sanctions. Sanctions alone are therefore unlikely to achieve the purpose intended by their architects. It is worth recalling, moreover, that, in Haiti, Yugoslavia, and, more recently, Iraq, sanctions merely constituted a first step towards military intervention.(13) In the last case, sanctions were especially instrumental in weakening Iraq's national defence and making military regime change less costly. Meanwhile, so as to increase European pressure on Iran, the German frigate Hessen jointed the US Sixth Fleet and France opened a permanent military base in the Persian Gulf. By choosing confrontation, the EU has entered a dangerous game. Far from serving as a mediator to avoid war, it may be engaged in preparing it.
Marc Botenga (Ph.D., IMT Institute for Advanced Studies-Lucca, Italy) is a Belgian political analyst. He spent over a year studying in Iran. This article first appeared in MR.< mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/botenga241110.html> The photograph is by Sebastien Niedlich.
Footnotes 1 Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, "The United States, Iran and the Middle East's New 'Cold War'," The International Spectator, Vol.45, No.1, March 2010, pp.75-87 (83). 2 Elements of a proposal to Iran as approved on 1 June 2006 at the meeting in Vienna of China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, the Unites States of America and the European Union Statement, Letter by P5+1 Partners on New Incentives Package for Iran, 17 June 2008. 3 Jason Ditz, "Iran Would Halt 20 Percent Uranium Enrichment for Fuel Swap," Antiwar.com, 28 July 2010. 4 BBC, "EU Tightens Sanctions over Iran Nuclear Programme," 26 July 2010. 5 Reuters, "Tough Iran Sanctions to Hit Germany Hard: Report," 24 November 2007. 6 Michel Makinsky, "French Trade and Sanctions against Iran," Meria Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, March 2009. 7 Clément Therme, "L'Iran: exportateur de gaz?" Note de l'Ifri, Paris, March 2008, p.24. 8 See for example Martin van Creveld, "The World Can Live With a Nuclear Iran," Forward, 28 September 2007; and Gidi Weitz and Na'ama Lanski, "Livni behind Closed Doors: Iran Nukes Pose Little Threat to Israel," Haaretz, 25 October 2007. 9 Michael Moran, "French Military Strategy and NATO Reintegration," Council on Foreign Relations, 12 March 2009. 10 Laurent Maillard, "China Takes over from West as Iran's Main Economic Partner," AFP, 15 March 2010. 11 Aleksandra Jarosiewicz, "China and Iran, Rather Than Russia, Will Be the Main Buyers of Turkmen Gas," Eastweek, Centre for Eastern Studies, 13 January 2010. 12 Shahram Chubin, "The Iranian Nuclear Riddle after June 12," The Washington Quarterly, Vol.33, No.1, January 2010, pp.163-172 (164). 13 Simon Chesterman and Beatrice Pouligny, The Politics of Sanctions, Policy Brief, International Peace Institute, May 2002.
A confidential report predicts the collapse of the Iranian economy
Written by Yves BOURDILLON « Les Echos » 12 October 2010
According to a confidential report to the Supreme Leader that Les Echos were given access to, the Iranian economy could well be "at the brink of collapse in a year's time" because of Western sanctions, if stringent [counter] measures are not taken.
A confidential report that was sent in late September to the Supreme Leader of the Iranian regime Ayatollah Ali Khamenei underlines the substantial risks of "economic collapse in less than a year from now" because of international sanctions forcing the country to abandon its nuclear programme. The report, which "Les Echos" had gained access to, comes from a usually well informed source in Tehran. It was written by economists from the Central Bank and from the Ministries of Economy and Oil Industry and indicates that the UN sanctions and those added last July by the United States and the European Union weigh heavily on the trade, finance and oil-producing sectors. The latter sector, responsible for two-thirds of the state revenue, suffers from the withdrawal of Western companies, forced to choose between their interests in the United States and Iran. While the French Total, Anglo-Dutch Shell, the Norwegian Statoil and the Italian ENI have suspended all investment, soon to be followed by the Japanese Inpex,
lack of foreign maintenance and spare parts production weighs on the oil production, which fell from 4.2 million barrels per day in mid-2009 to 3.5 million this summer.
Western banks refuse all contact
The fuel supply (due to a lack of investment in refining, Tehran, although the holder of one third of the world reserves in black gold, has to import a third of its consumption) is becoming problematic. Previously providing half of these imports, the Turkey-based company Tupras, despite being in an allied country, suspended its operations in late August, after the same had been done by the Swiss Glencore and Vitol, India's Reliance and the Russian Lukoil. The fuel now comes from Turkmenistan, China, Venezuela, or is being smuggled in from Iraq.
In late September the Korean Kia and the German Thyssen followed the example of Caterpillar, Toyota, Daimler-Chrysler and Hewlett-Packard by suspending their commercial activities. Allianz, Munich Ré or Lloyds are now refusing to provide cargo and aircraft supplying Iran, and while financing external trade has become very complicated, all Western banks are refusing contact with Iran. The banks of the United Arab Emirates, through which half of Iran's imports flow, have cut ties with the country two weeks ago, which has resulted in a shortage of green bank notes (and the sharp rise of the dollar to 10,900 rials).
Towards shortages and countless bankruptcies
The regime also warned on Saturday that it would suppress demonstrations and strikes by traders who are expected to follow the removal of expensive (10% of GDP) consumer subsidies for food and fuel from 23 October.
Quantifying the potential impact of sanctions as tens of billions of dollars over the whole year, the confidential report recommends that the Ayatollah Khamenei, number one in the country even before President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, takes "drastic action to avoid a serious crisis", which, even without paralyzing the country, would be marked by countless bankruptcies and shortages in the coming twelve, or even eight months, according to some experts. It would have to be a case of urgently "converting the foreign trade focus" to China, Russia and India, "to increase the stocks of food and fuel" and, despite the technical obstacles," to convert to other currencies", such as the yen, the central bank reserves currently held in dollars and euros.
Iran: Lawyers' defence work repaid with loss of freedom
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL October 1, 2010
Joint Statement by Shirin Ebadi, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), the Iranian League for the Defence of Human Rights (LDDHI), the Union Internationale des Avocats and the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT).
Nobel Peace Laureate and Iranian lawyer, Dr Shirin Ebadi, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, the International Commission of Jurists, the International Federation for Human Rights, the Iranian League for the Defence of Human Rights (LDDHI), the Union Internationale des Avocats, and the World Organisation Against Torture, today condemned the continued detention without charge or trial of human rights lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh in Iran and called for her immediate and unconditional release as she is held solely in connection with her work defending others.
They warned that her arrest is the latest step in a series of measures intended to prevent Iranians - particularly those critical of the authorities - from being able to access appropriate, competent legal representation, a basic right and important fair trial guarantee.
Nasrin Sotoudeh, the mother of two young children, has defended many high profile human rights campaigners and political activists, including journalist Isa Saharkhiz and Heshmatollah Tabarzadi, leader of the banned Democratic Front of Iran. The former was sentenced and the latter tried after Nasrin Sotoudeh's arrest. She has also represented juvenile offenders facing the death penalty and is acting as the lawyer for Shirin Ebadi in several cases.
She has been held in Tehran's Evin Prison since 4 September 2010 after she presented herself in compliance with a court summons. Since then she has only been allowed to make three telephone calls - two to her home and one to her lawyer, but so far has not been allowed visits by her family or her lawyer.
The precise reasons for her arrest are still unclear, but the summons listed "propaganda against the system" and "gathering and colluding with the aim of harming state security". These vaguely worded charges are among several articles in the Islamic Penal Code in Iran relating to "national security" which criminalize activities that are nothing more than the peaceful exercise of the rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly. Such provisions have previously been used to prosecute lawyers for statements and activities in defence of their clients.
Nasrin Sotoudeh had previously been warned to stop representing Shirin Ebadi, or face reprisals. In turn, since her arrest, her husband Reza Khandan and her lawyer Nasim Ghanavi have been warned against speaking up publicly about her ordeal. Reza Khandan has even been summoned for interrogation in Branch 1 of the Revolutionary Court, which he has described as a "series of threats".
Recent months have seen increased persecution of defence lawyers. Mohammad Oliyaeifard, a lawyer and board member of the Committee for the Defence of Political Prisoners in Iran, a human rights organization,is serving a one-year prison sentence imposed for speaking out against the execution of one of his clients during interviews with international media. His client, juvenile offender Behnoud Shojaee, had been hanged for a murder he committed when he was 17 years old. Mohammad Olyaeifard has defended many prisoners of conscience, including independent trade unionists, as well as juvenile offenders. His lawyer is Nasrin Sotoudeh.
Two other lawyers, both colleagues of Shirin Ebadi in the NGO Centre for Human Rights Defenders (CHRD), which they all helped to found, are also at risk of prosecution for their human rights work. Abdolfattah Soltani and Mohammad Ali Dadkhah were both arrested after the disputed presidential election of June 2009. Though both were later released on bail, they have court cases pending against them on similarly vaguely worded charges which could lead to their imprisonment and eventual disbarment. Prominent lawyer, Mohammad Seyfzadeh, who is also a founder member of the CHRD, is facing trial for "forming an association ... whose aim is to harm national security" and "being a member of an association whose aim is to harm national security" in relation to the CHRD. He was banned from leaving the country in 2009, as has Dr Hadi Esmailzadeh, another member of the CHRD.
The authorities are also resorting to other methods to prevent lawyers from practising their profession freely. Such measures include unwarranted tax investigations under which the authorities freeze the lawyers' bank accounts and other financial assets and which could lead to the disbarring of a lawyer. Shirin Ebadi has herself been placed under such a financial stranglehold, when the authorities froze a bank account containing her Nobel Prize winnings, in violation of the law. Before her arrest, another victim of this tactic, Nasrin Sotoudeh discovered that not only were her financial affairs being investigated but that 30 other lawyers had cases of tax irregularities being prepared against them.
In concert with this, the authorities have for years been attempting to limit the independence of the Iranian Bar Association by barring candidates from standing for election to senior
positions on discriminatory grounds, including their imputed political opinions and their peaceful human rights activities. For example, in 2008, Mohammad Dadkhah, Dr Hadi Esmailzadeh, Fatemeh Gheyrat and Abdolfattah Soltani - all members of the CHRD - were disqualified from standing for the Central Board of the Bar Association because of their activities as human rights defenders.
In June 2009, less than a week after the disputed presidential election, new by-laws to the 1955 law establishing the independence of the Iranian Bar Association were adopted which would give the Judiciary the power to approve membership of the Bar and lawyers' licensing applications, thereby undermining the independence of the Bar. Following opposition by the Bar and individual lawyers, in July 2009, it was reported that implementation of the by-laws had been suspended for six months. They are believed to remain suspended, but could be implemented at any time.
Shirin Ebadi has not returned to Iran since the presidential election, as she would be unable to continue her human rights work.
Other lawyers have been forced into exile for their own safety. Shadi Sadr left the country after she was detained for 11 days in July 2009. Mohammad Mostafaei was also forced to flee in July 2010, after his involvement in the case of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, an Iranian woman sentenced to stoning, led the authorities to seek his arrest, arresting of his wife and her brother in his place.
Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Iran is a state party, provides for the right of an accused person to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing;
The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers provide that lawyers must be allowed to carry out their work "without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference." In addition, it affirms the right of lawyers to freedom of expression, also provided for in Article 19 of the ICCPR, which includes "the right to take part in public discussion of matters concerning the law, the administration of justice and the promotion and protection of human rights".
The UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Lawyers and Judges has not been permitted to visit the country despite the Standing Invitation issued by Iran to all UN human rights mechanisms in 2002. Since August 2005, no UN human rights expert has been allowed to undertake a visit to Iran. Currently eight procedures have pending requests to visit, which have not yet been acceded to by the Iranian authorities.
"I, who have defended many prisoners of conscience such as the seven imprisoned Baha'i leaders and others, would face unacceptable restrictions on my human rights work if I returned to Iran, if I were not arrested," said Shirin Ebadi. "Now my own lawyer - who also represents many other activists - is detained, and her lawyer has been threatened with arrest for defending her. Where is the justice if your lawyer is arrested for defending you?"
The organizations said that by making lawyers pay the price of their own freedom for doing their job, the authorities are further undermining an already deeply flawed justice system. With some lawyers behind bars and others threatened, their clients - who are themselves mostly victims of human rights violations - are left defenceless at the mercy of the authorities.
Iran Diplomacy Sunday 3 Oct 2010 An interview with Sadegh Kharrazi, former Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations (1997- 2002)
IRD: Mr. Kharrazi, you have had years of diplomatic experience a foreign ministry veteran. From your point of view, how important is consistency in diplomacy? And has our diplomatic apparatus shown consistency?
SK: Naturally, concentration in foreign policy and realization of objectives is senseless without existence of a consistent bureaucratic structure which precludes parallel moves and assigns responsibility to diplomacy-savvy officials.
Apparently, we face three types of countries in the international community: friends, enemies and rivals; but even our friends have different priorities and engage in occasional rivalries with us to advance their national interests. Fragmented decision-making loci can severely hurt our national interests. Of course Iran is not the only country facing this problem. Take US for example: Secretary of State, CIA, Pentagon and the National Security Council are moving in parallel diplomatic tracks. This holds true even for countries such as Britain and France.
As a general rule, I think this is the case in countries where foreign policy is ideological to some extent, where diplomacy is supposed to convey a message and when a country aspires to have strong cultural, political and ideological presence in the global community.
Iran's story is the same. The Iranian National Security Council is now an executive power. This is not of course something ushered in by Ahmadinejad. Since the ceasefire negotiations between Iran and Iraq [in the late 1980s] and later, in the nuclear talks with West, the Council has obtained an independent identity. I'm not of course denying its invaluable service, but dual approaches and redundant measures have always existed. Iranian presidents in particular have always demanded prompt action, but diplomacy is a place to practice patience and test the waters before taking the next step. The accumulation of experience in the diplomatic apparatus has always functioned as a barrier against realization of hasty decisions. In the diplomatic body, political phenomena are defined as projects which cannot transgress a certain procedure. The occasional tensions between head of the government (either Mir Hossein Musavi, Hashemi Rafsanjani or Khatami) have always existed. Such arguments have been more conspicuous in Ahmadinejad's administration for specific reasons though.
IRD: Is that why Ahmadinejad appointed his so-called 'special representatives'?
SK: Appointing special representatives is not something new. We have had special envoys for Afghanistan and Caspian affairs before. The problem is that Ahmadinejad appointed too many representatives and assigned them with executive power which constitutes parallel diplomacy. Unlike their predecessors, these representatives are independent from the foreign ministry. Of course with the Leadership's [Ayatollah Khamenei] intervention the controversy over the appointments came to an end. But as it seems, the disagreement between Ahmadinejad and foreign minister [Manouchehr Mottaki] is serious.
The president feels that foreign ministry is either against his convictions or shows lethargy in following the orders. Ahmadinejad has always shown haste in his decisions. He likes to cut through the structures, but I'm not sure if that serves our national interests well. The point is, foreign ministry is pregnant with experience. Unfortunately their valuable diplomatic capital is not appreciated as it ought to. All the country's achievements to date are the result of collective efforts of the ministry's diplomatic experts. And experience is not something you can achieve with a directive.
IRD: Mr. Kharrazi. It seems that diplomacy, as other fields of management during the post-Revolution years, has found the correct direction only through trial and error and that's the cause of its structural defects.
SK: I beg to disagree. Up until the present administration, foreign diplomacy used to be a disciplined field. Late Emam Khomeini's strategic visions in diplomacy will never age. Same is for the conceptual discipline of the Supreme Leadership [Ayatollah Khamenei] who has designated dignity, wisdom and expediency as our diplomatic principles and sharply traces diplomatic developments. Add to this Hashemi Rafsanjani's and Khatami's experience. So I think trial and error rarely was the favorite approach in our diplomatic profile. Compared with domains such as economy and culture, trial and error has been much less.
Since the very first day [of the Revolution], we had clear diplomatic goals, despite the fact that there were perhaps different approaches or foreign interventions that troubled us. But the fact is, no more is there an unreal idealism or global aspirations. We are not walking on the clouds and our feet are now on the ground. We are living in a world where there aren't many friends and neither are there decent rivals or wise enemies. So we should adapt our ideal point of view to the realities of the world we are living in. It's an interminable task.
IRD: Haven't we also made enemies?
SK: That is true. Unrefined remarks have made some other countries hostile towards Iran. Let me tell you a story: when Mohammad Ali Raja'ei was elected as Iran's president [in 1981], the then president of France, Mr. [Francois] Mitterrand sent him a letter of congratulation. Mr. Raja'ei responded with a harsh letter in which he had slammed superpowers and France. Emam Khomeini summoned the Iranian president and censured him for responding the French president's diplomatic etiquette in that fashion. Mr. Raja'ei's excuse was that he had acted based on the revolutionary doctrines he had learnt from Emam [Khomeini]. Emam Khomeini response was that he was only a cleric and the president's behavior should be diplomatic and measured. Interestingly, I heard this story from the Supreme Leader [Ayatollah Khamenei] in a private meeting during the time I was Iran's ambassador to France.
Diplomacy needs politesse; otherwise the Iranian citizens have to pay for the harsh words uttered. The truth is that the proactive or 'offensive' strategy adopted by the ninth and tenth administrations [of Ahmadinejad] is full of paradoxes and it's hard to be optimistic about its achievements. The Holocaust controversy was truly objectionable. A part of history which was never a real concern of Iran and the Muslim World, something about the Europeans' crimes against the Jews, provoked tension and led to crisis. Six million or six, Jews' murder was a crime in nature. We just gave Israel and international Zionist pressure groups the best excuses to pressurize Iran.
IRD: How is it that in many international encounters we resist a demand, pay the price and later on decide to give in. A recent case was the nuclear fuel swap. Is this because of the parallel moves?
SK: Unfortunately our diplomatic strategy suffers from chaos, the fruit of abstract diplomatic understanding.. Diplomacy is no place for haste, we need measured steps. Otherwise, tension will impose itself on our foreign relations and subsequently leads to interruption of the development process in Iran.
IRD: Three Iranian diplomats have defected to Norway within the recent months. Did you know them in person? Why do such incidents happen for Iran?
SK: I had no acquaintance with them, but I have to say that is no new story and it's not important either. It happens to many other countries, not only Iran; like the Saudi Arabian diplomat who is seeking asylum in the United States. I think they are taking unfair advantage of the situation for personal interests. These diplomats were no high-ranking officials. However, the foreign ministry should be more watchful to stop further similar incidents.
IRD: Why don't we see a same thing happen in other countries?
SK: The chain of defections was rooted in the opportunistic behavior and financial interests of these diplomats. They will regret their decision one day. West is not appealing to patriots. Of course, neglecting the role of insider experts and dismissive attitudes can also bear such fruits.
IRD: The official day of Dialogue Among Civilizations was discarded from Iranian calendars [by the decision of Council of Public Culture]. Is Dialogue Among Civilizations a forgotten cause?
SK: No. It's still relevant to reality of today's world. Dialogue Among Civilizations was embraced by the international community and the United Nations and it was a feather in Iran's cap. Following the revolutionary doctrines of Emam [Khomeini] and the Islamic Republic, the Iranian nation proposed an idea which can be a solution to the rampant violence of the world today. [Samuel] Huntington's 'Clash of Civilizations' promoted violence and return to colonial era conflicts. But Dialogue Among Civilizations, coming from the heart of an Islamic society and supported by the Iranian Leadership and Nezam, was welcomed by the world. Unfortunately, inside Iran it was not taken seriously, revealing a bitter truth that we sacrifice national icons for our partisan interests.
The Supreme Leader supported Dialogue Among Civilizations and of course wanted it to be a platform to regain the rights of the underprivileged and Third World nations. A few years ago, some top international dignitaries [including former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan] visited Iran for a conference on Dialogue Among Civilizations. Some were even received by the Supreme Leader and had a chance to discuss the idea of dialogue among civilizations with him. But unfortunately, the current government has no interest in the idea, so it decides to abolish it in its entirety. I'm afraid of a day when the National Day of the Islamic Republic and Sacred Defense Week will be cut from the calendar. Could Mosaddegh and nationalization of the oil industry be obliterated from the Iranian history? National icons should not be sacrificed for personal matters.
There was a time when both opponents and proponents of Iran's ancient history suffered an abstract attitude. The same abstract views have surfaced after thirty years. Closing eyes on the Islamic period of the Iranian history and dogmatic glorification of Iran's ancient history is an abstract approach. With such black and white attitudes, we should worry for our historical and civilizational heritage. The world has moved from Dialogue Among Civilizations towards Alliance of Civilizations but we still don't take it serious.
They [Ahmadinejad] talk of global management while they lack any clear model or theory to materialize it. Of course, these are personal defects and we should not assign them to the whole political system. I believe Iranian wisdom can weather the crisis through moderation and maintain our national interests.
IRD: What is the motive that leads to propagation of concepts such as Cyrus the Great's Human Rights' Charter?
SK: Well I can't judge their motives. But some observers believe that behind such ideas and actions (such as bringing to Iran the Cyrus Cylinder of human rights), Ahmadinejad and his team want to regain credit among certain social strata. But people easily notice the existing paradoxes. I believe that Cyrus, his cylinder and Iran's ancient history are the pride of our nation. I hope the only motive behind such flamboyance is revival of Iran's history and civilization.
IRD: Moving back to Dialogue Among Civilizations, this is the question always occupying my mind: A couple of years after Mr. Khatami proposed Dialogue Among Civilizations, we had 9/11, US attacked Afghanistan and Iraq and radical powers rose to power in many parts of the world. The Tea Party Movement is perhaps a relic of those days. Neo-cons were in power in Washington, Tony Blair had allied with George W. Bush and Al-Qaeda was roaming in Somalia, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. In Israel, Ariel Sharon held the power. Looking with a hint of fairness, Huntington's hypothesis has actually materialized and Dialogue Among Civilizations seems to be pushed aside. Wasn't the idea too much idealistic? Huntington's theory looks more down-to-earth.
SK: Huntington's theory of Clash of Civilizations was based on the realities of the post-colonial era. It was influenced by Bernard Lewis' studies, and propagated by Michael Ledeen and his fellow radical partners in the US. Their efforts can be only thwarted through dialogue. The challenges between identities, between the developed and developing worlds can be negotiated only through a theory like Dialogue Among Civilizations. Huntington's theory is descriptive, while Khatami's is prescriptive, searching for a solution to tackle global crises. Dialogue Among Civilizations rejects clash between cultures and religions and radicalism. It advocates interaction and talk.
If we had learnt a lesson from history, and if we had a clear plan, we should try to reform the international legal structure through a dialogue-based procedure. If Iran aspires to be an actor at the global level, it should have its own initiatives. Typical diplomatic interactions are too inadequate to transform global relations. We have our own mission, our own paradigm, in the global arena and we believe in the rationale embedded in the theory of Dialogue Among Civilizations. The rationale of dialogue is more difficult to adopt compared with the rationale of war and conflict. Dialogue is complicated, war is much easier.
Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro's address to his country's national assembly last weekend centred on the need for a world peace front to persuade Washington not to launch a military attack on Iran.
Castro spoke supportively of US President Barack Obama, pointing out that he was being put under intense pressure, "in tune with the standards of the gigantic empire."
But he warned that, "in the instant that he gives the order, he would be ordering the instant death of hundreds of millions of people."
It is not simply the US Republican right that is demanding a pre-emptive strike against Iran. Israel too is eyeing a reprise of its lawless bombing of Iraq's Osiraq 40 megawatt light-water nuclear reactor in June 1981.
Disregarding its own undeclared nuclear arsenal of 200 bombs, Tel Aviv claims that Iran's civil nuclear power programme poses an existential threat to Israel.
The theocratic regime in Tehran has capitalised in a number of ways on the threats and rhetoric emanating from the US-Israeli partnership and its close allies in Europe.
It put the White House on the back foot by striking a deal with Brazil and Turkey, whereby Iran would send 1,200kg of low-enriched uranium to Turkey in return for 120kg of fuel rods for a Tehran research reactor designed for exclusive production of radioactive isotopes to treat cancer.
Not only would this plan divert low-enriched uranium from any military nuclear programme - which, in any case, Iran denies having - but it actually mirrors a scheme suggested by Obama himself last January.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad milked the limelight as he posed hand in hand with his Brazilian counterpart Lula da Silva and Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan.
Lula called the agreement a "victory for diplomacy," while US representatives hummed and hawed before Secretary of State Hillary Clinton insulted Lula by suggesting that he was a dupe of the Iranians.
And she told the Brazilian president that "we think buying time for Iran, enabling Iran to avoid international unity with respect to their nuclear programme, makes the world more dangerous not less."
Washington has also been outsmarted by Tehran in regional diplomacy, with Iran's profile being high in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Ahmadinejad visited Baghdad two years ago, the first ever by an Iranian head of state, offered an aid package and developed a close relationship with prime minister Nouri al-Maliki under the noses of the US occupiers.
The Iranian president's role in convening last week's tripartite summit in Tehran with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Tajik Prime Minister Emomali Rahmon was another irritant for Washington.
Its efforts to isolate Iran, to condemn its nuclear programme and to impose sanctions on it have backfired.
Iran has built close relations with progressive Latin American states, including Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua and, most especially, Venezuela.
It is understandable that this would be so. In a sense, they have been thrown together by Washington's hostility.
Cuba's Foreign Ministry complained bitterly this week about having been placed once more, alongside Bolivia, Nicaragua and Venezuela, on the discredited US list of states identified as sponsoring terrorism.
This designation precludes trade agreements, preferential terms and economic aid from Washington and it can complicate relations with third countries, no matter how spurious the charges.
In such circumstances, self-interest dictates that the socialist-inclined Latin American countries should cultivate closer ties with Iran, but these links have generated another bonus for Tehran - the widespread but erroneous belief that the Supreme Leader regime is somehow anti-imperialist in nature.
This situation recalls a similar error made by ultra-left groups in Britain and elsewhere with regard to the latter years of Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
The US hates Saddam, the US is imperialist, so Saddam is anti-imperialist. A perfect symmetry and yet hopelessly wrong.
While Cuba, Venezuela and their regional allies prioritise improving not only their people's living standards but also their democratic, human and cultural rights, Iran does not.
It hangs teenage boys on suspicion of being gay, stones women and men to death for adultery and locks up and tortures trade unionists and democracy campaigners. These barbaric realities are certainly used by US and European politicians as pretexts to impose sanctions on Iran, but they cannot be dismissed as unimportant or secondary to the regime's supposed anti-imperialism.
Last year's mass demonstrations against electoral fraud have given way, as a result of internal repression, to hunger strikes in jail by democratic opponents of the regime and appeals for international solidarity.
Solidarity cannot be withheld by trade unionists and other progressives in Britain simply because US imperialism opportunistically criticises Iran for practices it excuses or ignores in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.
Nor should revulsion against the vile punishments and repression visited on Iranians be misused to justify imperialist intervention, as the B52 liberals did with regard to Iraq.
As Tudeh Party of Iran general secretary Ali Khavari, the leader of the country's banned communists, makes clear, "Regime change from outside, such as occurred in Iraq, is neither possible nor acceptable by any means in Iran.
"Any foreign force that attempts such a dangerous provocation will burn its fingers, set the whole region on fire and seriously endanger world peace."
guardian.co.uk Saeed Kamali Dehghan Wednesday 11 August 2010 17.44 BST
Mehdi Karroubi, the leading reformist politician in Iran, says sanctions 'have given an excuse to the government to suppress the opposition by blaming them for the unstable situation of the country'. Photograph: Vahid Salemi/AP
Punitive international sanctions imposed on Iran have strengthened Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government and assisted its post-election crackdown on the opposition Green movement, the leading reformist politician and former presidential candidate Mehdi Karroubi has told the Guardian.
In his first interview with a British newspaper since widespread unrest erupted after Ahmadinejad's disputed re-election as president last June, Karroubi blamed the US and Britain for adopting counterproductive policies to combat Iran's suspect nuclear programme, describing sanctions as a gift to the Iranian regime.
"These sanctions have given an excuse to the Iranian government to suppress the opposition by blaming them for the unstable situation of the country," Karroubi said in email responses to the Guardian.
Karroubi, 73, a former speaker of the Majlis, the Iranian parliament, under the reformist president Mohammad Khatami, and a candidate in last year's election, said that isolating Iran would not bring democracy. "Look at Cuba and North Korea," he said. "Have sanctions brought democracy to their people? They have just made them more isolated and given them the opportunity to crack down on their opposition without bothering themselves about the international attention."
The UN security council agreed a new round of sanctions on Iran in June after the US and Britain, which believe Iran is secretly developing nuclear weapons, obtained backing from Russia and China. The EU, and individual countries such as the US and Britain, subsequently imposed additional punitive measures.
The move followed Washington's rejection of a proposed deal, brokered by Brazil and Turkey, under which Iran would have handed over nearly half of its stock of low-enriched uranium in return for "safe" nuclear fuel supplies that could not be used in bomb-making. Turkey and Brazil voted against the new UN sanctions, but today Brazil announced that it was reluctantly prepared to enforce them.
Mir Hossein Mousavi, who helped lead the protests following last summer's election, co-authored a public letter with Karroubi last week in which they condemned the sanctions while blaming Ahmadinejad's government for mishandling negotiations over Iran's nuclear programme.
"Sanctions have targeted the most vulnerable social classes of Iran including workers and farmers," the letter said.
Karroubi told the Guardian: "On the one hand, the government's mishandling of the economy has resulted in deep recession and rising inflation inside the country, which has crippled the people of Iran and resulted in the closure of numerous factories. On the other hand, we have sanctions which are strengthening the illegitimate government."
Karroubi, who was imprisoned before the Islamic revolution in 1979,said that despite widespread corruption, the shah's regime treated its opponents less harshly than the current government, partly because the shah was sensitive to international criticism.
"But because Iran is getting more isolated, more and more they [Ahmadinejad's government] are becoming indifferent to what the world is thinking about them," he said.
Last summer's unrest resulted in the killing, beating or arrest of hundreds of protesters who took to the streets convinced that Ahmadinejad, who is backed by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had stolen the election.
Hopes the regime would call a fresh vote or collapse under public anger dissipated in clouds of teargas, counter-demonstrations organised by the government, and often brutal repression. Since then, Iranians have suffered a crackdown on dissent and an increase in human rights abuses.
Yesterday the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, issued an appeal to Iran to honour its international treaty obligations to respect the rights of its citizens.
She also expressed concern about the case of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, who was sentenced to death by stoning after being found guilty of adultery. In his interview with the Guardian, Karroubi condemned Ashtiani's sentence and said he was opposed to stoning in principle.
Karroubi said that since the election his office has been sealed off and his newspaper, Etemad-e-Melli (the National Trust), closed down while he was under informal house arrest. Wherever he went, he said, groups of government supporters, sometimes accompanied by plainclothes basiji militiamen, followed him.
"In the last year, they [officials] have tried to suppress me in many ways," he said. "Once I was physically attacked, on the anniversary of the Islamic revolution, and my son Ali was arrested and severely tortured. During a recent visit I had to Qazvin province, they went further in attacking me and opened fire on my car and later raided my house."
Ayatollah Khamenei has never attacked him or Mousavi by name, but always referred to them as "leaders of sedition", a term now now routinely used to describe opposition leaders. Last month, during a visit to Qom, Karroubi was met by government supporters shouting "western stooge".
Despite having to call off protests in the face of the government crackdown, Karroubi said he believed the Green movement had not been defeated. "It's no longer possible for the opposition movement to pour out en masse into the streets … But we also do not think it's necessary any more to do this," he said.
The movement's message had already reached the world, he said. "People were out in the streets to inform the world of what is really happening inside Iran, and they succeeded in doing so. Now the world knows what is the problem in Iran."
Karroubi said he still believed in the Islamic republic, but not the current ruling system. "I should make it clear that we are a reformist movement, not a revolutionary one … We are seeking nothing more than a free election."
Asked about criticism that the opposition has no clear leader and sometimes appeared divided, Karroubi said: "In my opinion, it's an advantage that no specific person is the leader. I think that the only reason the Green movement has not been stopped yet is because it doesn't have one leader or unified leadership. If it had, then by arresting that leader they could have controlled the whole movement."
Reaching out to Iran's ordinary people remained the opposition's biggest problem: any newspaper that mentioned the Green movement would be immediately closed down, he said. "We are not even allowed to publish a funeral announcement at the moment."
IFJ Calls on Iran to Free Jailed Journalist after Claims of Mistreatment
Media Release 29 July 2010
The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) today called on Iranian authorities to release journalist Abdolreza Tajik who has been in detention for 50 days without being charged. His family claims he has been ill treated in jail.
"The failure to produce evidence that he has broken the law and the fears that he is being abused in jail should be enough to indicate that there is a terrible injustice here," said Aidan White, IFJ General Secretary. "If there is no case to answer he should be freed immediately and all the allegations of ill treatment must be investigated."
According to media sources Tajik was arrested more than a month ago. No reason for his arrest has been announced. He has since complained to the head of the judiciary about his degrading treatment during interrogation. The family also claims that Tajik, who has been arrested three times since the June 2009 controversial elections in Iran, is being denied contact with them, his lawyer and with doctors.
The IFJ is backing a petition which has been signed by a group of about 100 Iranian journalists calling on the prosecutor in Tehran to investigate the allegations and to release Tajik.
"The authorities must get to the bottom of this case," added White. "This man is being held in appalling circumstances and is being denied all of his rights."
For more information contact the IFJ at +32 235 2207
The IFJ represents over 600,000 journalists in 125 countries worldwide
Iranians dig in for the battle they know could take years
By Abigail Fielding-Smith THE INDEPENDENT Saturday, 12 June 2010
Back in June 2009, few could have predicted the scenes. Hundreds of thousands of Iranians of all ages and from all walks of life spontaneously filling the streets to protest about an election result that returned to power the hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
But after a remarkably free-spirited election campaign, marked by lively rallies in which women, unusually, played a vocal part, democracy activists felt they had historic momentum behind them.
The so-called "Green Movement" briefly enjoyed support from both the streets and the establishment. It seemed to offer a real challenge to the authority of the tightly knit ruling cabal, and even to that of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei.
Now, on the first anniversary of the disputed election, and after a year of harsh crackdowns, prospects for change look rather different and depend largely on whether the disparate membership of the Green Movement has the capacity and the will to reorganise itself and sustain a longer campaign.
As Iran's nuclear and foreign policies continue to dominate the headlines, The Independent interviewed a selection of grass-roots activists, some of whom have had to flee abroad.
Although some show signs of despair, they are determined to find new ways of keeping up their opposition. It is difficult to say how representative their voices are. With heavy reporting restrictions inside Iran, and many people afraid to communicate with foreign journalists, it is hard to gauge public opinion accurately.
Many who took part in the protests have lost interest in demonstrating, either because they fear the repercussions or because they lack faith in the movement's ability to change anything. The forces ranged against it are formidable: the might of the security establishment; the continuing, albeit weakened, power of conservative ideology in Iran; and the populist economic policies of Mr Ahmadinejad. Nonetheless, political change is often, as the activists interviewed here are starting to realise, a long game.
'This struggle will continue'
Jalvah, researcher, 33
In June 2009 I was in prison. Just two or three days before the election, I was released and I voted. What has happened, or is happening, to the Green movement is sad but, in some ways, I can feel optimistic.
Sad because the price paid is so hefty, and the regime cannot tolerate the smallest objection. Hopeful because, slowly but surely, it was proven that change does not happen overnight. The situation is so complicated and interrelated, it requires more active participation and struggle.
I think this struggle will continue and expand. My hope is that the movement can develop a stronger social base and that they can follow up on their demands. I believe that struggle from below can achieve positive changes, and even become a tool for change towards democratisation.
'The movement is maturing'
Vartan, office worker, 45
I took part in the demonstrations against the dictatorship. Looking back the mood was very positive. The balance of forces was moving towards a change; in other words people wanted to have their say.
I'm not despondent about the Green movement. It is maturing, it's taking its time in understanding what the way forward is.The movement is on the right track and it's looking at a long-term struggle for the changes that different groups within it – women, students and others – want. My hope is that, using non-violence, we can bring about changes that will make a difference to people's lives, in particular to the 40 to 50 million (according to government figures) who live beneath or on the poverty line.
'Dictators raise the tension'
Zahra, 26, student
I am hopeful because I know Iranian people. The [anniversary] rallies have been cancelled but every night in different parts of Tehran people shout "God is great" and warn the regime.
When I get on the bus I see many slogans against Khamenei and Ahmadinejad. In many seats you can observe that people have written 22 khordad (12 June). The blood of those who died for the holy concept of freedom will never be wiped from the killers' hands.
I'm sure the struggle will work – maybe not this time, but in the near future. The government endeavours to admonish those who oppose them, but dictators are stupid; they just raise the tension.
'We shared the same pain'
Sahar, student, 29
I was in the streets with my friends and family. The day after the election I was full of anger but, when I saw the crowds, I really felt we were not alone – we shared the same pain and felt united. It made me proud to be one of the millions in the streets against the regime. I remember being astonished when I looked around me. I didn't expect the sorrow and anger to turn into such a force. But when they killed people I was scared. Yet the fear couldn't stop me. The Green movement has matured. It has its martyrs, prisoners, leaders and symbols. It embraces students, women and workers. The violence just helped to foster this movement. As a people we are not happy. The way to democracy is a hard one, but I'm still optimistic .
'We were cheated'
Muhammed, office worker, 28
I attended the nightly electoral gatherings last June and I felt we were cheated, which made me erupt in anger. I believe that people here in Iran need to be shocked into action by something like last year's election result. I mean that if people are shocked again by something bad, then next time no one will be able to control them any more . I am very hopeful, and I think fundamental changes will happen in Iran.
'Victory could take years'
Amir, former web developer, 27
I was employed in [defeated presidential challenger Mehdi] Karoubi's election headquarters. What do I think has happened to the Green movement? I think it is growing. Gradually it will find more supporters, because at first it was people in Tehran, and then other cities joined. I think people have reached a good level of political understanding. The movement's leadership is maturing. Mousavi's speeches are interesting, because he uses words that a year ago we never thought possible. So, overall, I see the movement growing positively, sometimes fast and sometimes slow. A movement may need years to achieve victory.
Liberation is appalled at the continued
violation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and
in particular the execution of 5 political prisoners
on 9th May 2010.
According to the human rights organisations
and opposition forces in Iran, the regime retaliate to any kind
of criticism and opposition in a theocrat manner and by arresting,
detaining, torturing and executing their opponents; including
journalists, students, writers, workers, teachers, women and human
rights activists on a vast scale. They are accused on fabricated
charges, such as ‘threat against national security’
or ‘link with anti-revolution groups’ or 'moharebeh'
(enmity towards God).
The oppositions in Iran are of the belief that,
the harsh and unjustifiable treatment of the recent victims in
Iran demonstrates the regime’s fear of resistance by the
Iranian people, especially near the time of the first anniversary
of the presidential election on 12 June 2009. Despite the concern
of the Iranian people about the increased violation of human rights
in Iran since this election and regardless of their struggle for
democratic rights within the Iranian Constitution, the regime
in Iran has not only ignored the people’s demands, but maintained
a climate of fear and terror in the country.
The victims of the recent executions were Farzad Kamangar, a Kurdish
teacher and journalist who was arrested along with two other members
of the Kurdish minority, Ali Heydariyan and Farhad Vakili, in
Tehran around July 2006. The three men were originally sentenced
to death on 25 February 2008 because of alleged involvement in
a militant group. Also executed for the same reason was Shirin
Alam Hooli, a twenty eight year old Kurdish woman activist who
had routinely and repeatedly been subjected to degrading treatment
and torture to confess and had no access to legal representations
during her interrogation period. The fifth victim was Mehdi Eslamian,
a political activist from who was also accused of activities against
the regime. It is noteworthy that all five victims had repeatedly
rejected the allegations of being involved in terrorist activities.
Considering the political situation in Iran
and the theocratic manner of the Islamic regime, Liberation believes
that the Iranian authorities disregard not only their own Constitution
but the International Declaration of Human Rights. Whilst the
government in Iran states it is for peace, freedom, democratic
rights and friendship with the world, the absence and violation
of human rights and especially the wave of executions prove the
contrary. It is a matter of concern for the international human
rights organisations that the authorities in Iran are likely to
increase their atrocities in the future. In such a circumstance,
Liberation calls on the UN, the European Parliament, and the International
Community to take serious and urgent steps to make the Iranian
regime to stop executions immediately; to release all political
prisoners; to stop human rights violations and abide by International
Laws.
Last Sunday the Iranian authorities executed five political prisoners, prompting international condemnation by trade unionists and human rights activists.
The international condemnation was followed by a general strike in Kurdistan province in western Iran on Thursday in protest at the executions.
Shops, factories, schools and many offices were closed in the region as the regime deployed the military in key towns in the area.
In a letter to the Iranian government, the ITUC has urged the Iranian president to halt any further escalation of trade union repression and human rights abuses against union members.
The ITUC is to complain to the International Labour Organisation committee on freedom of association about the Iranian regime's gross violation of ILO principles.
It has called upon its affiliates across the entire world to denounce the executions.
"The ITUC is shocked with what happened to Farzad Kamangar. Imprisoned trade unionists must be freed and all other threats of imprisonment against independent trade unionists for their legitimate activities must be lifted," said ITUC general secretary Guy Ryder.
On Tuesday, TUC general secretary Brendan Barber lent his support for the ITUC position and pledged the solidarity of British trade unionists with those in Iran, confirming this in writing to the Iranian ambassador to Britain.
"The TUC will call on its affiliates to denounce this inhumane act and show solidarity with our Iranian brothers and sisters," states Barber.
"In that respect, we continue to express concern about the other teachers and trade unionists languishing in Iran's jails, such as bus workers leaders Mansour Osanloo and Ebrahim Madadi. "
Kamangar, an active member of his local teachers' union, was arrested by Ministry of Intelligence officials along with two other members of the Kurdish minority, Ali Heydariyan and Farhad Vakili, in Tehran in 2006.
The three men were sentenced to death on February 25 2008 after being accused of taking up arms against the state, in connection with their alleged membership of the armed group, the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK).
The trial took place in secret, lasted only minutes and failed to meet Iranian and international standards of fairness.
Heydariyan and Vakili also received additional sentences of 10 years' imprisonment for forging documents.
Under Iranian law, they must serve their prison sentences before being executed. The death sentences of all three men were upheld by the Supreme Court.
Heydariyan and Vakili were executed on May 9 along with Kamangar, Mehdi Eslami and Shirin Alam Hooli.
All five victims had repeatedly rejected the allegations of being involved in terrorist activities.
In the case of Kamangar, his main "crime" was that during a short visit to Tehran he had stayed in the house of Heydaryan and Vakili, whom he knew.
The authorities alleged that they had discovered explosive materials from a car belonging to Heydaryan and Vakili. Kamangar's crime in effect was that he had been in the wrong place at wrong time.
Hooli was a 28-year-old Kurdish woman who had been sentenced to death in Iran for her alleged support for PJAK, a militant opposition group.
She was convicted of "enmity against God." After her arrest she was routinely and repeatedly subjected to torture and degrading treatment to confess to supporting PJAK.
She had no access to legal representation during her long and gruelling interrogation period. Her rights as an accused were never observed.
The left and progressive movement in Iran has categorically condemned these executions.
The Tudeh Party of Iran, in a statement this week, condemned the regime's action. While expressing concern about the continuation of executions and the dangers that are threatening the lives of all political prisoners, especially those followers of ideologies other than Islam, the Tudeh Party called for the establishment of a united campaign to resist and stop the crimes and executions in the prisons of the Islamic Republic.
Throughout the week there have been a number of protest demonstrations across Europe to condemn the regime's action. In Paris on Monday the demonstrators attacked the regime's embassy and 200 people were arrested.
Committee for the Defence of the Iranian People's Rights (Codir) assistant general secretary Jamshid Ahmadi strongly condemned the action of the Iranian regime in executing the five political detainees.
"Fearing the eruption of a new wave of popular protests on the first anniversary of the fraudulent presidential election of June 12 2009, the regime has attempted to spread a climate of fear and terror in Iran," he said.
"The regime's rush to execute these prisoners, in the face of international concerns about the worsening of the human rights situation over the past year, is a disgrace.
"Instead of engaging in dialogue with international human rights agencies such as Amnesty International and the UN commission on human rights, the regime is intensifying its murderous activities against the opposition. "
Jane Green is the national campaign officer of Codir. For further information on Iran please visit www.codir.net
An open letter by the families of the Iranian prisoners to the United Nations
2010-05-07 Subject: urgent consideration of the medical condition in the Iranian prisons
Dear Dr. Ban ki-Moon, the Secretary-General of the United Nations
Dear Dr. Navi Pillay, the high commissar for UN Human Rights
It has come to our attention that you are due to attend a meeting with the Iranian authorities regarding the violations of human rights. We are a group of families that have become victims of the fact that our beloved ones have got incarcerated for being politically active, they are prisoners of conscience, we wish to stress the urgency of the matters discussed below and expect that you will take any measures necessary to protect these prisoners' human rights.
We desperately yearn to draw your attention to the grave situation existing inside the Iranian prisons; Prisoners are deprived of medical care and refused access to the care facilities inside the prison. This has put the lives of the imprisoned in great danger and exposed them to immense peril and made their families anxious and worried.
The physicians in the prisons are being pressured by the government not to act according to their oath and obligations. These doctors will risk their jobs and lives if they would to follow their professional obligations and treat the prisoners. It is these matters amongst others which have led to the prisoners' mistrust of the health care inside the prison.
It has been reported numerous times that prisoners who are working as informants for the opposition has been transferred to cells where chemical and poisonous gases are kept. According to the reports, these gases have had severe consequences for the prisoners' health. Moreover the overfilling of the prisons by the vast increase of intake of detainees, unhealthy and inadequate food standards, inhumane conduct and torture by both physical and psychological means and a more radical attitude towards the incarcerated prisoners has further intensified the crisis that existed. The psychological torture or the "silent and invisible" torture as it sometimes is called in prison, has become more vile since the torture more and more lead to paralysis, damages to the nervous system and gradually to death, all this without leaving any visible marks.
The actions of the governments and the human rights communities around the world whom claim to defend human rights have been very limited and the aid provided has been only at a minimal level. At the best, communities and nations have been condemning the anti- human rights actions of the Islamic republic of Iran, all of this without any international effort to release the political prisoners. We should not forget that these issues are dated 30 years back; violations of human rights have been a re-occurring method of the oppressing regime in Iran but gone by unnoticed by the world community and human rights organisations, due to the immense focus on the words of Iran's autocratic regime and its representatives and the current nuclear issue.
We ask you to take the necessary actions against the tragic treatment of the political prisoners taking place in the prisons of Iran. We suggest that you send physicians under the observation of the UN to visit the Iranian prisons immediately.
Below, you can find a list of the names of the renowned political and ideological prisoners from various opposition movements with different political affiliations that are currently incarcerated. These are the opponents of the Islamic republic of Iran and its pro-reform movement, these prisoners come from different religious and ethnic groups, amongst them are campaigners for women's Rights, students, journalists, workers, teachers, Human Rights activists and artists;
Ayatollah Kazemini Boroujerdi, Mansour Osanloo, Farzad Kamangar, Behrouz Javid-Tehrani, Heshmatollah Tabarzadi, Shiva Nazar-Ahari, Shirin Alam-Holi, Ahmad Zeydabadi, Bahare Hedayat, Esa Saharkhiz, Abdollah Momeni, Masoud Bastani, Kave Kermanshahi, Mehdi Khodai, Mohammad Oliai-Fard, Badrossadat Mofidi, Milad Ebrahimian, Abdoreza Ahmadi, Dr. Hesam Firouzi, Nasour Naghipour, Lale Hasan pour, Shabnam Madadzade, Mehdi Mahmoudian, Mojtaba Lotfi, Reza Khandan, Ahmad Ghabel Rouhani Noandish, Mehdi Torabi, Amir-Ehsan Tehrani Sekhavat, Nima Golzari, Raziye Alemi, Mohammad Nourizad, Masoud lavasani, Sahand Ali Mohammadi, Bakhshali Mohammadi, Ebadollah Ghasemzade( the followers of Ahl-e-Hagh group in Yazd prison), Mitra Ali, Arsalan Abadi, Iman Zarei, Meysam Beig-Mohammadi, Kiarash Kamrani, Jafar Panahi, Arash Sadeghi, Salamat Mahdavigolrou, Ali Malihi, Majid Tavakoli, Mahboube Karami, Dorsa Sobhani( Baha'i), Marjan Safari, Nafise Mojtahedi, Morad Hasanlou, Zahra Asadpour Gorgi, Abdollah Momeni, Tahmine Momeni, Fateme Khorramlou, Maryam Zia, Azar Mansouri, Hengame Shagidi, Leili Farhadpour, Zeinab Jalalian, Sousan Mohammadkhani, Mohammad-Amin abdollahi an, Dr.Arash Alai & Kamyar Alai ( scientist),...
With sincere regards,
Families of the ideological and political prisoners and human rights activists in Iran!
Coordinator & Contact person
Victoria Azad Member of Amnesty International
Women's rights & political Activist
www.victoriaazad.com
sonja6321@gmail.com
Tel. 00 46 739383902
2010-05-10 Education International is deeply troubled to hear reports that Iranian teacher trade unionist Farzad Kamangar was among five people who were summarily executed in secret on 9 May.
Farzad Kamangar, a 35-year-old member of the Teachers' Union of Kurdistan, was accused of "endangering national security" and "enmity against God". He had lived with the threat of the death penalty since February 2008, when it was imposed upon him after a sham trial that lasted less than five minutes.
Although the Iranian authorities had accepted Farzad's appeal, the case stalled when it should have been sent to the Supreme Court for review. After further delays, Farzad's lawyer was told that his file had been lost. Despite the evident lack of independent inquiry into the allegations and the absence of a fair judicial process, Farzad has still been reportedly executed.
EI General Secretary, Fred van Leeuwen, said: "We are all deeply shocked and saddened to hear that Farzad has been executed. His case was particularly troubling to our 30 million members because of the opaque and secretive manner in which his trial was conducted, the lack of basic rights he had access to whilst in prison, and the fact that neither his family or legal representatives were informed of his execution. This is a terrible day for teachers, union activists and human rights. EI expresses our solidarity with Farzad's family, colleagues and students."
He added: "EI recognises the rights and responsibilities of all governments to bring to justice those suspected of criminal offences but this must be in line with international and national standards of fair trial. EI is also unequivocal that the Iranian government must ensure respect for all trade union and human rights."
The trade union and human rights community had campaigned against the death penalty and prosecution of Farzad. EI and its affiliates have been particularly vocal and lobbied the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association, which subsequently 'urge[d] the Government [of Iran] to immediately stay the execution of Farzad Kamangar's death sentence, annul his conviction and secure his release from detention.'
Call for action:
EI is joining international networks and campaigns to remember Farzad and support other Iranian teachers and union activists, including Rasoul Bodaghi, Hashem Khastar and Bahman Goudarzzade, who remain in prison within Iran.
EI is writing to the Supreme Leader and Iranian authorities to request a transparent investigation into the execution of Farzad and to halt any further executions.
EI is informing and calling on all EI affiliates to write to their respective country's foreign office to express their shock at the execution of Farzad, to call for open and fair trials, and an end to the death penalty.
EI is encouraging its affiliates to hold vigils to mark the sad news of the death of Farzad.
guardian.co.uk Women behaving promiscuously are causing the earth to shake, according to cleric, as Ahmadinejad predicts Tehran quake
An Iranian woman waits for the bus under a poster of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Photograph: Behrouz Mehri/AFP/Getty Images
Iran is one of the world's most earthquake-prone countries, and the cleric's unusual explanation for why the earth shakes follows a prediction by the president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, that a quake is certain to hit Tehran and that many of its 12 million inhabitants should relocate.
"Many women who do not dress modestly ... lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which increases earthquakes," Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi was quoted as saying by Iranian media. Women in the Islamic Republic are required by law to cover from head to toe, but many, especially the young, ignore some of the more strict codes and wear tight coats and scarves pulled back that show much of the hair. "What can we do to avoid being buried under the rubble?" Sedighi asked during a prayer sermon last week. "There is no other solution but to take refuge in religion and to adapt our lives to Islam's moral codes." Seismologists have warned for at least two decades that it is likely the sprawling capital will be struck by a catastrophic quake in the near future. Some experts have even suggested Iran should move its capital to a less seismically active location. Tehran straddles scores of fault lines, including one more than 50 miles long, though it has not suffered a major quake since 1830.
In 2003, a powerful earthquake hit the southern city of Bam, killing 31,000 people – about a quarter of that city's population – and destroying its ancient mud-built citadel.
"A divine authority told me to tell the people to make a general repentance. Why? Because calamities threaten us," said Sedighi, Tehran's acting Friday prayer leader. Referring to the violence that followed last June's disputed presidential election, he said: "The political earthquake that occurred was a reaction to some of the actions [that took place]. And now, if a natural earthquake hits Tehran, no one will be able to confront such a calamity but God's power, only God's power ... So let's not disappoint God."
The Iranian government and its security forces have been locked in a bloody battle with a large opposition movement that accuses Ahmadinejad of winning last year's vote by fraud.
Ahmadinejad made his quake prediction two weeks ago but said he could not give an exact date. He acknowledged that he could not order all of Tehran's 12m people to evacuate. "But provisions have to be made ... at least 5 million should leave Tehran so it is less crowded," the president said.
The welfare minister, Sadeq Mahsooli, said prayers and pleas for forgiveness were the best "formulae to repel earthquakes. We cannot invent a system that prevents earthquakes, but God has created this system and that is to avoid sins, to pray, to seek forgiveness, pay alms and self-sacrifice," Mahsooli said.
by IAN MORRISON Saeed Rahnema was active in the labor and left movement during the 1979 revolution in Iran. He was a founder and a member of the Executive Committee of the Union of Workers/Employees Councils of IDRO, the largest industrial conglomerate of Iran. He was a member of the Industrial Management Institute and served as an officer of UNDP. He is now a Professor of Political Science at York University in Toronto, Canada.
This is an extract from a Tehran Bureau interview with Saeed Rahnema, a labour activist in the 1979 Islamic Revolution who is now a Professor of Political Science at York University in Toronto, Canada. The full interview includes Rahnema's analysis of labour's role in 1979 and the aftermath of the Revolution and could be found at the following address:
TEHRAN BUREAU: When I read articles about Iran today, there is a great deal of social unrest around economic issues, particularly workers not getting paid. There are many labor actions but not a labor movement per se. I wonder what kind of possibilities there are for economic issues becoming more of a question for the Green Movement?
RAHNEMA: There is now a major economic crisis in Iran. Massive unemployment, terrible inflation (close to 30%), and at the same time, as you rightly said, there are many factories that cannot pay their employees. In terms of leadership there is political anarchy.
You have got government-owned industries and then you have partially state-owned industries under the control of bonyads or Islamic foundations. The most significant bonyad is the Foundation of the Oppressed and Disabled (Bonyad-e Mostazafan va Janfazan). These are industries which had belonged to the Shahs' family and the pre-revolution bourgeoisie. After the time of the Shah they were all transferred to this particular foundation, which is now run by people close to the Bazaar of Iran and the clerical establishment. The bonyads are so large and so important that they are responsible for 20% of the Iranian GDP [Gross Domestic Product], which is only a bit lower than the Oil sector. Bonyads are not under the control of the state and pay no taxes.
It is an anarchic system with no serious protection for workers. Workers do not have a right to strike. They do not have unions and this is the main problem.
Many of these industries are heavily subsidized. But the government has decided to end some subsidies, along with the elimination of many gas, flour, and transportation subsides too. By ending subsidies, or having targeted subsidies, there will be more problems and more industrial actions. But these industrial actions - and you rightly separate labor actions from a labor movement - need labor unions. Labor unions are the most significant aspect of the rights of workers. Unions need democracy and political freedoms, a freedom of assembly and a free press. That is why the present movement within civil society is so significant for the labour movement.
This is something that tragically some so-called Leftists in the West do not understand. We read here and there, for example, James Petras among others, who support the brutal suppressive Islamic regime, and take a position against women, youth and the workers/employees of Iran who confront this regime. It is quite ironic that the formal site of the regime's news agency posted a translation of Petras' article accusing civil society activists of being agents of foreign imperialism.
What we need is continued weakening of the regime by street protests along with labor organizing. And, I think it is very important that we recognize that the Green Movement is part of a larger movement in Iranian civil society. The Green Movement is a very important part, but, it is not the whole picture. The Green Movement is now closely identified with Mr. Mousavi. So far he has been on the side of the people and civil society. Everyone supports him. But what will happen? Will he make major concessions? That remains to be seen.
TEHRAN BUREAU: There is a lot of confusion about the character of the regime because of its populist rhetoric. I am wondering what effect this confusion has on the possibility of organizing a trade union movement in Iran?
RAHNEMA: From the beginning, there were many illusions about the regime. One section of the Left, seeking immediate socialist revolution, immaturely confronted the regime and was brutally eliminated during the revolution. Another section of the Iranian left supported the regime, under the illusion of its anti-imperialism, and undermined democracy by supporting or even in some cases collaborating with the regime. This section paid a heavy price as well. Now, ironically, some leftist in the west are making the same mistakes under the same illusions.
There are four major illusions about Iran. The first is that the regime is democratic because it has elections. Leaving aside election fraud, in Iran not everyone can run for Parliament or the Presidency because an unelected twelve-member religious body, the Guardian Council, decides who can be nominated. Also, the Supreme Leader, who has absolute power, is not accountable to anybody.
The second illusion is the Regimes' anti-imperialism. Other than strong rhetoric against Israel and the U.S., the regime has done nothing that shows that they are anti-imperialist. Actually on several occasions they whole-heartedly supported the Americans in Afghanistan and at times in Iraq. Anti-imperialism has a much deeper meaning and does not apply to a reactionary force which dreams of expanding influence beyond its borders. If that is anti-imperialism, then the better example is Osama Bin Laden.
The third illusion is that this is a government of the dispossessed. A lot can be said about this, but I will limit myself to two income inequality measurements. Currently the Gini coefficient is around 44. (The range is from zero to a hundred, with zero as the most equal and one hundred as the most unequal.) This is worse than Egypt, Algeria, Jordan, and many other countries, despite the enormous riches of Iran. Interestingly, this figure is not so different from the time of the Shah. The other measurement, the deciles distribution of the top 10% and lowest 10 % income groups, shows that the top deciles' per capita per day expenditure is about 17 times that of the lowest deciles. This figure is also quite similar to the pre-revolutionary period.
The fourth illusion is that the regime is based on a 'moral' Islamic economy and not a capitalist economy. This moral economy, as Petras calls it, is nothing but the most corrupt capitalist system that we could possibly imagine.
TEHRAN BUREAU: There are some nascent unions, such as the bus drivers, sugar cane workers at Haft Tapeh, as well as teachers. These groups have been asking for international solidarity for a long time now. I wonder why those groups have had such a difficult time developing support. Have the conversations among "left" groups about anti-Imperialism blinded them to these small but very real organizing efforts?
RAHNEMA: No doubt. Some among the left in the West make the same mistakes that the Iranian left made during the revolution - focusing on anti-imperialism and undermining and minimizing democracy and political freedoms. If the left really cares about the working class, how can this class improve its status without trade unions? How can trade unions exist and function without democracy and social and political freedoms?
Another aspect that some leftists don't take into consideration is the significance of secularism and the dangers of a religious state, particularly, the manner in which such regimes impinge on the most basic private rights of the individual, particularly women. Even if the Islamic regime were anti-imperialist, no progressive individual could possibly condone the brutal suppression of workers, women, and youth, who want to get rid of an obscurantist authoritarian and corrupt regime. The underground workers groups and other activists within civil society need all the support they can get from progressive people outside Iran, and they despise those so-called leftists in the West who support Ahmadinejad and the Islamic regime.
Saeed Rahnama's Biography
Dr. Saeed Rahnema is Professor of Political Science at York University. He has served as the Director of the School of Public Policy and Administration, and Coordinator of the Political Science program at Atkinson Faculty, School of Social Sciences, York Univerity. Before joining York University, he was an Associate Professor in the School of Policy Studies at Queen's University. In his homeland Iran, he taught and worked as a member of the executive of the Industrial Management Institute in Tehran.
He has served as a senior officer of the UNDP, as a Director of the Middle East Economic Association (MEEA), Editor of the MEEA Newsletter and as a member of Editorial Boards several journals. Professor Rahnema is a frequent commentator on Canadian and international media on the issues of the Middle East and Islam, Human Rights, and Left and Labour Movement, and has published several books and numerous articles in English and Farsi (Persian).
His books include Selected Communities of Islamic Cultures in Canada: A Statistical Profile, Diaspora, Islam and Gender Project, York University, Toronto, 2005; Rebirth of Social Democracy in the Iranian Left Movement, Stockholm: Baran Book Ferlag, , 1996; (with S. Behdad); Iran After the Revolution: Crisis of an Islamic State. I.B. Tauris, British Academic Press, London: St.Martin's Press, New York:1995, 1996; Organization Structure: A Systemic Approach: Cases of the Canadian Public Sector, Toronto: McGraw-Hill/Ryerson,1992.
He has been a leading member of several major international research and educational projects including SSHRC/MCRI research on Muslim diasporas, Ford Foundation on Muslim Diasporas in the West, and CIDA/AUCC Canada Corps University Partnership Program in Public administration for Palestinians, and is now a co-Director of the international research project on Muslims in the West.
Rahnema is cited in the Maclean's Magazine Guide to Canadian Universities as a most popular professor in 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005, and won the York University-wide teaching excellence award in 2004. In 2007, Dr. Rahnema won the prestigious Government of Ontario's Leadership in Faculty Teaching Award.
Iran Jams Satellite Signals Carrying Foreign Media By CHRISTOPH SEIDLER April 1, 2010
Hot Bird 8 may be Europe's largest and most powerful television satellite, but it still has little chance when the Iranian regime decides to block its signals. When that happens, the Farsi services of the BBC and Voice of America instantly disappear from television screens -- and not just in Iran, but also throughout the satellite's entire coverage area.
Tehran has targeted the satellite in an effort to prevent critical foreign media coverage from reaching domestic viewers. Even though the United Nations has condemned it as an act of sabotage, the international community can do little to stop it.
The Arabic service of the German public broadcaster Deutsche Welle was also affected by the attacks on Hot Bird 8. "We experienced disruptions in December and February," Deutsche Welle spokesman Johannes Hoffmann told SPIEGEL ONLINE. "A total of over 30 hours of programming
Hoffmann believes the attacks were a "targeted act to block news coverage" on Iran. For example, he noted , there were problems in February during celebrations marking the anniversary of the Iranian revolution.
No Accident
France-based satellite provider Eutelsat, which operates Hot Bird 8, also believes the jamming attempts are deliberate. "This is not happening by accident," says Eutelsat spokeswoman Vanessa O'Connor. The latest attempt to block the satellite occurred on March 20, according to the BBC and Voice of America.
Indeed, it would seem that it is often surprisingly easy for the regime in Tehran to suppress information from abroad. Although Hot Bird 8 is in geostationary orbit about 36,000 kilometers (22,400 miles) above the Earth, it can be easy to sabotage, something which is also true for many other satellites. The Iranians only need to transmit a strong signal in the satellite's direction using the same frequency with which programs are transmitted from the original ground transmission station.
In the case of Deutsche Welle, the so-called uplink is sent from a ground station in Usingen, in the German state of Hesse. "The satellite cannot, however, determine whether the signal is coming from Usingen or from Tehran," says Deutsche Welle chief engineer Horst Scholz. If in doubt, he explains, the satellite chooses the stronger signal, which allows it to be deceived by the interference coming from Iran.
Signals from Tehran
That is apparently exactly what happened to Hot Bird 8. Eutelsat's employees were easily able to detect the jamming signals -- with their constant amplitude, constant frequency and high power -- on their monitors, but they could not do anything about them. Using a special software package called SatID, they were also able to identify the source of the signals: Tehran.
The satellite operator then informed the French telecommunication regulator Agence Nationale des Fréquences (ANFR) about the signals. The ANFR sent a four-page fax, which has been obtained by SPIEGEL ONLINE, to the Iranians regarding the issue. A copy of the complaint was also sent to the Radio Regulations Board of the UN's International Telecommunication Union (ITU).
The 12-member board meets regularly in Geneva. Its meetings typically focus on highly technical issues, with the experts discussing problems related to frequency interference. In fact, given the paucity of free frequences these days, incidents of interference are not uncommon. Still, targeted disruptions are rare, though there had already been complaints about Iran in the summer of 2009.
This time around, the UN experts were unusually outspoken, at least by their standards. In a statement issued last Friday, the board "urged" Tehran to "continue its effort in locating the source of interference (of the Eutelsat satellite) and to eliminate it as a matter of the highest priority." The Iranians had previously protested their innocence, saying they knew nothing about any jamming attempts, and they assured the board that they would look into the matter as quickly as possible.
Appeal to Goodwill
The issue is also likely to play a role at the next meetings of the International Telecommunication Union. But, in practice, the UN can do little against the jammers. "In such cases, the ITU Radio Regulations Board appeals to the goodwill and mutual assistance of its member states to find a solution and prevent the occurrence of harmful interference of radio signals," ITU spokesman Sanjay Acharya told SPIEGEL ONLINE. But it is doubtful whether Tehran is interested in cooperating.
Likewise, since the European Union lacks the political will to block Iranian TV broadcasts as a countermeasure, there is no speedy solution to the problem in sight. "These things take time," says Eutelsat's Vanessa O'Connor. "We have the patience to accept that."
In the meantime, the satellite operator has changed how some of its services are distributed. The channels affected thusfar are now transmitted via other satellites that can broadcast to the entire Gulf region, but without being reachable by uplinks from Iran.
Not all the channels on Hot Bird 8 have been affected by the electronic sabotage, however. The state broadcaster Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting also transmits its Press TV foreign service from Hot Bird 8. So far, it has not experienced any problems.
Iran bus unionist released from solitary confinement
International Transport Workers' Federation 19 February 2010
A protest letter from the ITF and action by affiliates has been linked to the release of bus workers’ leader Mansour Osanloo from solitary confinement.
Earlier this week, the ITF learnt that Osanloo, president of the ITF-affiliated Tehran Bus Workers’ Union, had been moved into solitary confinement at Rajai Shar prison. Osanloo has spent almost three years in detention for his trade union activities.
His transfer prompted a strongly-worded protest letter from the ITF’s general secretary David Cockroft to Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as well as protests from affiliated unions, including the seafarers’ union, Kesatuan Pelaut Indonesia. Following these protests, Osanloo was transferred to the general section of the prison within a couple of days.
The Iranian government’s recent attempt to clampdown on Osanloo coincided with the universal periodic review of the United Nations (UN), which, every four years, looks into human rights in each of the 192 member states. Its working group met in Geneva, Switzerland from 8-19 February. On 15 February, it considered the situation in Iran.
During the course of the review, Iranian trade unionists – including representatives from the Tehran Bus Workers’ Union - submitted a statement urging the UN to take on board a list of claims to improve labour rights across the country.
In September 2009, the International Trade Union Confederation and global unions, including the ITF, submitted details of Iran's violations of workers' fundamental rights to the review. These included information on the repression of the Tehran Bus Workers’ Union and of the continued imprisonment of Mansour Osanloo and union vice-president Ebrahim Madadi.
ITF inland transport section secretary, Mac Urata who attended the UN session said: “We are relieved that Osanloo is out of solitary confinement thanks to our swift protest. However, he was never supposed to have been there in the first place. Whatever the promises of the Iranian authorities at the UN, they ring hollow as long as genuine trade unionists remain in prison on trumped up charges.”
Top Lawyer Says Charges Inconsistent with Sharia Law 19 February 2010
(8 February 2010) The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran today strongly condemned the prosecution of a young student activist, Mohammad Amin Valian, under the charge of Moharebeh, or "enmity against God," which is punishable by death and called the charges "grossly disproportionate."
At least nine other protestors have been sentenced to death in similar unfair trials and are at risk of imminent execution. Five other protestors, including Valian, were prosecuted last week and face the death penalty if convicted. The main pieces of evidence used to convict the twenty-year old student are photographs showing him throwing rocks during Ashura protests.
The prosecution of Valian, a student from Damaghan Science University, followed his denunciation in a student newspaper run by pro-government Basiji militias and subsequent arrest. Valian was also convicted of "corruption on earth," "congregation and mutiny to commit crimes against national security," "propagation activities against the Islamic regime," and "insulting top regime officials."
"The Judiciary, by this grossly disproportionate charge, devalues the life of a promising young student," stated Aaron Rhodes, a spokesperson for the Campaign.
"What is more, the charge lowers the standards of the system, which, like any system of law, should protect life, not cheapen it," he said.
During his trial, Valian confessed openly to throwing stones on three occasions during the protests, noting that they hit nothing, and asked the court to consider the reasons why he had thus expressed his feelings and frustrations. He also freely admitted to chanting "Death to the Dictator."
A prominent human rights lawyer in Tehran, Abdolfattah Soltani, told the Campaign that according to Sharia law, the essential condition for applying the charge of Moharebeh to someone is the certainty that the defendant has engaged in armed activity.
"This has been clearly stated in all texts of Fiqh (religious jurisprudence). In articles 86 and 89 of the Islamic Penal Code, several conditions have been elaborated upon and in particular these articles clearly state, that if a group has been formed that engages in armed struggle, and if a person who is a member of such a group or associates with it promotes its goals through armed activity, then that is considered Moharebeh. Therefore, the condition of armed activity is essential in charging someone under Moharebeh and the person must have carried out effective actions. If these conditions are not present then the charge of Moharebeh cannot be applied," he said.
Asked about the act of throwing stones in the street and if such activity can legitimately result in a charge of Moharebeh, Soltani said: "Absolutely not. If a person is arrested because of association with an armed group then Moharebeh may apply. But if an ordinary person, for whatever reason, such as anger or losing his temper, throws a stone, aimed at the destruction of some property or hurting someone, then there are other legal charges applicable and such actions do not rise to the charge of Moharebeh."
Peers of Valian told the Campaign that he was one of the most active members of the Central Council of the Islamic Student Association. He had organized a number of political debates, which were also cited as evidence of the crimes for which he was convicted. Valian has been an active supporter of presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi.
The Campaign called on the Head of the Iranian Judiciary to intervene in the case, and urged that Valian be released immediately pending an examination of his case by an independent committee of legal experts, which should look into all cases of those charged on the basis of their political protests.
Iranian Workers struggle for a living minimum wage
As inflation rises, the chances of workers wages rising look slim
The minimum wage for the average Iranian worker in 2009 was 264 thousand Tomans (Iranian currency) per month ($264). According to semi-official statistics, the poverty-line for living in the capital, Tehran, is 800 thousand Tomans per month ($800). The minimum wage figures and the poverty-line in Iran are far apart, illustrating the difficult economic and living conditions for workers in Iran.
The Deputy Minister of Labour and Social Affairs, Ebrahim Nazary Jalaly, indicated recently that in the coming year inflation will be the main criterion for determining the workers' minimum wage. He went on to state that and he "saw the possibility of the inflation rate by the end of this year to be in single digits."
From Jalaly's remarks one can presume that the government is not planning to increase the workers' minimum wage in the coming year, because it is waiting for the inflation rate to decrease.
Valiullah Salehi, a member of the Supreme Labour Council also indicated that the announcement of the inflation rate by the Central Bank and calculating the costs of living for a family, will enable representatives of the government, workers and employers to determine the minimum wage for the coming year quickly.
In determining the inflation rate for the coming year, Parliament, the government and the Central Bank hold opposing views. However experts are predicting that the inflation rate for the 2010 financial year could increase to one-and-half times that of the current rate. According to the government, the current inflation rate is 12% to 15%, while economic experts calculate that the inflation rate is around 20% to 25%.
Taking into account the impact of the government's directive, Targeting the Subsidies, experts are predicting that in the most optimistic case the inflation rate for the coming year to be around 25% to 30% percent, and in the worst case scenario to be 40% to 50%.
Some analysts are confirming that the inflation rate announced by government agencies has always been lower than the actual inflation rate in the country. This means that year on year workers' pay has decreased significantly.
Representatives of workers in the Labour Grand Council believe that in the current conditions the possibility for increasing workers' wages do exist. However, based on the inflation rate, to increase the workers' purchasing power and to provide for their minimum livelihood, the social partners (representatives of the government, workers and employers) will be required to plan accordingly.
In the past year, the announced minimum wage for workers resulted in opposition from trades union organisations. In the final days of 2008, organisations such as the Tehran Public Bus Drivers' Union and the Iranian Workers' Free Union prepared a letter which was signed by thousands of workers, but the Iranian government did not respond to this.
Now, at the start of the 2010 the issue of determining workers' wages in Iran has once again received special attention in the economic news.
Alongside workers' pay issues there are ongoing factory closures due to the economic and financial crisis. Internal production is stagnant and the subsequent rise in unemployment has added to the difficulties of the poorer sections of society.
Recently, due to the closure of production units, one thousand five hundred (1500) employees of factories who are members of the Iranian Electric Industry Union have lost their jobs.
Mohammad Parsa, President of the Board of Directors of the Electric Equipment Producing Union, has announced that in recent years the electricity industry's other factories have chosen a contraction policy and have laid-off part of their employees as well.
It is clear that the combination of inflation and the downturn in production are combining to make life difficult once again for Iranian workers in the coming year. While employers will no doubt plead that they have tough choices to make this is also the case for their employees. Government commitment to support the economy as well as the poor and disadvantaged is going to be vital in the coming period. With Ahmadinejad's government wedded to privatization and genuine workers' organizations repressed, there is no prospect of any support for working people.
The call for democracy and human rights also includes the demand for the right of Iranian workers to organize in independent trade unions and for collective bargaining to be respected. That is the only effective way that workers' condemnation to poverty could be challenged.
The employment crisis in Iran has reached the country's power generation industry. Iran's labour news agency ILNA confirmed that the government owes a disconcerting $5 billion to the industry. This unprecedented debt to the electricity industry is primarily to pay the workers who are directly or indirectly involved in electricity production, a situation that also threatens manufacturing units producing electricity generation and distribution equipment.
In a recent interview for INLA, Mohammad Parsa, the head of the electricity producers' organisation announced that the government owes it $5 billion, stating,
"Our debt to the banks is also 5,000 billion Toman (equivalent to $5 billion) and under these conditions there are some 900,000 workers in our industry facing unemployment. The continuation of this situation will soon lead to the crisis of blackouts."
The head of the electricity industry warned officials about the possibility of many production units shutting down stating,
"Numerous problems threaten the electricity equipment production plants. Currently, many units are either closed or are working under capacity."
Parsa also talked about the Ahmadinejad administration's failure to honour its financial commitments, stating,
"Because the government has not paid its debt in time, we have not been able to clear our own debts. As a result, our debt to the banks has become very high. Some banks have taken legal measures against us. In any case, we are no longer able to fight this battle and say afloat. We are losing money and some managers have fled. Some of our managers are not going home because their cheques have bounced and they make arrangements to see me in a car to talk about their problems, like a fugitive."
Parsa believes that the crisis began when Parliament last year decided to freeze prices and that the current crisis is also threatening the export capability of the electricity equipment production units.
"We had export plans to Pakistan but because of the daily strikes at the company, production is completely suspended. Workers who have not been paid are preventing the use of the primary material at the plant and do not allow it to leave the plant, causing us all kinds of problems."
Parsa said that currently the industry operated at only 30 percent of its capacity and that the Chinese and the Indians were taking over the markets that Iran once had. He concluded his interview by criticising the situation in which the government's non-payment of its dues is not penalised with late payment interests while the banks charge late fees for non-repayment of industies debts to them.
Pressure Mounts to Dissolve Iran's Nationwide University Students' Organisation February 18, 2010
Pressures continue on Iran's largest student organization, Daftar Tahkim Vahdat (Office to Strengthen Unity). Earlier in the week, news came that Amin Nazari, a member of the central council of the student group and the head of its human rights division was arrested, despite his poor health. Till today, no details about his situation have been put forth by authorities.
In a related development, published reports indicate that Morteza Simiari, another member of the group's governing body continues to be held in solitary confinement in ward 240 of Evin prison in Tehran. Simiari is the social secretary of the student group who continues to be isolated in prison even though the court has already held his trial session and his last defense was submitted as well.
Simiari was arrested after an EU parliamentary team that was visiting Iran invited this student activist to meet it. He was arrested before such a meeting but is facing charges for a meeting that never materialized. The arrest resulted in a protest by EU parliamentary team, which decided to cancel the trip to Iran scheduled to begin on Thursday. In a formal letter to Iranian officials the leader of the EU delegation Barbara Lochbihler, which had officially requested to meet with some opposition figures, asked for the release of Simiari because he was being detained for a meeting that never took place as he had not even responded to an email request for a meeting with the delegation. In her letter to the Iranian ambassador in Brussels, Lochbihler asked for Simiari's immediate and unconditional release from prison. In his trial, Simiari told the judge that in his response to the EU invitation he had told the delegation leader that he would meet with them if arrangements were made with the Iranian foreign ministry for its representative to be present at the meeting.
Simiari is being held in ward 240 of Evin which is under the control of the IRGC revolutionary guards and informed sources have said that members of Daftar Tahkim Vahdat in the prison are under growing pressure to dissolve the student group.
In a related news story, Mehdi Arabshahi, student activist and secretary of the student group was transferred to the general ward in Evin. Arabshahi was arrested about 2 months ago and according to Kalameh website belonging to reformers his interrogations seem to have been completed after which he was moved to the general prison ward, which means he should soon be allowed to have contacts with the outside world.
It should be noted that till today, there is no news about two other members of the group, Milad Asadi and Bahareh Hedayat who were also arrested earlier.
Student Arrest from Elm va Sanaat University
Yaser Khosravizadeh, a fourth-year student in electrical engineering and a student activist from the Elm va Sanaat Science and Technology University was arrested on February 9th after going to the "Follow Up" committee of the ministry of intelligence. No news has been put forth about him till today.
During the week ending on February 11, 2010, many cultural, trade and publishing activists from this university had been summoned to this committee, some repeatedly, where they were interrogated regarding emails and text messaging. Among them, Ruhollah Sahrai, Alireza Abufazeli and Yaser Khosravizadeh were arrested and imprisoned in Evin prison while the charges against them have not been made public.
More Pressure on Student Activists in Gilan University
News reports indicate that during the last two weeks, there is growing pressure on students from Gilan University in northern Iran. One student from the university told Rooz in a short interview, "Many students have been summoned to the disciplinary committee during this period. At the time registration for the new academic term, students were forced to make pledges that they would not participate in gatherings and demonstrations of Iran's Green Movement, which if broken would result in their expulsion from the university."
This student went on to explain the situation by saying, "In addition to these problems, we have observed that during this period even students who are involved in social activities are put under pressure and many are regularly called to appear before the school's disciplinary committee. At the same time, the trial of many arrested students who took part at various rallies has begun. According to those who were present at the trials, the judge in the trials has been mistreating the detainees who have been threatened with heavy prison sentences."
Beating of a Student at Alamaeh University
An MS student at Alameh Tabatabai University was arrested on February 11, 2010 in Tehran's Sadeghie district. According to Human Rights Reporters Committee, seyed Mansur Mousavi, was arrested on that day. Witnesses said they saw him being beaten up on the street and his personal belongings taken away from him as he was pushed into a bus at Sadeghie square in Tehran, as he was arrested. Mousavi's family members said they did not where Mansur was being detained. Mousavi is a former student activist who according to friends and family members was not associated with any group at the time of his arrest.
Freedom and Absence Knowledge
Latest news reports indicate the prison release of Maziyar Samii, a student arrested on February 3, 2010 while no news has been provided about the situation of Tara Sepehrifar, the secretary of the Islamic Association of Sharif Industrial University, causing stress and concern to her family members.
This chemical engineering student had been arrested earlier this summer as well around Ghoba mosque in Tehran. Till today, no news about the whereabouts or charges of the arrest has been made public. An informed source close to the family had earlier told Rooz , "We have absolutely no news about the reason for the arrest, the charges or the place where Sepehri was being held. We are pursuing the matter to see what information we can get about his situation." Till the time of this posting, no news about this student has come forth.
In a related news report, the trial of Peyman Aref, an MS political science student at Tehran University who had been marked by authorities to be a student activist was postponed to February 22, 2010. Peyman Aref was servicing his military conscription term when he was arrested on June 17, 2009, soon after the presidential elections on charges of web blogging and giving interviews to Persian media outside Iran by Gilan's military prosecutor on behalf of Tehran's military prosecutor and was transferred to Evin's general ward to complete his previous prison term of 18 months after spending some 70 days in solitary confinement. It is reported that he was brutally tortured during his interrogation and beaten up to the point where he lost a tooth and his chin has been seriously injured.
In another arrest event, Mahmoud Alizadeh Tabatabai, defense attorney for student Sajad Sadeh reported that the trial of his client which was to be held last Tuesday at the 28th branch of the revolutionary court had been postponed on the request of the prisoner. Tabatabai said the charges brought against his client were engaging in acts against national security and participation in demonstrations inside the university.
It is impossible to gauge its share of Iran's GDP, but western estimates range from a third to nearly two-thirds By Julian Borger and Robert Tait Monday 15 February 2010
The extent of the Revolutionary Guards' control over the Iranian economy is apparent as soon as you enter the country. They run the main international airport, and the manner in which they acquired it was a bruising demonstration of the way big business is now done in Iran.
The contract for managing Imam Khomeini airport, south of Tehran, was given to a Turkish-Austrian consortium in 2004, but on 8 May, the day it was supposed to open, guardsmen took it over, blocking the runways with their vehicles, and closing it down. Inbound flights had to be hastily diverted.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) declared that the involvement of foreigners posed a security risk because of an alleged link to Israel, but it was clear that the foreign consortium's biggest mistake was to try to cut the IRGC out of its business model.
Ever since, excluding the guards has been exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, from Iran's economy.
The corps, which was born as a volunteer militia in the heat of the 1979 revolution, is now unrecognisable from those early beginnings. It has grown into a behemoth which dominates both Iran's official and black economies. It is impossible to gauge its market share, but western estimates range from a third to nearly two-thirds of Iran's GDP – amounting to tens of billions of dollars.
But the Iranian economy has changed the Revolutionary Guards as much, if not more than, they have changed it.
"The IRGC is really a corporation. It is a business conglomerate with guns," said Ali Ansari, an Iran expert at St Andrews University. It was misleading to call Iran a military dictatorship, he said. "This is not a military junta. I see it as a collection of business and religious interests. I don't think they have the cohesion to move as one unit."
Through holding companies, front companies, and "charitable foundations" the IRGC is a big player in the construction business, oil and gas, import-export, and telecommunications. Its company subcontracts work to foreign firms, and its subsidiaries bid for contracts abroad. The IRGC's control over a string of jetties along the Gulf coast, as well as terminals in Iranian airports, allows it to move commodities in and out without paying any duty.
"If you want to get things to and from Iran without paying excise duty, they are the people to go to," said Meir Javedanfar, an Iranian-Israeli analyst. "No big businessman in Iran is truly independent of them or the government."
Mohsen Sazegara, an exiled Iranian dissident who helped found the IRGC, calls it now "a very strange and unique organisation", comparing it to the Soviet-era KGB for its extensive intelligence wing. "It's also like a huge investment company with a complex of business empires and trading companies, while also being a de facto foreign ministry through the Qods force, which controls relations with countries in the region. They are involved in smuggling drugs and alcohol. I know of no other institution like the Revolutionary Guards."
The spread of the IRGC's domain into the economy began in earnest in the early 1990s, under the country's president, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. He is still a political player, a business mogul and the corps' greatest rival, but in the aftermath of the Iran-Iraq war, encouraging the IRGC to get involved in construction was a way of rebuilding the country and funding the corps.
Ansari said: "This all started with Rafsanjani saying: go and make money, and they went and did this and thought, this is easy. They started off taking commissions and ended up taking over whole factories. The economic buyout has been going on for years."
The IRGC operate in part through Iran's bonyads, ostensibly charitable foundations that operate as huge holding companies. Under the shah they were a way of channelling wealth to favoured courtiers. After the revolution they were vehicles for self-enrichment by the ayatollahs. Now, in a reflection of the regime's continuing evolution, the IGRC is the dominant force, particularly through Bonyad e-Mostazafan, the Foundation of the Oppressed.
However, arguably the most powerful IRGC body today is Khatam al-Anbiya, which started life as the HQ of the corps' construction arm but is now a giant holding firm with control of more than 812 registered companies inside or outside Iran, and the recipient of 1,700 government contracts. Last week, the US treasury froze the assets of its head, General Rostam Qasemi, and four subsidiary companies.
With the active support of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the country's president, who has handed Khatam al-Anbiya a succession of huge no-bid contracts, its economic influence has ballooned exponentially over the past few years into just about every aspect of economic life.
Its security credentials have allowed it to corner the market for tunnelling contracts, underground rail systems, and the nuclear and missile programme. But it was also awarded a $1.3bn contract to build a natural gas pipeline running nearly 560 miles from Bushehr province to Sistan-Baluchestan. That foothold in the energy sector has been consolidated by a $2.5bn contract to build infrastructure in the South Pars oil field.
It is impossible to judge the full extent of the IGRC's control because the process of privatisation, officially required under article 44 of Iran's constitution, has been used to obfuscate the question of ownership. Many of the beneficiaries are not formally owned by the IGRC but are believed to be controlled by the corps through personal links with their owners and managers.
Last September, Etemad-e Mobin, a consortium reported to have extensive links to the IGRC, bought a 51% share in Iran's telecommunications business, minutes after it was privatised. At $5bn it was hailed as Iran's biggest ever business deal, and, in an echo of the airport takeover, the main competitor was disqualified at the last moment for "security" reasons.
In December, the head of the consortium and the driving force behind the deal, Majid Soleimanipour, and his wife, were found dead in their Tehran home. Reportedly they died after inhaling toxic gas, leaked from a pipe. But where all business is political, and all big business is seen through the prism of national security, the official account was treated with scepticism by the public.
The telecoms deal has deepened the IRGC's near-monopolistic hold on the economy while at the same time giving it potential access to every phone conversation in the country.
"Using their whole economic base, they are expanding control over areas of what they see as the 'soft war', like the telecommunications field, to confront the threat they see," said Mark Fowler, a former CIA Iran specialist now working for the US consultancy Booz Allen Hamilton.
The main motive for the sanctions of the US and its allies is to drive a wedge between the IRGC and the Iranian people. Hillary Clinton's claim that Iran is heading to military dictatorship was probably intended to throw a spotlight on the gulf. But analysts say the reach of the guards (known to Iranians by the Farsi word Pasdaran) and the murky nature of corporate ownership will make it very hard to know where to aim that wedge. "It's the country of the Pasdaran," said Jamshid Assadi, an Iranian economist in Dijon, France. "Everybody knows it and nobody even tries to hide it."
One of Iran's opposition Green Movement leaders Mehdi Karroubi discusses the chances of changing Iran's politics By Angus McDowall 13 Feb 2010
Mehdi Karroubi has always been outspoken. As a novice cleric in Iran's holy city of Qom he quickly became a disciple of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the charismatic preacher who became the father of the Islamic revolution.
By the late 1970s, he was spending long spells in the Shah's prisons for calling his compatriots to revolution. Old jail mates have described how he would stick up for other inmates against cell bullies and the brutal wardens.
Even when he became the speaker of parliament under the reformist president Mohammed Khatami, he refused to fall quiet, publicly accusing the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps of running a huge smuggling empire.
Now aged 73, he says Khomeini's Islamic revolution has been wrenched off track by the regime's contempt for democracy. And he accuses the country's authorities of using torture and rape against their political prisoners.
Through his son, Mohammed Taghi Karroubi, he responded to a list of questions sent by The Sunday Telegraph.
The Sunday Telegraph: Last month somebody fired a gun at you and last week you were assaulted. Are you still in danger?
Mehdi Karroubi: Yes. I'm 73 years old. As a cleric and a close friend of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, I have a legal, national and religious duty to do something for our people.
When I was 25 years old I participated in the revolution alongside Ayatollah Khomeini. Since that time until now I have done what was needed no matter the danger or the price I had to pay.
ST: After the security forces stifled your protests last week, what will be the opposition's new strategy?
MK: At the moment there is no official rally we are asking the people to attend. We will ask, in accordance with article 27 of constitution, to have a peaceful demonstration, in order to show the people's support for our movement.
If they don't let us have that, we will have to try different methods to talk and educate the people about the peace movement and extend it to the whole country.
We want to maintain our peaceful demands in accordance with the constitution. But we don't want the people to pay the high price.
Presently the state shows less tolerance and tries to use violence against the people. Many young people are in prison and have received unacceptable sentences. There is no way to back away from the people's rights. But we have to find a proper way to ask the people's rights and put the revolution back on track, without letting them divert the Islamic republic from its main goals with great cost to the people.
And we will talk to the people about our programme in the near future. Mr Mousavi and I will have a meeting in the near future and will let the people know about our strategy and work. The meeting might be sometime this week.
Our priorities are the release of the many prisoners without any condition and free elections without monitoring by the Guardian Council [an unelected body that can veto candidates]. The last thing is the creation of a good atmosphere for a free press recognition of the right to criticise. The current atmosphere, dominated by fear and police control must be removed and we must create a situation where all the people come together and present their ideas about the future of the state. It is the people's right to choose. In the view of Khomeini, the most important thing was the vote of the people.
ST: When did you last meet the supreme leader and what did you discuss with him?
MK: The last meeting with the leader was before the June election. We discussed the government's internal problems and foreign policy. Also I criticised president Ahmadinejad's foreign policy and its effect on our national security and our national interests. I also asked about his ideas about the elections and he said: "there is no difference for me between the candidates."
ST: Do you believe that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the legitimate president of Iran?
MK: There's a difference between legitimacy and reality. In reality he's head of executive power. But in my opinion, legitimate governments must be appointed by the people in fair and widely supported elections. Our constitution also emphasises this point. We recognise him as the head of the government, which controls everything from the budget to municipal and foreign policy. He must provide the proper response in regard to duty.
But our problem with his legitimacy remains. If we want to have a peaceful demonstration, we have to ask permission of the government. We recognise them only as the dominant power, not as the legitimate government.
ST: Have you and the other opposition leader, Mir Hossein Mousavi, discussed the possibility of a negotiated settlement with Mr Ahmadinejad?
MK: At the moment we are working on the issue. But the lack of respect and recognition of the people's rights has created many problems inside Iran. We haven't appointed anybody for negotiation with Mr Ahmadinejad, but the most important thing is respect and understanding of the people's needs and rights.
ST: Why have elements of the security forces attacked peaceful protesters?
MK: The political life of some people, including some military men, depends on crisis. They deny the people's rights and try to dominate all Iranian spheres - economic as well as political. They even try to deny our rights under our constitution. In this situation, they try to create crisis and leave the country in crisis. For this reason they don't want the people to follow their rights in a peaceful manner and a peaceful atmosphere.
ST: Do you have any news of the senior reformist politicians who are still in prison?
MK: Many reformist politicians and former members of parliament are still in prison. We hope they will soon be free. Many reformist politicians prefer to be silent because if they're talking they have to go to jail.
ST: You have said that senior clerics are worried about the situation. What will they do about it?
MK: It's true the senior clergy worry about the situation. They worry about the state and future of the Islamic republic of Iran. Iran is now an Islamic state, based on both republican and Islamic ideals. They don't want any damage to the people's belief in Islam. For us, and the senior clergy in Qom, if there is damage to the Islamic state, it is direct damage to Islam. The late Ayatollah Khomeini said that if we receive damage to the state, it's a direct damage to people's view of Islam.
The people in Qom are worried about the future of the state, its stability and also about the spiritual health of Islam among the young generation. There is no contradiction between Islam and human rights in view of many scholars. But in view of the state's behaviour, many people have now started to think there is, and that it is not possible to have both under Islamic laws.
Iran denies western reporters visas to cover revolution anniversary
Handful of foreign correspondents still in Iran ordered not to report opposition protests Iran denies western reporters visas to cover revolution anniversaryHandful of foreign correspondents still in Iran ordered not to report opposition protests
Ian Black, Middle East editor guardian.co.uk, Thursday 11 February 2010
Iran has done all it can to limit coverage of celebrations of this year's anniversary of the Islamic revolution, using lessons learned over the past eight months of sporadic protests since the disputed presidential election. Western journalists, including from the Guardian, have largely been denied visas to enter the country. The internet and phones have been interfered with.
The few foreign correspondents resident in Tehran operate under severe restrictions. Iranian officials claim that more than 200 foreign media were "cleared" to cover the anniversary, but minders from the ministry of Islamic guidance escorted selected journalists to today's main official rally at Tehran's Azadi square and warned them not to report opposition protests.
Exiled Iranian journalists had urged their foreign colleagues not to go, to avoid presenting "a caricature of the Iranian nation for your television cameras".
Sixty-five Iranian journalists are in detention, according to the Paris-based Reporters Without Borders. Iran has become the leading jailer of journalists in the world, the International Press Institute (IPI) said today in its annual review of global press freedoms.
Iran's official media does not offer a wide angle on the story. Gisoo Ahmadi, correspondent for English-language Press TV, made no mention of opposition protests but described her excitement at covering the revolution's anniversary for the third time. "Every year I tell you that it's very glamorous, it's very exciting, it's very impressive, the turnout of the people, and every year I think that, oh, it can't be any better, and you know surprisingly, the next year I see that there's even more happening," she said.
Opposition websites are probably the best source of news about Iran and there is regular praise for the BBC Persian TV satellite channel, which depends largely on information sent in by viewers.
"The international media has done well with live blogs and so on considering the difficulties," said Massoumeh Torfeh, an Iranian academic at the School of Oriental and African Studies, London University. "The general picture is pretty accurate."
Not surprisingly, Iran disagrees. Last November, during ceremonies marking the takeover of the US embassy in 1979, the official Islamic Republic News Agency accused TV stations such as al-Jazeera, CNN and France 24 of "seeking to create widespread unrest ... by broadcasting phony stories and images" instead of reporting on the "epic public turnout" for pro-government rallies.
"The government cracked down on all forms of transmission of information, on bloggers, on journalists, on anybody that was transmitting any kind of information about the election," said Anthony Mills of the IPI. "It's an example of a government seeking to stifle dissent, by stifling independent reporting, by trying to make sure that no news, written or visual, comes out about events that are having an enormous impact on the country."
'It Can't Go On Like This' Saeed Montazeri, son of the leading Iranian dissident cleric Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, talks to SPIEGEL about who is responsible for his father's recent death, reformists' chances of success and why Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not suited to be president. 01/05/2010
Saeed Montazeri, son of the leading Iranian dissident cleric Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, talks to SPIEGEL about who is responsible for his father's recent death, reformists' chances of success and why Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not suited to be president.
SPIEGEL: Hojatoleslam Montazeri, we have reached you on your mobile phone. Where are you at the moment? Are you under house arrest?
Saeed Montazeri: I am in my house in Qom, which is next to my father's house. Officially, my movements are not restricted. But the windowpanes occasionally rattle. It is apparently regime thugs who want to provoke me. My father's office is being tightly controlled by security agents. His hosseiniyeh (religious institute) was closed 12 years ago and occupied by the thugs.
SPIEGEL: Were you at least able to give your father, who was seen as one of the most respected clerics in Iran and a mentor of the opposition movement, a dignified burial?
Montazeri: The security forces only showed restraint for the first 24 hours after his death. Immediately after the funeral, they began rioting in front of my father's house and insulting him with chants.
SPIEGEL: Who were these people? Were they soldiers in uniform or police officers?
Montazeri: No, the men in uniform just stood by and watched. It was the Basij militias, who had clearly been sent by the regime, who became violent. For the first time in Qom, however, we also heard counter-demonstrators chanting their determined slogans. "Down with the dictator!" they shouted. It can't go on like this for much longer.
SPIEGEL: The seventh day after the death of your father, a traditional day of mourning, coincided with the Ashura festival. In Tehran and other big cities, there was an escalation of violence and at least eight deaths
Montazeri: for which government bodies are responsible. They are to blame.
SPIEGEL: But there was also a new willingness among the protestors to use violence. They set police cars on fire and attacked Basij militias.
Montazeri: Ordinary people have no interest in setting property on fire. They wanted to demonstrate for their legitimate interests. They were provoked by the state.
SPIEGEL: Would your father, who advocated nonviolent resistance in his Islamic legal opinions, have seen it this way?
Montazeri: Without a doubt. My father consistently condemned state brutality and stressed that there is a religious right, even a religious obligation, to rise up against rulers who abuse their power. His commitment to this cause took years off his life. Even though the cause of his death was heart failure, the regime is partly responsible for his death, and not only because of their harassment of him. My father was very distressed about what this regime did to people in recent months.
SPIEGEL: Did your father, in his last days, feel that the Islamic Republic still stood a chance of surviving? Do you believe in the future of the theocracy?
Montazeri: Until the very end, my father hoped that those in power would come to their senses, so that our people could be spared serious harm. I believe that the form our future society takes is not that important. It can be an Islamic republic, a secular republic or, as far as I'm concerned, even a monarchy. The important thing is that people are able to live in freedom and prosperity, that they have freedom of movement and that their voices are heard.
SPIEGEL: Is such liberalization even possible under Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei?
Montazeri: It's difficult to say. Those responsible must first apologize for the misdeeds and repressive measures they have imposed on the people in the past few months. That would be the precondition for the Islamic Republic continuing to exist. And the presidency, after the resignation of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, would have to be given to the candidate who captured the most votes in the last elections: Mir Hossein Mousavi.
SPIEGEL: Do you think Mousavi is the right man for the position? Isn't the former prime minister also a politician of the past?
Montazeri: Mousavi never claimed to be the leader of the movement. As far as the future of our country is concerned, a council would have to be convened that would include both Mousavi and the opposition politician and cleric Mahdi Karroubi, as well as the highly respected reformist former president, Mohammad Khatami. Former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani should also be included. They are my friends, and I share their positions. Mousavi and Karroubi attended my father's funeral and paid a -- nonpolitical -- visit to my house to offer their condolences. I do not see myself playing an advisory role. I see my role as a human rights activist, not as someone who is active in politics.
SPIEGEL: Can those things even be separated in the current situation?
Montazeri: You're right, that's difficult in Iran today. These days, every ordinary police officer, every bazaar merchant and every teacher is politically active. Those on the frontlines, when things start to escalate, are usually young people, students and workers. But the peaceful demonstrations now include people from all levels of society and from all age groups -- men, women, deeply religious women in full veils and those with more secular views, hardly veiled at all. Mousavi and Karroubi speak the language of one part of the opposition
SPIEGEL: and yet one sometimes has the impression that they are running after the movement. Haven't they in fact become merely the figureheads of the opposition, while those who are willing to do anything are the ones calling the shots?
Montazeri: Mousavi and Karroubi have consistently stressed that they do not represent all of the disappointed. And they don't want violence, either. My friends and I have repeatedly recommended that the people in the streets remain calm, and that they should practice patience. A problem like ours cannot be solved in a day. But if young people are forced to look on as their friends are beaten, arrested or even shot dead on the streets, any attempts to convince them to exercise moderation will soon fail. And, to be honest, I find it understandable, even if I don't approve of it.
SPIEGEL: Mousavi's nephew was shot and killed during the Ashura protests. Do you know any further details about the incident?
Montazeri: It wasn't as if he were simply shot by accident. It was undoubtedly a targeted effort. We have heard from several sources that it was planned well in advance by the authorities, who also carried it out. It may have been intended as a sort of final warning to Mousavi. I don't possess prophetic gifts, which is why I don't known whether he'll be shot and killed one day, or whether the regime will arrest him. The consequences would be catastrophic.
SPIEGEL: What would they be?
Montazeri: It has been shown, again and again, that suffering and casualties accompany historic processes, with many people arrested, tortured and executed. Many lose their families. The outcome can only be evaluated at the end of such bloody processes. Revolutionary leader Ayatollah Khomeini once said: "Our fathers are not our guardians, and what right did they have to determine this form of government for us?"
SPIEGEL: You expect to see revolutionary excesses, with a bloodbath?
Montazeri: I hope that it doesn't happen that way. I still hope that those in power will come to their senses, that they will accept compromises and choose the path to national reconciliation. If they don't, my country will be in far worse shape in a year's time than it is today.
SPIEGEL: Will Ahmadinejad still be president in 12 months, and will Khamenei still be the supreme religious leader?
Montazeri: Ahmadinejad is not suited for the office of president.
SPIEGEL: For which office is he suited?
Montazeri: Perhaps for the office of mayor of a small town. I prefer not to comment on Khamenei. However, my late father was firmly convinced that he lacks the qualifications for his office.
SPIEGEL: By making such statements, you are running the risk of being arrested yourself. Aren't you afraid for yourself and for the safety of your family?
Montazeri: I have been in prison several times already. Most recently, I spent 325 days in solitary confinement. I'm not afraid. Let them arrest me. Let them come, if they want to.
IFJ Condemns New Wave of Journalists' Arrests in Iran
Media Release 05 January 2010
The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) today condemned recent arrests of journalists and media union leaders following the civil unrest which gripped Tehran and the country last week with demonstrations and clashes between protesters and security forces.
The IFJ says that at least 12 journalists were arrested, including Badralsadat Mofidi and Mashaalah Shamsolvaezin, respectively General Secretary and Vice President of the Association of Iranian Journalists (AoIJ), an IFJ affiliate.
"We condemn the Iranian Government's kneejerk reaction of blaming the media over legitimate public protest," said Aidan White, IFJ General Secretary. "There is systematic repression and brutal intimidation of media and journalists under the cloak of restoring public order."
According to media reports, authorities in Iran carried out a number of arrests of prominent independent journalists in the wake of last week's demonstrations which pitted protesters against security forces in Tehran and other cities in the country. Violence erupted when the authorities tried to ban a procession to mark the Muslim festival of Ashura which coincided with the death of Ayatollah Hossein Montazeri, a senior Iranian cleric who had criticized the government for its handling of the post June presidential election protests.
Reports say Shamsolvaezin, AoIJ Vice President was arrested at his home on 28 December by plain clothes officers while its General Secretary Bradralasad Mofidi was detained on 28 December along with her husband Kayvan Mehregan, editor of the political section of the reformist daily Etemad. Syrian reporter Reza al-Basha who works for state-owned Dubai TV was reportedly also arrested on Sunday 27 December and detained in Tehran.
The AoIJ says that at least eight more journalists were arrested last week, including Nasrin Vazere (Ilna news agency), Morteza Kazemeyan (freelance), Mostsfa Ezade (freelance), Emadoddin Baghe (freelance), Mohammad Nazere( freelance), Mohammadjavad Mozaffar(freelance), Ali Hegmat (freelance) and Mohammadreza Zohde (freelance).
The IFJ has also described as "absurd" the sentence of a seven year and four month jail term handed down to Iranian journalist Bahman Ahmadi Amoui. The journalist, a critic of President Ahmedinajad's rule, also faces 34 lashes, according to media reports.
"The international community of journalists will stand by their colleagues in Iran" added White. "The government will not restore order or end this crisis without respect for the rights of people to protest and of journalists to tell the story. There must be an end to the reign of terror that is being unleashed against free speech and journalism in Iran."
For more information contact the IFJ at +32 2 235 2207
The IFJ represents over 600,000 journalists in 123 countries worldwide
The Irish Times - Thursday, December 31, 2009 MARY FITZGERALD
ANALYSIS: The fightback by the Iranian government and its supporters creates a deep sense of foreboding as to what might happen in the country
BLOODIED FACES on burning streets. Crowds fleeing tear gas and baton charges. Hands raised in defiant fists and V signs. Mass arrests, followed by thunderous denunciations of opposition leaders as mohareb, or enemies of God.
The reports from Tehran and other Iranian cities over the past week cannot but stir memories of the violent upheaval that followed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s bitterly disputed re-election in June. They also raise questions about where this, the most serious bout of unrest since the summer, may ultimately lead.
The most recent clashes come after many observers had all but completed the obituary for what had become known as the Green Movement in reference to the campaign colours of Ahmadinejad’s main challenger, the greying former prime minister Mir Hussein Mousavi. The brutal response of the Iranian authorities to what were initially peaceful mass demonstrations against an election which Mousavi’s supporters believe was stolen appeared to snatch the wind from the opposition’s sails, and protests largely sputtered out as the summer drew to a close.
Those who sought to write off the movement argued that it was too disparate and confused in its goals to keep momentum. Some, like Mousavi, once a protege of Ayatollah Khomeini, clamoured for reform within the parameters of the Islamic Republic, while others would stop at nothing but its collapse. Many wondered whether this largely grassroots campaign, with Mousavi and fellow reformist candidate Mehdi Karroubi only nominal leaders, had the will and vision to sustain itself. The fact that a large number of the demonstrations had taken place in affluent north Tehran was enough for some to dismiss the June disturbances as merely the pangs of a small westernised elite.
Nevertheless, the opposition found ways of circumventing the ban on protests to continue its challenge to a regime that has killed dozens, arrested hundreds, and jailed scores of dissidents in the six months since Ahmadinejad declared victory.
Because the authorities cannot prevent people gathering for official political and religious events, activists have hijacked such occasions with anti-regime slogans and displays. As a result, some of the most potently symbolic dates in Iran, including Qods Day – a government-backed day of protest supporting the Palestinians – and the November anniversary of the US embassy siege in 1979, have served as further evidence of how far Iran’s fissures widened this year.
Other Iranians have chosen more subtle means of defiance. Thousands of banknotes have been defaced with opposition insignia, walls have been daubed with anti-government graffiti, and the nightly rooftop chanting of Allahu Akbar [God is most great], a ritual that harkens back to the days leading up to the Shah’s ousting three decades ago, continues.
But the street protests and pockets of civil disobedience are not the only signs of Iran’s current turmoil. Talk of divided loyalties and deep unease abounds behind the scenes within the country’s opaque political, security, and clerical spheres.
One of the most chilling video clips to emerge from Iran in the last week shows masked vigilantes storming Jamaran, the Tehran mosque complex from which Ayatollah Khomeini ruled revolutionary Iran before his death in 1989, on Saturday, as Mohammad Khatami, the mild-mannered reformist former president, attempted to address a gathering. On June 12th I had stood inside this hall, watching Khatami and other Iranian luminaries cast votes in the ill-fated election. The fact that Jamaran, revered due to its place in the annals of the Islamic Republic and usually well guarded, could be breached by thugs is an ominous sign indeed.
The day after Khatami was forced to abandon his speech amid the sound of breaking glass and frenzied yelling, Iran witnessed the deadliest street violence since the summer. More than eight people were killed, including Mousavi’s nephew, and many others arrested. Serious disturbances had been expected that day. The death a week beforehand of Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, the dissident cleric who had become something of a spiritual guide for the opposition, meant the religiously significant seventh day of mourning for him took place on Ashura, the most emotionally charged occasion in the Shia calendar. Ashura commemorates the martyrdom of Imam Hussein, the prophet Muhammad’s grandson, who was killed by the caliph Yazid.
The bloodshed on this year’s Ashura will only serve to reinforce the parallels which opposition supporters had already drawn between their narrative and Shia traditions which tell of how Imam Hussein, denied his rightful position as caliph, challenged the tyrannical rule of Yazid. Acclaimed Iranian filmmaker Mohsen Makhmalbaf, now based in Paris, argues that, with the Ashura deaths, the Iranian regime has crossed a perilous line. “No religious person would accept the killing of Muslims on this day,” he said this week. “Now with the killing of [Mousavi’s] nephew, [Mousavi] is Imam Hussein and [Iran’s Supreme Leader] Khamenei is Yazid in the minds of many people.”
It all adds up to a deep sense of foreboding as Khamenei plots his next move to further shore up the legitimacy of his own rule as Supreme Leader, and the regime itself. Contacts in Tehran and other Iranian cities – whether opposition supporters or critics of the movement’s aims and methods – tell me of their fear over what might unfold next.
One friend described her family’s desperation after a relative was swept up in last weekend’s arrests, despite having no connection with the protests. Nothing has been heard of him since. Another contact, related to a high-profile reformist figure detained earlier this week, told me his family has urged him to abandon plans to return to Iran for the time being.
Earlier this month, before the violence of Ashura, Mousavi issued a statement saying the regime was fighting “shadows in the streets” while “its strongholds are constantly falling” in people’s minds.
The events of the past week have poisoned the atmosphere to a far more dangerous degree. It may herald a more violent and unpredictable phase of the existential crisis that has convulsed the Islamic Republic during this, the 30th anniversary of the revolution that brought it into being.
Many expect the traditional cyclical mourning periods for those killed this week to result in fresh waves of protests and unrest far into 2010. The coming year may well prove to be the Islamic Republic’s greatest test yet.
Interviewing a former Iranian Basij militia member
Rory Carroll, Latin American correspondent World News Blog December 16, 2009
For months now, we’ve heard horrific stories of rape and abuse from Iran’s gaols.
Since the election last June, hundreds, maybe thousands, of opposition protestors have been beaten and gaoled. Human rights groups have documented persistent reports of rape within the police stations and gaols.
He was a broken man, seeking refuge in Britain, and from his own conscience.
“I feel pain and the shame in front of people and before God. I’ve lost my world and my religion,” he wept, as he recounted his story.
Aged 27, he had been a member of the Basij for as long as he could remember, born into a deeply religious family, utterly loyal to the Islamic Revolution and above all to the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamanei.
For “Sayyed”, as we’ll call him, Ayatollah Khamanei was the incarnation of the 12th Imam, the equivalent of the Messiah in Shi’a Islam. Not far short of God, in other words.
So he didn’t question it when commanders told his Basij unit, months before the election, that the Supreme Leader had decreed that Ahmadinejad should win. Nor even when they were told to ignore the desires of illiterate voters and vote for Ahmadinejad on their behalf.
He had a twinge when he realised they were simply “disappearing” the ballot boxes with the votes of young people, who mainly voted for the opposition.
As he described how they were armed with batons, cables and other weapons and told to attack protestors, he started to cry.
He says he stood by, but his colleagues killed people on the streets of his city. But the local Basij, it seems, were not performing well enough. So when about a hundred young people were arrested and put in shipping containers, Basij from the provinces were brought in.
At this point in the interview, Sayyed sobbed, tears dripping down his anguished face. He walked around, but he said he wanted to come back and finish telling his story.
From the containers, he said, they heard the desperate cries of men and women, boys and girls, being raped by the Basij from outside the town.
It was 20 June. He gave us the name of the police station where he says the assaults took place, and identified the mullah in charge of the basij in his city. We’re not revealing any of the details which could identify him, but which we needed to know to authenticate his story.
He spoke in the elaborate, religious Persian used by many Basij volunteers, and while he was willing to talk to us, he refused to shake the hand of a woman, another sign of his religious background.
Maybe the most convincing authentification we have is that his story confirms the reports we’ve had from victims and human rights groups, who say rape has been used all over Iran in the brutal months since the June election. That and his desperation. Rarely have I interviewed someone so distressed.
“I am ashamed in front of people, even to say that I was mistaken, and I am ashamed in front of my religion,” he said. “I committed crimes, knowingly and unknowingly. Now I’m left with my conscience punishing me for what I did.”
Iran's Supreme Leader ordered intensification of Suppressions
By: Sepeher Saadat Translated to English by Reza Eshteraki for Persian2English December 15, 2009
Jaras (Green Way Movement network): Right at six months after the presidential elections, Ayatollah Khamenei, with a nervous and worried tone, promised destruction to those who oppose the regime and he threatened them with more severe punishments.
His speech was accompanied with slogans from dozens of his supporters but concurrently many supporters of the green movement have deemed the threats of the Islamic Republic Supreme Leader ineffective in their media outlets. They have also stressed the continuation of protest actions and being smart in the face of government measures.
Ayatollah Khamenei, in one of his fiercest attacks on the leaders of the green movement, accused them of acting against the law and said: "These people talk about supporting Imam Khomeini but what they do results in a big sin like this to the Imam, and enemies happily analyze based on these acts and then make decisions against the national interests of Iran."
By uttering these statements, Khamenei effectively supported IRIB (National TV & Radio) for broadcasting images of a photo of the founder of the Islamic Republic (Khomeini) being torn down in protest gatherings on December 7th. He holds the leaders of the green movement responsible for the action.
In one of the most provocative parts of his speech, the Supreme Leader implicitly claimed that some of Ayatollah Khomeini's companions have been separated from his causes. He then defended his political principle, saying: "I believe in attracting the majority and letting go of the minority, but it seems that some people are intent on going away from the regime."
He then criticized the leaders of the green movement for having the backing of France, England, US, corrupt individuals, Tudeh (Communist) Party supporters and Monarchists. He told them to open their eyes and issue disclaimers. Analysts say that this speech is preparing the ground for more severe oppressions of the green movement. Before Ayatollah Khamenei's speech, some had guessed irregular measures of the government against the green movement. Kalameh news agency, close to Mir-Hossein Mousavi, issued a warning, asking people to be smart if an irregular measure is taken. Kalameh warned people about the possibility of attacks on the Green movement news outlets and asked them to spread the news with alternative outlets. The prediction from Mousavi's website proved correct because the day after, the site was hacked by a group called Prophet Green Movement.
Green Leaders to be arrested
Some sources close to Mir-Hossein Mousavi told Sunday of the increase in the possibility of his arrest and told Jaras correspondent that security bodies are examining the situation for his arrest. A knowledgeable source told Jaras that based on the news received, security institutions are 100 percent intent on arresting Mousavi and the increase in oppressions in the last few days is for controlling the conditions after his arrest.
It is said that Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karoubi will also publish separate publications soon, reacting to events in recent days. They had previously rejected IRIB's claim that a photo of the founder of the Islamic Republic (Khomeini) has been torn down by supporters of green movement. They called this a suspicious act and a tactic of the government for an increase in oppressions.
It seems that statements by Green movement leaders after Ayatollah Khamenei speech will lead to intensification of political polarization in Iran.
This is while the Supreme Leader has openly called for new oppressions and has introduced the opponents of status quo as enemies of the regime saying: "Those who want to create insecurity and turmoil face the people" and "legal bodies have duties that they should act upon."
The Supreme Leader has also compared the opponents of the government to "froth on water," promising their destruction.
Fear from expansion of protests in Muharam
Analysts believe that the government's intention of intensifying oppressions is due to their failure to suppress the wave of protests after the election.
Many security officials had promised, before Student Day, that there would be no gathering by the supporters of the Green movement, but protests including tens of thousands of students on December 7th put an end to all the analysis of security bodies.
Right now, executing the project of intensifying oppressions can be an attempt by the security bodies to counter the increasing wave of public protests. Published reports show that since Muharam (a month of Mourning in Islamic Shi'a culture-Translator's note) is near and the Green movement supporters have widespread plans to use this opportunity for protesting the government. Security intuitions want to dominate an atmosphere of public intimidation and terror. But supporters and leaders of the Green movement say that intensifying the oppressions will bear no fruit and will only lead to more reasons for the opponents of the status quo to stress their demands.
Brazilian protests greet Ahmadinejad at start of South American tour
Rory Carroll, Latin American correspondent guardian.co.uk Monday 23 November 2009
Protests greeted Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Brazil at the start of a South American tour intended to bolster the Iranian president's legitimacy and ease his country's international isolation.
Thousands of demonstrators took to the streets in Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro on the eve of Ahmadinejad's arrival to denounce his record on human rights, homosexuality and Israel.
The Brazilian president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, was expected to welcome the visitor with red carpet pomp in the capital, Brasilia, before holding talks on economic and political co-operation. "It doesn't help isolating Iran," Lula said in his weekly radio address today.
Around 200 Iranian businessmen accompanied Ahmadinejad's delegation, in a sign of their eagerness to tap opportunities in a continent that does not consider Tehran a pariah. Iran's leader faces simmering discontent at home and hostility in the west, but in Latin America he has friends and allies among a leftist bloc led by Venezuela's Hugo Chávez and including Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua.
"This is the first time in Latin American history that an Islamic government has been so present in the US backyard," Hamid Molana, an Ahmadinejad adviser, told the Irna state news agency.
Luis Inácio Lula da Silva and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Brasilia. Photograph: Fernando Bizerra Jr/EPA
Achieving a first head of state invitation to Brazil was a diplomatic coup for Tehran because the region's heavyweight had previously kept its distance. Hobnobbing with Lula, one of the world's most popular leaders, shows that Ahmadinejad has diplomatic cards to play even if Europe, the US and much of the Middle East are against him.
"New orders should be established in the world," Ahmadinejad said before leaving Tehran. "Iran, Brazil and Venezuela in particular can have determining roles in designing and establishing these new orders."
Israel made a pre-emptive diplomatic strike last week when the president, Shimon Peres, visited Argentina and Brazil to lobby for a tough line on Iran's suspected quest for a nuclear bomb.
On Rio's Ipanema beach, groups representing gay people, artists, Christians, Jews, and Holocaust survivors carried protest banners and a giant cage containing white balloons as a symbol of Iran's "repressed values".
Opposition politicians criticised the visit. "One thing is a diplomatic relationship with dictatorships, another is to welcome their leaders in your home," Jose Serra, the Sao Paulo state governor, wrote in a newspaper article.
Ahmadinejad and Lula are expected to sign accords on biotechnology, energy and farming which, Tehran hopes, could boost bilateral trade from $2bn to $15bn. They may discuss co-operation on building nuclear plants. The Iranian president is due to address Brazil's congress and speak to university students before heading on to Bolivia and Venezuela.
The visit will test Brazil's ambition to be a serious diplomatic player by courting friendship with everyone. It has urged dialogue with Iran instead of cornering the regime with sanctions.
"If Brazil is somehow able to moderate Iran's policies on the nuclear question, or its practice in support of terrorist groups, it would give the Lula government a tremendous boost and enhanced global stature," said Michael Shifter, an analyst with the Inter-American Dialogue thinktank.
"But if Brazil doesn't succeed in influencing Iran's conduct, or is seen as indulging and legitimising such a questionable regime, then it risks alienating some in the US and Europe who expect Brazil to take a firm stand, and might even hurt its chances to get a seat on the UN security council."
Brazil has reportedly asked Ahmadinejad to steer clear of homophobic comments, Holocaust denial and threats against Israel. Another delicate point will be Tehran's crackdown on dissent after June's presidential election.
The US has welcomed Brazil's burgeoning diplomatic role but some members of Congress accused it of erring in "lending legitimacy" to Iran's leader.
The popular movement and various factions of the ruling regime
By Alireza Saghafi Alireza Saghafi Khorassani, labour activist and a member of the Writers Association of Iran November 26, 2009
In contrast to some analysis that one section is representing the workers and lower casts and the other section represents the middle class or neo-liberals, it must be said that none of the above sections have such a followers or representations.
The Iranian People's social movement which is at one of its critical junctures has faced many ups and downs in the past thirty years. This recent uprising cannot be considered separate from the struggles of the past thirty years, as it follows the same path and makes similar demands. These are the same demands that were never fulfilled, they have been brought up time after time by various sections of the society and they were met with severe repression by the authorities.
In some articles and essays of leftists in the west – people who the Iranian left expected their support – refer to what occurred after the recent election as a "coloured revolution". Such analysts sometimes even wished for its failure and congratulated the winning side, perhaps because the anti-American rhetoric of the Iranian government were the only thing that got published in Western media. In some media outlets there were much noise made over the coverage of what happened after the election, and people who knew nothing of the demands of our people portrayed themselves as such staunch supporters that one begins to think they were the orchestrators of the movement. In this age of media manipulation, confusion and lack of reporting on events and positions, many opinions are changed and made appear as if the movement was pre-planned. It is interesting to note that there are two different groups that called this movement a velvet revolution. Both groups saw the appearances and both groups, from the left and the right, called this popular movement a velvet revolution, and neither have an understanding of the Iranian society and its recent movements.
There are plenty of reasons and evidence that in the last thirty years, the ruling governments of Iran were supported by the USA, its allies, and generally the western world. There has been no open conflict between them and what we've witnessed in the past (slogans like "Down with the USA", "Death to Israel" and the like) was all a cat and mouse game to distract the popular views. The only true determinant in policies was the vast economic profits...
There is a lot of evidence to support that argument. There is a saying in Persian; "should we take the fox's word or the chicken feathers sticking out from under him?" In the past thirty years there has been so much evidence that it has become undeniable, except by regimes similar to the Iranian one and their western trading partners. This game has brought in immeasurable profits for the investing companies. Governments of the USA, Russia, and other European countries have been using issues such as Salman Rushdie, human rights, or the nuclear file to apply pressure on Iran and sign contracts, reap astronomical amount of profits, and receive concessions similar to those offered to Russia by the Qajar dynasty at *Turkmenchay– and they have done just that in the past years.
*- The Treaty of Turkmenchay was a treaty negotiated in Turkmenchay by which the Persian empire, more commonly known today as Iran, recognized Russian sovereignty over the northern provinces such as Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan establishing the Aras River as the common boundary between both empires, after its defeat in 1828 at the end of the Russo-Persian War, 1826-1828.
.
In such an environment – especially with the imposition of sanctions – a large number of trade deals were done in black-markets, and continues to be made that way. These profits cannot be compared to that of the official deals. This is very lucrative for both sides of the deal – which happen to be the children of Mullahs and others in power. For example, Iran is the third largest importer of cigarettes from America – although not officially, or, on purchasing of weapons and armaments and many other items.
To shed further light on the subject, we will start with current situation.
From the start, creation of the Islamic Republic was approved by four industrial powers – the USA, the UK, France, and Germany – in the Guadeloupe conference. From then on, the revolution of the people of Iran was directed in a specific way in accordance with the agreement between the fundamentalists and the west. The aim of the letters that went back and forth between the mullahs and the western leaders, the obvious support of the western circles of those religious leaders in Iran was clear for all to see. The policies of that period like the creation of a green belt around the former USSR, formation of religious poles in order to defeat the eastern bloc and ... were openly discussed in the literature of the politicians in those days. That is an undeniable fact, and anyone who can perform basic media research is able to find a vast amount of evidence to that effect.
• Following the revolution the American hostage crisis occurred. It has been discussed widely, and based on evidence its main goal was to derail the fight for independence from USA and the international capitalist system as a whole. As such, after suppressing internal independent groups, the hostages were returned the conservative government of Ronald Reagan. Reagan announced to the media that he received the best gift during his presidential period from Iranian leadership. As a result of that demeaning accord (the Algiers accord which was signed by Iran, involving the then Prime Minister and his deputy) they agreed to return the hostages, an act that was even denounced by the President of that period – Bani Sadr – as being the ** Vosough od-Dowleh -type accord".
** Vosough od-Dowleh was a Prime Minister in Iran during Qajarid era. During his reign, he signed a number of accords with foreign powers jeopardizing Iranian sovereignty.
After that, the Iran-Contra affair happened along with the travel of the U.S. Vice President McFarlane to Iran, the full report of which is available in Tower Report whose finding was the revelation of the secret deal to sell arms to Iran via non-governmental channels for 5 years. The income from those arms deal was spent on paramilitary forces in Latin America. Gradually it was revealed that at least 2008 TOW rockets and 235 Hawk missiles were sold to Iran. It was also revealed that the majority of the cargo was provided by Israel.
Next came the events of 1988, the massacre of political prisoners while the west and U.S. kept their mum. At the time no formal complaint was made for this crime genocide while at the same time the Libyan government was taken to court for the bombing of an airplane with 200 passengers on board. Are human lives valued differently from person to another? The only reason can be that those murdered in Iran in 1988 were politically against the west and U.S. and therefore not worthy of the efforts.
After the mass murder of political prisoners in 1988, the regime collected its reward when number of loans flooded Iran. They came in from various western sources. Iran received close to $50 billion in span of 3 years. These loans allowed the Iranian government to assassinate its critics in various places in the world where glimpses of such examples were seen at Mykonos Trials and other examples. According to some sources there were about 200 assassination cases.
The murders of Dr. Ghassemloo, Bakhtiar, Kazem Rajavi and Fereidoon Farrokhzad abroad and hundreds of other murders inside the country like the Forouhars, Mokhtari, and Pouyandeh, were committed under the sleepy eyes of the west. It is interesting to note that in all of those times at least one of the forces involved in today's events in Iran was in power.
After such incidents were exposed, the west turned to support the political reforms and reformists in Iran and began to deal with the reform government. Large contracts by corporations like Total and Royal Dutch Shell were signed on the oil and gas fields, and large exclusive contracts such as Crescent, Iran Cell and others were given to big International corporations. Corporations like Halliburton (owned by Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice) became active in Iran. In this period of apparent reformism, repressive organs were rebuilt and which can be seen in action today. Silence of the West in the 09 June 1999 student uprising, their silence on the issue of prisoner tortures – at that time the US was busy behaving similarly in Guantanamo and other locations – and the dealings of the reform government with Iraq, Afghanistan, the middle east and even in the Balkans, all point to the compatibility of the methods of government in Iran and the west.
About this cooperation we can point to the following items:
1. Cooperation between the USA and Iran in the Balkans in dividing the former Yugoslavia is a shining example of the Islamic fundamentalists in Iran and the western expansionist policies working together. In that period, the cooperation between the two sides in breaking up Yugoslavia and signing bilateral contracts coincided with the assassination of Iran's political enemies abroad.
With the start of war in Yugoslavia, Mohammad Reza Naghdi was sent to Bosnia-Herzegovina as the head of a battalion of Revolutionary Guards Corp. and was one of the three Revolutionary Guards commanders until the end of the conflict in that region. At that time, the U.S. and the NATO had created an air cover to neutralize the Yugoslav air force so that the Mujahidin forces and Iran's help would reinforce Bosnian defences.
In the Balkan war, Rasim Delic, a Muslim, also the commanded the volunteer Revolutionary Guards Corp. sent to Bosnia. While the military base was under the command of Revolutionary Guards Corp. officers, the entire volunteer force was operating as part of the Al-Mujahed brigades. That brigade contained over 2000 foreign fighters as of 1993 and according to Ali Ahmad, an Afghan Mujahedin who is currently imprisoned at the Zenitsa Prison, was responsible for the murder of 24 civilians in Delic's village. In 1993, the same brigade murdered tens of Serbian prisoners in Orasac and put the victims' severed heads on display in the village streets.
Rasim Delic, the 56 year old general of the Bosnia-Herzegovina army is currently accused of war crimes, ethnic cleansing and genocide. He was the commanding officer of this army in the early half of the 1990's – between 1992 and 1995. As part of the charges that General Delic must answer in Hague is the rape of tens of Croat and Serb women and children by the volunteer foreign forces that were operating under his command. In the past few years Rasim Delic was working with a few import and export companies that were founded by Kharis Zilasic, Head of Bosnian Security Forces, and mostly have business ties with the Islamic Republic.
2. Cooperation between Iran and the USA in bringing the Karzai government to power in Afghanistan.
The German Conference for Afghanistan after Taliban was a start for coordination of efforts between Iran and the west in post-Taliban Afghanistan. That cooperation existed during the time of the USSR occupation of Afghanistan and Iran was in lock-step with the west in providing the Afghan Mujahedeen with the logistical and weapons to help they needed. Iran's assistance and the training of the Mujahedeen forces during their fight were so extensive that there is no need to be reiterated.
The cooperation between the both sides in Afghanistan continued with Iran's representative at the Afghanistan Conference in Hague. Reports of the possibility of cooperation between Iran and NATO, or recent published news that the Islamic regime has been negotiating with German corporations about using Iranian soil to send non-military equipment to the German forces stationed in Afghanistan, as well as recent message by Obama, all show signs of a of the USA's policy in dealing with Iran.
In March there was a rumour circulating that the USA and NATO signed a secret deal according to which all their military cargo was to be shipped to Afghanistan via Iran. That deal was signed without the knowledge of the members of parliament in Iran, and the only person aware of it was the Supreme's Leader's private secretary. From the parliamentarians, the only person aware of that deal with the head of the security and foreign policy committee of the parliament. London's Sunday Times Newspaper dated 29 March 1999 reported that Iran and the USA had begun their first round of talks regarding the end of war in Afghanistan.
The same paper wrote that Iranian and American diplomats – initiated by the Russians, participated by a British diplomat acting as liaison - met on 27 March. Patrick Moon, the head of the Central and South Asian division of the U.S. State Department and the Iranian deputy Foreign Minister were part of the talks. After objections by some members of parliament in Iran about the lack of information about that important meeting, the committee of foreign relations said that since Pakistan was in unstable political times the U.S. gave given Iran many concessions in order to send its military cargo to Afghanistan through Iran. However, no one mentioned what these concessions were and to whom and in what meeting they were granted.
3. Cooperation between the USA and Iran in bringing about an Islamic government in Iraq. According to polls after the occupation, the people of Iraq wanted a secular government. Those polls were verified by reputable centres such as Oxford University. However the negotiations and agreements between Iran and the USA resulted in Nouri Al-Malki's rise to power and secular forces were moved to the sidelines. Iran and the USA had three rounds of meetings about Iraq, and at each round, high ranking members of military and security officials participated from both sides. One of those negotiations happened on 29 May 2007 which was reported by Associated Press on 19 May, quoting the Iranian Foreign Minister in Pakistan.
Meanwhile in the media, both sides were accusing each other of not cooperating on the security issues in Iraq. However, the cooperation of both sides resulted in the current Iraqi government's rise to power as well as its stability. Everyone knows that the current Iraqi government is a close friend of the Iranian regime and the majority of its members are people who lived in Iran for many years and no country in the region has as much influence in Iraq as the Iranian government.
4. In the past three decades Iran and the USA have worked very closely along with the western capitalist world in bringing about religious governments like the aforesaid examples. In all three examples above, if the cooperation between the USA and Iran didn't exist, it would have been impossible for the said religious governments to come to power. And thus such countries could not have been kept and maintained for the benefit of expansion of international capitals and for the capitalist markets. However, at the same time, Iran itself was not immune in such dealings.
In addition to arms purchased from first and second hand sources, we can point to the examples below regarding the large economic deals in the past few years:
• Fars News Agency quoting from Magic City: "The American Halliburton Oil Company has sold 40 million dollars worth of refinery equipments to Iran despite the U.S. economic sanctions against Iran. After the economic sanctions were passed against Iran, Halliburton started to create foreign subsidiaries in order to be able to circumvent the embargo rules. This was because the sanction rules only applied to American companies and did not bar foreign companies from dealing with the sanctioned countries. William Thompson, the New York inspector questioned Halliburton on its dealings with Iran. However, the heads of Halliburton believe their activities in Iran did not break any US laws."
The vice-chair and the CEO of Oriental Kish Corporation and Dick Cheney, the former Vice President of United States were two key players in facilitating the Halliburton-Oriental deal in Iran. Dick Cheney's trip to Iran in 2000, which was made to pave way for the Gas and Petroleum contracts in Iran, was kept secret for many years. But the main story began when Halliburton won the bid to drill for the South Fars Oil Field back in 2002 – a lucrative deal according to which the company was contracted to dig 12 wells in phases 9 and 10 of the South Fars Fields, and it was expected to find Oil by 2007 in two land and sea sections and to extract 50 million cubic meters of natural gas and more than 400 tons of sulphur from those locations.
Of course Halliburton was not alone in this deal. The Halliburton and Oriental consortium was the joint winners of that contract. The story got even more interesting; Halliburton had suggested $23 million for the wells and was asking for $282 million in total, however, the government of Iran at the time – which as the client should have suggested less– gave the consortium $360 million dollars in the final version of the contract.
• The contract to assemble 55000 Chrysler automobiles while that company was on the verge of bankruptcy. It was reported that a number of high ranking deputies from the Revolutionary Guards Corp. had gone to Dubai to meet with the American company – with the help of a number of International brokers. For this reason, the Dubai Airport and the city were in a security lock-down. According to some report the Iranian military delegation came to a preliminary agreement with Chrysler which was the biggest help possible to Chrysler at the time of its bankruptcy.
In those negotiations the Revolutionary Guards Corp. commanders announced their approval – in the name of the SAIPA Company – for the purchase of 55000 Chrysler automobiles to be assembled in Iran. The foreign middlemen in that deal were a number of Kuwaiti and the U.A.E. citizens. The delegation travelled to Dubai under the guise of accompanying the Iranian National Football team. It was reported that the CEO of SAIPA who was appointed by the president was also accompanying the group to negotiate with Chrysler representatives.
The Iranian minister of industry was previously reported on mentioning the signing a contract about Mercedes-Benz automobiles production in Iran during the Sixth International Auto Industry Expo in Tehran. He said: "Mercedes 240 and 320 models will be available in the market starting next year, however the production will be limited." Of course as soon as reports started to come out, it was denied!
The talk about such deals were made at a time when on 12 December Mr. Bush accepted a loan in the amount of $13.4 billion to Chrysler and GM from the amount set aside to rescue the banking system. That loan allowed those companies to continue to operate. The negotiations and deals which essentially were a help to Chrysler to get out of the financial crisis, were in complete contrast with the slogans that commanders of the Revolutionary Guards Corp. and the Iranian president were chanting to the people; that the American empire was about to fall, and the joyous behaviour on the news of financial crises in the USA.
• According to a report by the Wall Street Journal, "since the beginning of June this year, Iran has purchased more than 1 million tons of wheat from the USA which is a large number in its kind. This is equivalent to 3 to 4 percent of USA's yearly wheat exports. In addition, numbers by the US department of Agriculture shows that the last wheat purchased by Iran from the USA goes back to 1981-1982, which was 728 thousand tons."
• The sale of electronic filtering and noise generation devices to Iran by countries who seem to talk of democracy and are very vocal about the plights of Iranians these days. The issue of website filtering and the equipment purchased from the UK and the USA with apparent involvement of Israel, was brought up in a media roundtable in Iran. At that roundtable, the CEO of the Data Communications, a branch of Iran's Telecommunication Company said "in the past years our company has spent over 7 billion tomans (7 million dollars) on filtering." The head of the union of internet service providers in Iran said "the US made filtering software and hardware, were selected in an internal bidding competition. In this competition, the Asr-e-Danesh Company was announced as the winner, which in turn went on to make its purchase from a UK based company.
• At the start of June of this year, a Wall Street funding company that worked for a retirement fund in the USA sent a letter to the Ministry of Economy asking the boundaries of private ownership and other foreign investment rules in the Tehran Exchange be declared.
• Two American banking giants, Citibank and Goldman-Sachs, have also requested to be present in Iran. Citibank is owned by Citigroup, the second largest bank in the USA who's 5 percent stake is owned by a Saudi prince. Apparently the same Saudi prince is also the facilitator in the negotiations between that bank and Iran's Central Bank. Goldman-Sachs is another one of the Wall Street giants whose former head, Robert Zulic, is currently the head of the World Bank.
• A while ago, Iran made contact with North Atlantic Treaty Organization – NATO – after thirty years and both sides' representatives met on the subject of Afghan refugees and the illegal drug smuggling issue. In his policy of bringing stability back to Afghanistan, Barak Obama suggested the creation of a regional contact group which would include Iran. According to Sunday Times, Obama's final aim is to use the same talks to convince Iran in having talks to stop its nuclear research program.
During the Iran-Contra affair we pointed to the purchase of arms from Israel. The economic ties between Iran and Israel do not end at such hidden deals. To shed further light on that issue we will have a look at some more examples:
• The Nestle Company is one that its ties to Zionist groups and the Israeli regime have been revealed by some parts of the ruling regime in Iran. Nestle has over 350 branches in 100 countries across the world, one of which is Iran. Because of the wide ranging economic ties between that company and Israel, it has been boycotted by various groups across the globe. The products of that company in Iran include: Cerelak baby food products, Anahita mineral water under license by the Anahita-Blour company. Other imported Nestle products in Iran include: Nescafe instant coffee, Coffee Mate dried milk product, Maggie meat powder, Naan dried milk, various types of chocolate include Kit Kat and Smartees, Frisky pet food products (imported by Pars-Pooran Company.
• Coca-Cola company:
• That company also has well known ties with the Israeli regime, and its distributor in Iran is Khoshgovar Company of Mashhad and Astan-e Qods-e Razavi Company.
Based on reports from Mehr News Agency (quoting the London Times), "Dana Bolden" - one of Coca-Cola top managers–said the "company has acquired the license to sell concentrated coke syrup to Iran from the US foreign exchanges commission." Bolden also commented on wide-spread protests in Mashhad regarding the yearly transfer of $150 million through an Irish subsidiary to Coca-Cola in the USA and said "for certain reasons I cannot discuss our business transactions with countries to whom we export and with whom we have financial deals." Coca-Cola, which left the Iranian market after the revolution in 1979, returned to Iran in 1994 after signing a franchising contract with companies such as Khoshgovar. The Iranian companies were receiving the Coke syrup through an Irish company named Atlantic Coca-Cola and later Drogheda Concentrate Company. The products of the Khoshgovar Company in Iran included: Coca-Cola, Fanta, and Sprite. The products of the Sasan Company licensed from American Pepsi Co include: Pepsi-Cola, Miranda which has gained a massive market in Iran and the region.
Many examples of such deals can be found with other capitalist countries in the west including France, UK and Germany. This is simply because the Iranian regime did not have the same sensitivities against those countries that it has against the USA and Israel. Here are a few examples:
1. A large portion of gasoline imported by Iran is provided by Reliance, the French company Total, the Swiss companies Vitol, Clangour and the British company British Petroleum. The insurance company Lloyds of London is the insurer of most of the gasoline shipments. It is said in the past years, "the U.S. import and export bank" have provided Reliance with loans of up to $900 million. Similar loans will be given to Reliance for the 2010 fiscal year which will start in October of this. During a visit to India, the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave assurances to that company that a fuel embargo on Iran was not in the works. (14)
That was perhaps because at the height of protests in Iran, vehicles of the security forces had a constant demand for fuel! Of course, the people who go to those protests on foot did not need it!!
2. Iran Khodro along with SAIPA, have created a duopoly on the automobile market. SAIPA has 35% of the market share and Iran Khodro has 55% of it. After the import rules in the automotive sector were relaxed, Iran Khodro started to collaborate with foreign companies: 750 thousand cars were sold in 2004, 1.1 million were sold in 2006, and 1.2 million in 2008.
Iran Khodro started that collaboration with the aim of keeping its position in the market, and to achieve new technologies which are essential in improving the quality of its products and preparing it for the international market. The Peugeot-Citroen group which had been working with Iran Khodro since 1992 in producing the Peugeot 405 line (60 percent of which was produced inside the country), took a large step forward by signing a contract in 2001. That was an agreement to assemble Peugeot 206 and 307 with a very small local involvement in their production.
Renault Company has created a large company with the two automotive giants in Iran in order to assemble the Logan (locally named Tondar). 51 percent of the shares of this company – named Renault-Pars – belong to Renault, and Iran Khodro and SAIPA jointly own 49 percent of the shares. It is interesting that the Petroleum, gas, and auto industry – which contain the most amount of American and European investments, and produce large profits – are in short supply of labour and those same western proponents of human rights have not made slightest protest against the repressive and savage work conditions in the said industries, including the fact that any workers associations – even Islamic syndicates – are legally forbidden in these industries. Meanwhile, in other sectors Islamic syndicates are encouraged, but in the aforementioned industries the most pressure is applied to workers and the slightest protest brings the security forces out. In those units, national security forces have vast apparatuses under the guise of company security. We have to consider that the petroleum, gas, and auto industries that are under complete control of western capital makes up over 90 percent of Iran's economy. It is not clear if a pro-western government in Iran could do any more to prove its loyalty to the west. On that subject, both sides of the government have always been in agreement.
3. In January 2008, a member of Labour Party in the British Parliament during question period proposed that Lloyd's TSP Bank to be heavily fined for allegations of money laundering for the Iranian regime and questioned Gordon Brown on the subject. By announcing their acceptance to launder funds for the Iranian regime, Lloyd's TSP Bank broke the U.S. laws and overlooked international banking embargoes and voluntarily paid $350 million fine to the U.S. government. Based on that, documents and records of the said bank will be opened to inspections and if it was proven that a portion of the laundered funds were used to help terrorist organizations, directors of the bank would be put on trial! That meant to the Member of Parliament that the notion of money laundering for the Iranian government was not a problem and that Iranian politicians were allowed to move those plundered funds to a foreign country; just that they should not spend them on terrorist activities. Of course, that had its own interpretation, and then the murders of opposition members can be ignored. Lloyd TSP Bank which recently received a large financial support from the British government in order to avoid bankruptcy acknowledged its role in transferring $300 million in Iranian funds to the USA. Based on the available information, after conversion to US dollars, those funds were transferred to a front organization in New York and from there; they were sent to other destinations across the world. Reports also show that more than 10 reputable banks in the world were involved in laundering money for Iran and have been able to transfer billions of dollars of Iranian money to the U.S. funds and deposit them in various accounts.
4. The sale of stocks of Iranian factories and mines to foreign and multi-national companies. The sale of 61 percent of shares of Iran's copper mines to Swedish companies, and Gold mines to British companies...
5. And the recently cat and mouse game of Iran's nuclear portfolio and the murder of people who demanded their basic rights and social freedoms in peaceful protests. Despite posturing to condemn the actions of Iranian government, no real action has been taken against Iran. For example, only the time to issue visas to Iranian officials has been prolonged. Meanwhile in Honduras – where people were not gunned down – all European countries recalled their ambassadors. In Iran where more than 150 people were killed, not even one western country recalled their ambassador, and did not even make any restrictions on diplomatic trips. Furthermore, the various bank accounts of the heads of Iranian government in those countries were left untouched. Thus, it is obvious that to those countries the actions of the rulers against their people and respect for human rights was not an important issue and other factors guided their policies on countries like Iran. The main question is how much the Iranian government had cost the western capitalist countries?
Real cooperation with people is to refrain from selling products that are used in repressing and censoring the Iranian people, not products that put the lives of ordinary people under such pressure that along with unhinged inflation their lives are made miserable. As well, cutting off all economic ties with the Iranian government or the visits of the so called diplomatic officials, blocking the rulers million dollar bank accounts, etc. are the things that will actually help the people of Iran.
But will astronomical profits allow capitalist governments to make such actions? In recent years the rulers of Iran – be it reformist or fundamentalist – have always implemented the policies of WTO, World Bank, and the IMF and thousands of Iranian have been hurt because of it. Many production units have been closed down or privatized and then shutdown to turn Iran into a suitable market for products of big capitalist countries. Hundreds of thousands have lost their jobs and millions of people are forced to leave their homes to offer their work at cheaper rates to international capitalists.
All those issues have been made possible in the last three decades with the help of both factions of the Islamic Republic, with the burden on the shoulders of our nation in such a way that is felt by all people.
The opposing actions of both factions in Iran who are fighting to get a bigger share of power are not too different from what had repeatedly happened in the history of our people. The main problem is breaking the apparatus of repression that has been created with the cooperation of western capitalism and regional fundamentalism in the last 30 years. Fundamentalism in the region has turned into a tool to repress popular movements, and could be dealt with easily – an issue that is not well understood by our people.
People best use the opportunity created by the opposing forces within the government because that is the only hope to unhinge and concentrated power of the right wing, which is vast, ruthless and repressive machinery. They are using this crack to voice their demands. Despite some analyse that show one faction as representing workers and lower classes in society and another as the representative of middle classes or neoliberals, it must be said that neither of these factions represent those groups of people. We can only speak of such representations and popular support when an independent organization could freely research that topic or when a minimum of political freedoms existed in that society. People who suggest such analyses must demonstrate how they arrived at such conclusions or where those minimums existed? What is taking place is a fundamentalist current helped by global repression pitched against the people of Iran.
Many who have a hand in the recent events from far are not aware that our people were faced with a strong repression in the past thirty years. A strong and brutal repression came into being by mutual cooperation of the capitalist system and a medieval system. It is a medieval regime because the mass murders and methods of torture in Iran are not comparable with any other country in the world.
And now the people of Iran have found their only ray of hope in the rift created between the factions of the ruling party, and this is an issue which is unfortunately missed by some people. The ruling party in Iran is unique and cannot be compared to Latin American regimes, or those of the eastern bloc countries. A simple May Day rally was dealt with in the most brutal way; peaceful gatherings were met with bullets. At least 2 detainees from July 9th lost their lives due to the severity of their injuries from maltreatment at the hands of security forces. The violence used by the police is not comparable to any action in any country in the past thirty years.
These were all lessons learned by our people in the past thirty years, and they are now wisely using that knowledge to voice their demands through the rift in the power structure. Slogans such as "Hashemi, if you don't speak up you're a traitor" is in fact a way of antagonizing a part of the regime against another part of the regime, and shows that our people know both factions well. That also shows the collective intelligence of our people. Anyone who thinks the people are following one specific faction within the regime in that fight should go to the streets and speak with people. Our people will get their rights using their own power. That is why many members of intelligentsia who have been victims of such mistreatment believe that one must join in these protests and participate. The main demand of the people is to remove the organs of repression. That machinery includes at least 9 different police forces: Basij militia, Revolutionary Guards, NOPO, Special Forces, Regular Police, Security Police, Ministry of Information, Revolutionary Guards Information, Judiciary Police...
The inconsistent way that media in the western world has treated the recent popular movement in our country show that they have no interest in the movement to be radicalized and to expand its list of demands, but instead wish to direct it in predetermined ways. The commonality amongst the reactionary forces, the reformists, and the world capitalist forces is that all three are afraid of the popular movement becoming radicalized. They are doing all within their powers to stop it from happening, through cooperation with each other. This is because all sides know that our people will reject them and none of them can possibly grant people's wishes. Each of the three aforesaid groups, the capitalist world and the two factions of the Iranian regime, are trying to curb radicalization of the people through different tactics. Since the capitalist forces are not homogeneous themselves, each part of it is trying to do achieve the same goal differently. The fundamentalist regime that mainly uses force and intimidation is getting its rewards from the pale protests of the west, and the secret deals. The reformists consider the free markets, and the loud western media with their promises of capitalist heavens as their support. That faction may in the end consent to the removal of mandatory Hijab rules, and legalizing a few singers and Hollywood actors, but will not do anything to change the nature of the regime. The capitalist world will not loose much if power was transferred from one faction to the other; neither will they be any happier if either case provided them with their needs. The powerful western media is at the service of that system and was there to show the popular movement in different lights and shades, and to confuse the issues and blur the lines between radical and reformist actions. They can paint the movement as a radical one and thus prevent any real damage to the profits of western powers from occurring and keep all the profitable deals previously penned with the Iranian regime.
Today, the true demands of the people are independence and freedom from those unholy alliances – which has turned into a monster that silences any voice of freedom in Iran and the region. The capitalist forces have discovered that their interests lie in forging alliances with fundamentalist regimes which provides them with what they want. The support for regimes such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, UAE, Pakistan, and even Turkey are keys to the continued existence of international capitalism in the region.
The Green Movement and the Myth of Shame of the Middle Class
The Feminist School Noushin Ahmadi Khorasani Tuesday 10 November 2009
A new movement called the "Green Movement" has recently been born in our country. This newborn movement has its own specific demands, its known representatives and ideological leadership, and a vast and specific network of executive forces and activists. It also has certain technological and digital capabilities and its specific mechanisms to connect its members and mobilize them. Considering the creativity and potential of this civil movement in creating "composite characters", and since its demands are "more general" than other movements such as the women's, students', labour and teachers movement, and ethnic minorities, it certainly has the capacity to mobilize a more general public.
Because the civil demands of this movement revolve around the direct relationship between the citizens and the government, in the long run it has this weakness (or potential) to turn violent as a result of injecting or changing its body with revolutionary "objectives". Although the reality of its structure and nature of its demands, and in particular its anti violence stance taken by its activists, show that this movement, like women's movement, is a reform movement because it pursues the "civil demands" of broad sections of the population (different layers of the middle class) to have the right to participate in deciding on the ruling administration within the frame work of lawful and civil struggles. This movement took shape by publicizing these demands through the use of peaceful methods and imposing its demands on the government. Therefore, the foundation of this movement and its components make it one of the reform movements, just like the women's movement.
However, this movement is under threat from two sides; first, it is threatened by radical and extremist groups (right wing extremists) within the ruling circle that are trying to instigate more violence and shut down all breathing windows – by claiming the theory of velvet revolution – and push the Green Movement towards a "revolutionary/overthrowing attitude" which would provide the perfect ammunition for a "total and historical elimination" of the reform movement in the country. The second threat or danger is from another group who would like to impose revolutionary manners on the Green Movement. This group lies outside the ruling circle and incidentally is part of the opposition. The conscious part of this opposition group is a force that, despite the failure of radical revolutions and the costly and violent consequences of the governments that came to power through revolution, still believes that "radical revolution" holds the key to solving the problems in Iran and the entire world. Certainly my remarks are not aimed at this group who is conscious of its objectives.
But another section of this second group, who unknowingly wants to impose their revolutionary ways on the Green Movement and other civil and democratic movements, is the group who does not have a deep and clear understanding of the grave differences between "reformism" and "revolutionarism". They swing between extremist and revolutionary values (which they think they have parted themselves from) and reformism. Therefore, although they admit logically and in theory that non-violent social movements (such as women's movement, Green Movement, etc…) could help establish democracy and grow themselves and the society through grassroots movement and within the society with peaceful means, nevertheless they are still under the spell of the inherited revolutionary values. They are suspending in the air. On one hand they want the Green Movement to remain civil and "all-encompassing" and pluralistic and follow the modern methods of struggle, but on the other hand they wish for "a major and up-root change in the entire political system". If we are really aiming for a "major change in the political structure", then in practice we cannot strive to keep the modern social movements (such as the Green Movement, women's and students' movement, etc…) "all-encompassing" and pluralistic. This is because for a big change like this to happen, we need a unified slogan, one single unified party, one body, and a single and revolutionary ideology, and lastly we would need an obedient nation (along with a leader or leaders who will have to have charismatic authority or iconic character) so that the "political system" could be up-rooted through bloodshed. Meanwhile, to stay as a pluralistic movement and to publicize and fortify its democratic and pluralistic values, imposes certain limitations too, because the goal of these movements is to change constitutional and civic laws and to promote the rights of the citizens in order to achieve civil equality, and all these changes are pursued by way of non-violent actions, and in a gradual and peaceful process. As a result, there would be no need for an obedient nation and a charismatic father, and just like the Green Movement, its activists and supporters are independent individuals, with a variety of aspirations and political and ideological orientations. The presence of horizontal links amongst the activists and flexible networking structures (and countless voluntary and self-founded cells and groups) characterize these movements and keeps them moving forward. The meaning of "structural reforms" in a patriarchal and totalitarian system is nothing but this.
Green Movement and the myth of shame of the middle class
It has been more than a century that the middle class in most of the underdeveloped countries (such as Iran) has been belittled by the insulting propaganda of the "revolutionary left" as being "petit-bourgeois", "inconsistent" and "equivocal". Unfortunately such humiliation and propaganda has been stamped so profoundly in the collective memory and soul of this class that in their mind any move has to be blessed by the "callous hands of workers". We felt this sense of shame in the women's movement too; if a few female workers were participating in the campaign we felt better and relieved that now the demands of the One Million Signatures Campaign belonged to "all women", and we therefore could claim the Campaign belonged to "all" and that "we represent all the layers of the people"!?!
This extremely monopolistic and "altogether" view of "a demand has to belong to all" -which believes it must prove that it is legitimate - seems to be another stubborn myth deep down the past political culture of us Iranians, which inevitably has found its way in some layers of the young generation of the Green Movement. This is while the Green Movement (just like the women's movement), whether proud or shameful, is a movement that belongs to diverse layers of the middle class of the country.
In fact, the step-by-step struggle for the individual and social rights and freedoms and civil equality, has been carried out in most countries by the modern middle class. The demands of the Green Movement, too, are mainly the very immediate demands of the middle class. The active force of this movement - its driving force - is also the modern urban middle class. And finally we see that the heavy price of this civil struggle is being paid by the various layers of the middle class.
Of course this doesn't mean that other social layers or classes do not play any role in this civil struggle and do not benefit from the demands of this movement. All it means is that the demand for social and individual freedoms is not necessarily the urgent demand of other (oppressed) classes. And even this does not mean that other classes oppose the demands of the middle class, or for instance detest the demand for free elections and elimination of "approbation supervision"; undoubtedly, they benefit from free elections too. Similarly, changing the discriminatory laws which we pursued in the One Million Signature Campaign and in the Coalition of women movement might not be deemed as urgent by the female workers, but we all know that working women will also highly benefit from equality in rights and social status. The issue, in fact, is that not all the classes and groups of people have to gather necessarily, exclusively and definitely under the umbrella of "one demand" that has such a high "priority" for them that they would take part in the social defense front for it, participate in demonstrations and rallies along with millions of various layers of the middle class, and pay dearly for it.
This exclusive and necessitating view stems from the traditional political culture of previous generations, and is influenced by our religious myths (the Unified "Ummah" or nation), as if only those demands are "legitimate" that all classes and particularly "the working and oppressed classes" pursue, and view them as a unifying string, and by hanging on this string, avoid diversity and pluralism. Although this "mass participation" - if it does take place - is a good thing, but if all the people did not participate in it, then this should not discourage the activists in the social movement, and particularly the activists and leadership of the Green Movement and women's movement. They should not be ashamed of this reality, because the nature and the limits of the modern social movements does not cover the entire country, and does not need to do so.
The modern middle class can courageously distance itself from that historical shame imposed on it, and struggle for its demands, which generally the whole society benefits from, with pride and a real sense of fulfillment (and moral confidence). The modern middle class not only is vigilant and devoted, has weight, and enjoys modern knowledge and morale, but also has unique and advance means and mechanisms to its avail, which enables it to push forward its humanitarian demands peacefully and impose them on the rulers without the participation of other classes, as it has done so far.
In spite of the presence and stubbornness of monopolistic views in our political culture, which tries to bring all social classes under its own hegemony and demands, times have now changed and we Iranians have entered the digital era. In the era of tele-communications and when the world has become a village with billions of different motives, demands and tastes, the "specific demands" of one class or layer of society do not necessarily have to be the demands of "all the people" anymore. The workers or peasants do not necessarily have to repeat the exact same slogans of the urban middle class without thinking. The concept of justice does not have to be defined necessarily like hundred years ago, i.e. "comprehensive and all-embracing", and then based on such a definition, deem a modern and civil movement incompetent.
To conclude, any modern, demand-driven social movement that is determined to have its demands represent "all people", after some time and paying the cost of its activity will find out that its decision is practically impossible and not logical, because such a great expectation in such a large scale will force the movement to expand and add to its demands too much in order to attract everybody to the movement. That is, the movement will be forced to swiftly extend its attitude towards an "alternative political regime". It is clear in advance that this will cause the course of the social movement shift from "demand-driven" to another (previously tried and failed) path. The experience of the contemporary history of our country has time and again proved that in such circumstances "heavy and intolerable responsibilities" are inevitably imposed on the movement and on its leadership. So there will be only two avenues left to take: it is either forced to "destroy" the competition forcibly and remove it from the way, or it will gradually weaken under the heavy large-scale responsibility on its shoulder, will suffer crisis and internal divisions, and eventually will be "destroyed" easily by the on-guard and suppressive competition…So sad!
Spiegel Online Daughter Of Ahmadinejad Adviser Seeks Asylum In Germany By Cathrin Schaer 10/14/2009
Young Iranian filmmaker Narges Kalhor is seeking political asylum in Germany after showing a film critical of the Tehran regime at a film festival. Kalhor, whose father is one of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's top advisers, says she will be seized by the secret police if she returns home.
The daughter of one of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's top advisers is seeking political asylum in Germany.
After attending the German film festival Perspective, which showcases documentaries and features with a human rights focus, 25-year-old Iranian filmmaker Narges Kalhor has applied for political asylum in Germany. Her father is Mahdi Kalhor, who is Ahmadinejad's adviser on cultural affairs and a media spokesperson for the Iranian regime.
Narges Kalhor studied film and graphics in Tehran and had been working for an advertising firm in the city. She has made seven short films, one of which was shown as part of a special section on Iran during the Perspective film festival which took place in Nuremberg last week. Her film "Darkhish," or "The Rake," is an adaptation of Franz Kafka's short story about torture in prison, "In The Penal Colony."
Narges Kalhor was supposed to fly back to Iran on Tuesday. However on Monday afternoon she applied for political asylum in Germany instead.
She told SPIEGEL ONLINE in a telephone interview Wednesday that she had received several phone calls from Iran two days after the festival. "I was told that people in Iran knew about the film and that reports about it had appeared on the Internet in Farsi," says Kalhor, who admitted she had not expected news of her appearance at the film festival to travel so far and so quickly.
"I was told that it would be better not to come home and that if I went back now I would be met at the airport by the secret police," she said. "There were a lot of people at the festival who are against the Iranian regime. I did not have permission to make my film in Iran either."
Daughter Made Anti-Torture Film In Turkish Bathhouse
The film, which is critical of torture and was partially inspired by the
protesters who were arrested after Iranian national elections in June, was filmed in a Turkish bathhouse that was made to look like a torture chamber. Kalhor, who also took to the streets in June to protest with friends, some of whom were arrested, has said she hopes that viewers see parallels between the film and the situation in Iran.
"If I went back it would be very dangerous for me. At least here I have security," says Kalhor, who is currently sharing a room with a Kurdish woman in a refugee center near Nuremberg.
Kalhor told SPIEGEL ONLINE that she had left Iran without declaring her intention to attend the film festival. Even her mother, with whom she lived, had not known. As for her father, Kalhor says she has not been in touch with him for years. Mahdi Kalhor divorced Narges' mother a year ago due to differences of opinion, some of which were political.
Father Did Not Know Of Daughter's Plans
During her time in Germany, Kalhor was also interviewed by fellow Iranian film maker, Hana Makhmalbaf. The interview was conducted in Farsi and then posted on the Web site YouTube on Monday (see video above). According to a translation by writers at the Associated Press, Kalhor, wearing a green scarf -- green being the color of the Iranian protest movement -- says in the interview that she supports the opposition. She also says that she was certain her father had not seen her film nor knew where she was. "I came from my own desire, for cinema, and I have to continue," she added.
Kalhor senior, who has been a close ally of Ahmadinejad for almost a decade, told the official Iranian news agency IRNA that he had been completely unaware of his daughter's plans.
"This issue is one of the symbols of a media and soft war that the opposition has launched," Mahdi Kalhor told IRNA. His daughter was being used by enemies of the regime for propaganda purposes, he said. Mahdi Kalhor, himself a former filmmaker, has in the past criticized films such as the Oscar-nominated animated feature "Persepolis," which won the Grand Jury Prize at Cannes in 2007, for being anti-Iranian.
A Political Cause Celebre?
Asked whether she is worried about becoming a political cause celebre because of her father's influential position in Iran, Narges Kalhor said: "I can't do anything about that. Maybe I will have particular problems because of my father and his work for the regime. But I myself work privately."
For the next three weeks, Kalhor will be staying in the refugee center. During that time, she will have three interviews with the German authorities to ascertain her status as an asylum seeker, the first of which is next week.
Should everything go well and she get permission to stay in Germany, Kalhor, who speaks German better than English, told SPIEGEL ONLINE that she would like to be able to tell her own story somehow, whether in film or words. "I would love to make more films and to be able to work in my chosen career. If I go back to Iran, I know I will never get to make any more films."
"Anyway," she concludes, "I have no options. I cannot go back to Iran."
Mir-Hossein Mousavi's 12th statement presents the most accurate picture of last week's events through in the briefest words: "Iranian people! It is completely clear that your efforts to return the country to normality will not be met with a reasonable response. Dangerous days are ahead. The arrest of some individuals such as Dr Beheshti herald even more grave events to come."
The people's choice for the presidency probably has more accurate information on the sate of the country, but the events of last week certainly portray dangerous days to come. Everything seems to point to the possibility that the coup perpetrators have prepared themselves to take full control through another coup that would alter the balance of power. They will take action before the million man march on Ghods day (commemorating Palestine) and the first day of school and remove the source of the problems, as they see them.
The Shiite Taliban who have been advancing their creeping coup through Russian methods, believed that their planned coup would take them to their goal and thus remove the obstacles on the way to imposing their Islamic republic. Some of the goals of this state, i.e. another cultural revolution and the altering of all school textbooks to be based on the views of Mesbah Yazdi - which are now clearly closely tied to those of ayatollah Khamenei - were revealed last week.
The blatant declaration that "regime means just one person" (a reminiscent of the French emperor Louis XIV's l'Etat, ce Moi), and in the words of ayatollah Montazeri "they openly say that only one person matters," the remarks of Passdaran's chief commander general Ali Fazli, and those of Tehran province's Passdaran commander, all translate into a "battle" for the leader of the Islamic regime. This battle has not been won or complete yet and Fazli describes it in these words, "We have just put a unique crisis behind us. We hear rumors in our educational centers for which we must unite in a manner that our Lord expects us to . We must be vigilant and take appropriate action in this regard."
Lord is a new title bestowed on ayatollah Khamenei who is now elevated to the level of Imam Ali, a leading Shiite saint. These words clearly indicate that the direction and outlook that the regime is taking, i.e. looking back to the days of the glory of Islam rather than the future as expressed by the Shiite Taliban.
Ayatollah Mahdavi Kani, who spoke after a long silence, calls on the leaders of the regime to reconcile their differences, in the same manner suggested by Mir-Hossein Mousavi, reminding the reader of the peace that Imam Hassan and the Moavieh clan made in the early days of Islam. But Khamenei, regardless of whether he is the Imam Hassan or the Moavieh seems bent on destroying Mousavi and Karoubi.
As expressed by Nowruz website, those who expressed their belief in the 'hard days ahead', under the command of the leader of the state, are in fact responding to the harsh complaints of ayatollah Golpaygani, and in fact barring him from interfering in the affairs of the state.
One can now see that the changes that took place recently at the judiciary branch of the state were in fact done to solidify all the forces in preparation for the upcoming coup.
Sadegh Larijani's use of the word "illusionary" to describe the electoral fraud that took place since June 12, and the continuation of other coup activities on orders of Mortezavi's successor are only the initial measures in this direction.
Coup perpetrators, who have nothing other than arms and torture as their tools, but who use 'the legal net' to justify their crimes, shut more outlets and voices during last week. Ghadr prayers were cancelled and no commemorations were possible on the anniversary of ayatollah Taleghani's death.
Furthermore, ayatollah Beheshti's son too was arrested last week. Both events signaled the end of Khomeini's era and the Islamic republic that he founded which now was neither Islamic nor a republic.
Prior to this, totalitarian fascists - a term coined by Khatami - had arrested Karoubi's son and shut his website and party offices. These coup perpetrators are looking for documents to show that the CIA had issued, but to which Mousavi responded in his 11th statement. Such documents will be produced through fabrication, and the rumors that are circulating these days will materialize: the arrest of Mousavi and Karoubi. This reality was something that some political personalities outside Iran heard was "imminent".
Confirmed reports too indicate that Mousavi is aware of this. Karoubi and Khatami had said prior to this that they were willing to pay any price but would not retreat from their positions and demands.
Mousavi's latest statement repeats what Karoubi and Khatami have said but even goes further to say that the efforts of the coup organizers will fail.
In this statement, Mousavi says that by arresting Beheshti, the public is asking how the regime is treated the dignity of the flag bearers of the Islamic republic, i.e. Dr Beheshti senior who was a key advisor to Khomeini and activist for the Islamic republic but was killed. He says that those planning the coup will fail, but hard days lie ahead.
He concludes his statement by saying that the arrest of Mousavi and Karoubi will only be the beginning and not the end of affairs. The beginning of a new round of the civil movement in Iran. The statement concludes: "The nation of Iran cannot be arrested; and nobody can chain freedom. We shall maintain our cool and unity in the difficult days ahead. The attack by coup perpetrators is because of fear. We shall win."
IFJ Condemns Media Witch Hunt as Journalists Flee Iran
Media Release 16 October 2009
The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) today accused the Iranian authorities of a media witch hunt as journalists flee the country or are in hiding after the closure of several newspapers and the continued shutdown of the Association of Iranian Journalists (AoIJ).
"There is no let-up on the harassment of media in Iran," said Aidan White, IFJ General Secretary. "Independent journalists are in flight for their own safety and the independent media sector is under siege."
According to reliable reports, up to six newspapers have been closed since controversial presidential elections in June and at least 18 journalists remain in prison. Many more continue to flee the country and others, including the President of the AoIJ, Rajabali Mazrooei, are in hiding and fearing arrest.
The Association of Iranian Journalists (AoIJ), an IFJ affiliate, says it has applied to the authorities in Tehran to reopen their office, but their appeal has so far made no progress.
An IFJ regional meeting which brought together 15 union members in the Middle East and the Arab World held in Amman from 5-7 October adopted a strong resolution calling for end of media clampdown in Iran.
The statement from union leaders in the region said:
'We note with dismay the deterioration of conditions in Iran, where the journalists' association was closed and dozens of journalists detained while others were forced to flee the country.
"The meeting expresses full solidarity with Iranian colleagues and calls on the Iranian authorities to lift the siege on the offices of the Iranian Association of Journalists and to release all journalists and to end harassment."
For more information contact the IFJ at +32 2 235 2207
The IFJ represents over 600,000 journalists in 123 countries worldwide
The news of the secret burial of martyrs of recent popular protests (in Tehran) has gained widespread coverage in the media in recent days. Norooz website, the media arm for the Islamic Iran Participation Front [Jebheye Mosharekat Iran Eslami] has been under attack by government supporters for exposing the issue.
As a journalist and editor-in-chief of Norooz, I will attempt to explain how this news was uncovered, how it began and how it arrived at this point.
1 – On July 12, the mother of one of the victims of the post-election turmoil informed a Norooz reporter that a number of corpses had been stored at the Aminzadeh cold storage facility, one of the country's largest industrial cold storage centers located in Islamshahr, south of Tehran. She said that while looking for his son's corpse in this cold storage facility, she saw a large number of bodies that were piled on top of each other. The observations of this mother dated to two days earlier, ie July 9.
2 – On July 12 Norooz published the statements of this mother. However, since sufficient confirmation was not available to confirm the news, the report started with "It has been heard."
3 – After the publication of the report, Norooz website colleagues began searching for evidence and took steps to gather information pertaining to the issue. We learned from the testimony of Aminzadeh cold storage facility personnel that on the night of the publication of the news, a significant amount of unusual traffic took place at the facility, as vehicles moved certain things out of the compound.
4 – In the days following the publication of the report, we received news that several of the corpses delivered to the families were completely frozen. Photographs of the martyrs that were published on Norooz website as well, belonging to martyr Behzad Mohajer, clearly indicated that the corpse of this person was totally frozen. Bodies that are kept at the coroner's office, however, are never frozen to such degree, even after 40 days. This issue confirmed Norooz's report about the storage of corpses at an industrial cold storage facility.
5 – After continued investigation, we concluded that on July 11, a significant number of vehicles that did not belong to the Behesht Zahra cemetery transported corpses to the cemetery. At that time too, there were reports that some corpses had been transported to Isfahan and outskirts of Tehran. So far, we have not been able to confirm those reports. With respect to Behesht Zahra, however, reports that were confirmed by the cemetery's personnel indicate that on July 11 and July 14, a number of non-standard vehicles, which are not used to transport corpses, came to and left Behesht Zahra.
6 – Further investigation revealed that several corpses were taken to and buried anonymously at the newly-formed section 302 in Behesth Zahra, located outside of the cemetery's general area.
7 – Based on this information, a week before our final report we were able to gather all the necessary evidence and were even in the possession of the burial certificate numbers of the martyrs. Due to the sensitivity of the news, we first contacted the Behesht Zahra cemetery officials. They neither confirmed nor denied the news, and did not give us any convincing answers.
8 – In the end, the editorial board of the Norooz website reached the conclusion that the best way to commemorate the rights of the martyrs was to publish the details of this event, especially because a large number of families are still waiting since the early post-election days for the return of their loved ones and are unaware of their fates. We published the report on July 21 while accepting the costs of doing so.
9 – On that same day, July 2, Majid Nasirpour, member of the Majlis Social Committee reacted to Norooz's report by claiming that the Majlis will investigate the group burial of the martyrs. The fact that a lawmaker promised to investigate the matter caused us much hope.
10 – To out utter surprise, however, on that same day Farhad Tajari, member of the Majlis National Security Committee and the committee to investigate prison and detainee treatment announced that the news is one hundred percent false. Mr. Tajari's denial took place within hours of the publication of Norooz's original report. He could have at least visited the Behesht Zahra cemetery and the specific location revealed by Norooz to investigate. However, he said that the report was false without any serious inquiry.
11 – As a first step at Norooz we tried to report this issue in brief terms. After our reports were rejected, we decided to provide the burial certificate numbers as proof that what we published was supported with evidence.
12 – As is normal procedure at Behesht Zahra, when someone passes away and a burial certificate is issued, a little plaque is set aside for that person that contains the person's name, burial site and other related information. The video clip that our Norooz colleagues prepared of the martyrs' graves clearly show that, while other graves that belong to the public include such plaques, some graves do not have them.
13 – Mr. Hamid Reza Katouzian, who serves on the Majlis committee to investigate prison and detainee conditions, announced that he was willing to investigate this matter. We highly welcome this determination and are prepared to provide our published and unpublished evidence to that committee or any neutral committees.
14 – Finally, I would like to mention that our only mission in this matter is to serve our duties as journalists. A journalist has the duty to investigate important news that he receives, and to publish them after confirming their validity and truth. The next step falls on the shoulders of judicial officials to follow up on the matter and punish the violators.
Federal Minister Steinmeier calls for the release of political prisoners in Iran
02.08.2009 - Press releases
In connection with the start yesterday of the trials of dissidents in Iran, Federal Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier issued today (2 August) in Berlin the following statement:
"We are greatly concerned by the news that dissidents in Iran have now been put on trial. According to present reports, these trials do not conform to minimum rule of law standards of transparency and fairness. voluntarily given to protect the civil and political rights of its citizens.The Iranian Government must release the political prisoners and honour the international commitments it has"
Iran has signed and ratified the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.Entrepreneur Bijan Khajehpour Khoi, human rights lawyer Abdolfattah Soltani and former Iranian Vice-President and Hojatoleslam Seyed Mohammad Ali Abtahi are among the most prominent detainees.As yet the Iranian authorities have given no official indication as to which political prisoners are to be put on trial.
Some 140 political prisoners were released mid-week, including women's rights activist Shadi Sadr, for whose release Minister Steinmeier had made a personal appeal. The exact number of political prisoners detained following the disputed presidential elections on 12 June 2009 and still in custody remains unknown but is estimated at several hundred,not including the already large number of political prisoners detained in recent years.
Why Iran's conservatives are airing their dirty laundry
In a striking move Tuesday, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei personally called for a detention center to be closed, citing mistreatment, while President Ahmadinejad sanctions repressive tactics.
By Iason Athanasiadis | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
from the July 28, 2009 edition
Istanbul - In the final days before President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's inauguration next week, splits among the country's conservative elite have become increasingly conspicuous. Sometimes portrayed as a lackey for Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, he appears to be jockeying for power and authority – publicly defying Ayatollah Khamenei, sacking his intelligence minister less than a week before his Cabinet would have been dissolved anyway, and angering fellow conservatives by pressing for the broadcast of confessions forced from political prisoners.
On Tuesday, amid growing public anger about reports of torture of political prisoners following the deaths of two young protestors in regime custody last week, Iran released 140 political prisoners. Khamenei made the striking decision to personally announce the closure of a detention center, criticizing the treatment of prisoners held there.
"At this stage, there's cleavage in every part of the government," says Haleh Esfandiari, director of the Middle East program at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington. "It can be seen in the Intelligence Ministry between those who say that [presidential challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi's] green movement was part of a velvet revolution and a plot to overthrow the regime, and those who argue that this is ridiculous."
Mr. Ahmadinejad has sought to deflect attention from accusations that his June 12 reelection was rigged by reviving an old theme: that Western agents, rather than loyal Iranians, have been working to prompt a bloodless coup. But the president's latest tactic for proving that thesis has caused even some of his allies to distance themselves from him.
Power struggle over forced confessions
In recent days, Ahmadinejad has been pressing for videotaped confessions from detainees saying the protests were secretly organized by the British or the Americans to be broadcast, despite the fact that many conservatives find this distasteful. The opposition say such confessions have been obtained through torture and other coercive methods. Showtrials are feared for Hossein Rassam, a political consultant for the British Embassy who was released on bail July 19, and Bijan Khajehpour, the director of the Atieh Bahar consultancy.
"There's an internal power struggle going on," says a Tehran-based political analyst with ties to Iran's intelligence ministry who requested his name not be used. "Ahmadinejad went to the intelligence ministry and pressed them to focus more on the angle of how this was a foreign-backed velvet revolution and to release some of the confessions they had secured in prison among the arrested."
On Sunday, Ahmadinejad fired his intelligence minister – the conservative Gholam Hossein Mohsen Ezheie – after a reportedly heated exchange during a Cabinet meeting. Analysts say that Ahmadinejad is seeking to put his own loyalists into such posts – as evidenced by his failed attempt to install his close friend Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei as vice president, resisting Khamenei's public opposition to the appointment before capitulating this weekend.
"It is important that the intelligence minister, the second most important person in the cabinet after the president, was sacked," says Ms. Esfandiari, an Iranian-American who herself was forced to make a confession after being imprisoned in 2007. "This means that the Revolutionary Guard is taking over many of the duties of the intelligence ministry."
The Revolutionary Guard showed where its loyalties lie with a Sunday statement supporting the broadcast of confessions by state-run Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting.
"We're in favor of broadcasting the confessions in order to illuminate the public mind and clarify public opinion," said Mohammad Hejazi, the second-in-command of the ideological Revolutionary Guards – a parallel army that was established to safeguard the 1979 Islamic revolution. The Guards public asserted responsibility for controlling the unrest following last month's election, and its basij militia – an ideological force placed under the Guard's supervision in early 2009 – took a lead in suppressing dissent.
Thousands of protesters were arrested and at least 20 more killed, including Nega Agha-Soltan, whose death roused widespread sympathy and is likely to be publicly commemorated in protests Thursday – the end of a traditional 40-day mourning period.
Khamenei personally orders detention center to be closed
In a sharp statement that highlighted splits between both reformists and conservatives as well as clerics and the military elite, reformist Grand Ayatollah Yousef Sanei stated that "those forcing confessions out of them [prisoners] are sinners."
Khamenei appeared to buckle under growing popular, clerical, and reformist pressure Tuesday to address the issue of detainee abuses as he announced the closure of Kahrizak detention center. The notorious prison is the first to be closed and came a few days after the son of a conservative politician after allegedly being exposed to torture.
Khamenei's statement said that Kahrizak failed to "preserve the rights of detainees."
The highly unusual closure comes after the arrests of thousands of protesters from the rolling waves of often violent demonstrations still afflicting the streets of Tehran and other large Iranian cities. Head of the Judiciary Ayatollah Mortazavi announced that officials are working to release innocent detainees from what he claimed were only 300 remaining prisoners. Clusters of relatives who gather every day outside the gates of Evin Prison, police stations, and revolutionary courts dispute this number, claiming that thousands still remain locked behind bars. Another 140 were released today, according to an Iranian lawmaker who participated in an inspection of the prison facilities Tuesday.
"In some of these prisons, the citizens' rights are not respected and the interrogators subject prisoners to blows and insults," Dariush Ghanbari, a representative in Iran's parliament from Elam Province, told the Farsi-language Parleman News. "Kahrizak is essentially a storeroom lacking in first aid or sanitary facilities."
In a sign of widening divisions within the clerical elites, Parleman News also reported that a group of senior Grand Ayatollahs critical of the regime's handling of the political crisis were planning to journey to the holy Shiite city of Najaf in Iraq – a move that would be taken as an insulting vote of no confidence in Khamenei's handling of the postelection situation. Just two of the nine Grand Ayatollahs resident in Iran have welcomed Ahmadinejad's election while the rest maintained a brooding silence.
By Stephen R. Shalom, Thomas Harrison, Joanne Landy and Jesse Lemisch
Campaign for Peace and Democracy
July 7, 2009
Right after the June 12 elections in Iran, the Campaign for
Peace and Democracy
issued a statement
expressing our strong
support for the masses of Iranians protesting electoral
fraud and our horror at the ferocious response of the
government. Our statement concluded: "We express our deep
concern for their well-being in the face of brutal
repression and our fervent wishes for the strengthening and
deepening of the movement for justice and democracy in
Iran." Since the elections, some on the left, and others as
well, have questioned the legitimacy of and the need for
solidarity with the anti-Ahmadinejad movement. The
Campaign's position of solidarity with the Iranian
protesters has not changed, but we think those questions
need to be squarely addressed.
Below are the questions we take up. Questions three, four
and five deal with the issue of electoral fraud; readers who
are not interested in this rather technical discussion are
invited to go on to question six. And we should say at the
outset that our support for the protest movement is not
determined by the technicalities of electoral manipulation, as
important as they are. What is decisive is that huge masses of
Iranians are convinced that the election was rigged and that
they went into the streets, at great personal risk, to demand
democracy and an end to theocratic repression.
Even if every vote was counted fairly, this was not a fair election. 475
people wished to run for president, but the un-elected Guardian Council,
which vets all candidates for supposed conformity to Islamic principles,
rejected all but 4.
Free elections also require free press, free expression, and freedom to
organize, all of which have been severely curtailed."
[1]
You call the Guardian Council un-elected, but isn't it
true that it is indirectly elected by the Iranian
people?
Every eight years the Assembly of Experts is popularly
elected. Candidates must be clerics and must be approved
by the Guardian Council. The Assembly of Experts then
chooses a supreme leader, who rules for life (though he
can be removed by the Assembly of Experts for un-Islamic
behavior). The supreme leader appoints the head of the
judiciary. The supreme leader chooses half of the 12
members of the Guardian Council and the judiciary
nominates the other six, to be ratified by the
Parliament. The Guardian Council then vets all future
candidates for president, parliament, and the Assembly
of Experts.
[2]
Thus, once this system was in place the possibilities of
fundamentally changing it have been essentially nil. If
98 percent of the Iranian people decided tomorrow that
they opposed an Islamic state, the rules would still
enable the theocracy to continue in power forever --
because the only people who could change things have
themselves to be vetted by the theocratic rulers. Even
amending the constitution requires the approval of the
supreme leader.
Iran is not a dictatorship of the Saudi Arabian sort,
where there are no elections and where people have zero
input. But the basic prerequisite of a democratic system
-- that the people can change their government -- is
missing.
OK, but was there fraud? And was it on a scale to alter the outcome?
There was certainly fraud: The Iranian government
acknowledges that in 50 cities there were more votes
cast than registered voters. (In Iran, voters can cast
their ballots in districts other than those in which
they reside, but "many districts where the excess votes
were recorded are small, remote places rarely visited by
business travelers or tourists."
[3]
) Moreover, the vote
total also exceeded the number of registered voters in
two provinces.
[4]
(Province-wide excess is more
significant than city-wide, because people would be less
likely to vote in another province than another city.)
Perhaps the most damning indication of fraud was the
fact that Mousavi's observers, as well as those of the
other opposition candidates, were frequently not allowed
to be present when ballots were counted and the ballot
boxes sealed -- a flagrant violation of Iranian law.
[5]
Moreover, supporters of opposition candidates had
planned to independently monitor the results by text
messaging local vote tallies to a central location, but
the government suddenly shut down text messaging, making
this impossible.
The question, though, is whether the extent of fraud was
sufficient to change the results of the election. We
can't be fully sure. But there is very powerful evidence
that either no one emerged with a majority, which would
have required a run-off election, or that Mousavi won
outright.
According to an analysis by researchers at Chatham
House, a British think tank, and the Institute of
Iranian Studies at the University of St Andrews:
"In a third of all provinces, the official results would
require that Ahmadinejad took not only all former
conservative voters, and all former centrist voters, and
all new voters, but also up to 44% of former Reformist
voters, despite a decade of conflict between these two
groups."[6]
Since Ahmadinejad's victory in 2005, when many
reformists boycotted the elections and questions of
fraud were raised, the hardliners lost their control of
local councils in 2007. So an Ahmadinejad sweep in 2009
-- when reformist leaders, responding to a growing wave
of discontent with the regime, were newly energized to
challenge the President -- is hard to credit.
Ahmadinejad allegedly won in areas where other
candidates had strong ties and support, including their
home provinces. Some have suggested that this was a
result of people not wanting to "waste" their votes on
candidates unlikely to win.[7] But in Iran, elections
are in two stages: if no candidate gets a majority in
round one, then there is a run-off. So there was no
reason for anyone to refrain from voting for her
preferred candidate in the first round.
Didn't a poll conducted by U.S.-based organizations
conclude that Ahmadinejad won the election?
The poll, conducted by Terror Free Tomorrow and the New
America Foundation, found that Ahmadinejad was favored
over Mousavi by two to one. But the poll was conducted
between May 11 and May 20, 2009, before the official
beginning of the three-week election campaign, and
before the (first-ever) televised presidential debates.
These debates were a turning point: millions of Iranians
saw displayed the deep divisions in the leadership of
the Islamic Republic. They sensed that there was now an
opportunity for real change.
More importantly, however, Ahmadinejad received the
support of only a third of the poll respondents, with
almost half either refusing to answer or saying they
hadn't yet made up their minds:
"At the stage of the campaign for President when our
poll was taken, 34 percent of Iranians surveyed said
they will vote for incumbent President Ahmadinejad. Mr.
Ahmadinejad's closest rival, Mir Hussein Moussavi, was
the choice of 14 percent, with 27 percent stating that
they still do not know who they will vote for. President
Ahmadinejad's other rivals, Mehdi Karroubi and Mohsen
Rezai, were the choice of 2 percent and 1 percent,
respectively.
"A close examination of our survey results reveals that
the race may actually be closer than a first look at the
numbers would indicate. More than 60 percent of those
who state they don't know who they will vote for in the
Presidential elections reflect individuals who favor
political reform and change in the current system."[8]
When a government acts in secret, conducts an election
lacking in transparency, and bars and restricts foreign
journalists and the free flow of information, it makes
sense not to accept its claims.
But didn't Ahmadinejad get lots of votes from
conservative religious Iranians among the rural
population and the urban poor? Might not these votes
have been enough to overwhelm his opponents?
Ahmadinejad's support from ultraconservative voters was certainly not
insignificant. In addition, his social welfare programs, funded from oil
revenues, have undoubtedly induced many among the poor to give him their
allegiance (see below). And then there are the members of the security
apparatus -- the Revolutionary Guards and the Basij, the pro-government
religious paramilitary force -- who, together with their families,
number in the millions. But there is no evidence that these were enough
to give him the huge majorities he claims. As for peasants and
villagers, only 35 percent of Iranian voters live in rural areas. And in
any event, there is good reason to believe that rural voters are not
strongly pro-Ahmadinejad.
[9]
As Chatham House noted,
"In 2005, as in
2001 and 1997, conservative candidates, and Ahmadinejad in particular,
were markedly unpopular in rural areas. That the countryside always
votes conservative is a myth. The claim that this year Ahmadinejad swept
the board in more rural provinces flies in the face of these
trends."
[10]
Hasn't the U.S. (and Israel) been interfering in Iran
and promoting regime change, including by means of
supporting all sorts of "pro-democracy" groups?
In the 1950s and 60s, rightwingers charged that the U.S.
civil rights movement was actually controlled by the
Soviet Union, through the U.S. Communist Party. Of
course Communists were involved in the civil rights
movement and no doubt Moscow approved. But that's a far
cry from indicating that the Soviet Union was a decisive
force in the civil rights movement, let alone that it
controlled the movement.
There is no doubt that U.S. agents, as well as those of
other countries, are hard at work in Iran, as elsewhere.
It is well known that Washington has meddled in the
politics of Venezuela and Bolivia, as well as Georgia,
Ukraine and Lebanon, to take only the most recent
examples. Congress has even set up a special fund for
"democracy promotion" in Iran. But foreign meddling does
not prove foreign control. And foreign meddling does not
automatically discredit mass movements or their goals;
it depends on who is calling the shots. In any event,
there is no evidence that the CIA or any other arm of
U.S. intelligence -- or Mossad -- had anything to do
with initiating or leading the protests in Iran. And it
is absurd to see a parallel between the rightwing
elements in Venezuela and Bolivia -- who are not
fighting for greater popular control over their
governments -- and the millions of protesters who have
demanded democracy in Iran.
In 1953 U.S. and British intelligence engineered a coup
to oust the democratically-elected Mossadeq government
in Iran. But that coup involved bribing street gangs and
a treasonous military. There was nothing like the mass
upsurge that we've recently seen in Iran, and there has
been not a scrap of credible evidence that the millions
of people in the streets these past few weeks were
brought out by CIA money.
On the contrary, for years now leading Iranian human
rights activists, feminists, trade unionists -- people
like Shirin Ebadi and Akbar Ganji -- have taken the
position that Iranian dissidents should not accept U.S.
financial support.
[11]
They have a consistent record of
opposing U.S. bullying, sanctions and threats of war,
[12]
and they know that any hint of links to
Washington would be the kiss of death in Iran.
Recently, Iranian state television has broadcast footage
of alleged rioters stating "We were under the influence
of Voice of America Persia and the BBC" and some
detainees -- politicians, journalists, and others -- are
said to have confessed to all sorts of Western
plots.
[13]
Surely, though, no one should take such
claims, elicited under torture or duress, seriously.
[14]
Has the Western media been biased against the Iranian government?
Mainstream Western media have clearly been more
interested in pointing out electoral fraud and
repression in Iran than in states that are closely
allied with Washington. But this doesn't mean that there
has been no fraud or repression in Iran.
For example, a video of the killing of Neda Agha Soltan
spread widely on the internet and the media was quick to
turn her death into a icon of the brutality of the
Iranian government. We never saw a similar response to
the many victims of government atrocities in Haiti or
Egypt or Colombia. Nevertheless, the claim by some
Iranian officials that she was killed by the CIA or by
other demonstrators just to make the regime look bad
[15]
is totally lacking in credibility.
Western media have always selectively publicized and
often exaggerated the crimes of official enemies. But we
shouldn't conclude from this that crimes have not been
committed. And in the case of Iran, there is no good
evidence so far that Western news reports on the
government's electoral fraud and violent repression of
dissent have been fundamentally inaccurate.
Is Mousavi a leftist? A neoliberal? What is the
relation between Mousavi and the demonstrators in the
streets?
Mousavi's politics and economic program are not very
clear. He is in many ways a pillar of the Establishment
-- approved as a candidate by the Guardian Council and a
former prime minister who served under Ayatollah
Khomeini in the 1980s. He had a reputation for being one
of the leaders more sympathetic to welfare state
programs. Under his prime ministership many such
programs were enacted, but also leftists were brutally
repressed. With Washington's assistance, using U.S.
intelligence information, the Iranian government rounded
up members of the pro-Soviet Tudeh Party and conducted
mass executions, virtually eliminating the Tudeh in Iran
and killing many other leftists as well.
[16]
It has been argued that the repression was carried out
by the ministry of intelligence and the judiciary, and
that these institutions were not in fact under his
control even though he was prime minister. Whether or
not this is the case, at a minimum Mousavi neither
resigned nor publicly protested the violent repression
that took place when he was prime minister, and thus he
cannot be absolved of responsibility.
More recently, he has been an ally of the powerful
billionaire cleric and former president Hashemi
Rafsanjani, who is close to major private business
interests. Mousavi supports turning over many of the
publicly-owned sectors of the Iranian economy to private
hands, but so does Ahmadinejad, who boasts that he has
privatized more public assets than his predecessors,
[17]
and in fact privatization has been going on for several
years and is mandated by recently passed
legislation.
[18]
In his campaign for the presidency,
Mousavi called for loosening some of the Islamic
Republic's restrictions on personal liberties,
especially as concern women's rights. But Mousavi came
to embody the aspirations of millions of Iranians for
more than this -- for an end to the terrorism of the
Basijis and the Revolutionary Guards and for an even
broader democratization of the Islamic Republic.
Undoubtedly, some of them hoped -- as do we -- that the
protests would be a first step towards dismantling the
fundamentally anti-democratic system of clerical rule
itself.
During the weeks that followed the election,
demonstrators protested voting fraud, but also called
increasingly for equality and freedom -- "down with
dictatorship!" The marches may have been started mainly
by students and liberal-minded middle class people, but
they were quickly joined by growing numbers of workers,
elderly people and women in conservative chadors.
It seems that Mousavi's electoral organization did not
anticipate the massive outpouring of protest after the
election and was unable (and perhaps unwilling, given
Mousavi's Establishment ties) to provide any
organization or real leadership. The ferocious violence
of the security forces has left the protesters, and the
general public in Iran, stunned and understandably
intimidated. However, their outrage is deep, and it
will not go away. Protest may soon return to the streets
and rooftops. And many are looking for other forms of
protest. Mousavi, Khatami and Rafsanjani have not made
their peace with Ahmadinejad, and the split in Iran's
clerical establishment deepens.
The millions who have gone into the streets have already
shown themselves capable of acting independently of
Mousavi, and, as has often been the case in democratic
struggles historically around the world, there is good
reason to believe that the masses of protesters who have
entered into the fight for limited demands can transcend
the political, social and economic program of the
movement's initial leaders. In Iran, this is especially
the case if trade unions are able to use the opening
created by today's challenges to Ahmadinejad to assert
the interests of the poor and lend their organized
strength to the movement.
Is Ahmadinejad good for world anti-imperialism?
There is a foolish argument in some sectors of the left
that holds that any state that is opposed by the U.S.
government is therefore automatically playing a
progressive, anti-imperialist role and should be
supported. On these grounds, many such "leftists" have
acted as apologists for murderous dictators like
Milosevic and Saddam Hussein. The Campaign for Peace and
Democracy has always argued that we can oppose U.S.
imperial policy without thereby having necessarily to
back the states against which it is directed.
Ironically, despite their current rhetoric, some U.S.
neoconservatives favored an Ahmadinejad victory.
[19]
They knew that on the main issues dividing the U.S. and
Iran -- Tehran's pursuit of nuclear energy, its support
for Hamas and Hezbollah, and its insistence on forcing
Israel to withdraw completely from the Occupied
Territories -- Ahmadinejad's position was no different
from that of Mousavi or that of Iranian public
opinion.
[20]
But Ahmadinejad, with his confrontational
style and his outrageous "questioning" of the Holocaust,
is a much easier leader to hate and fear; his continuing
grip on power therefore serves the goals of
neoconservative hawks and Israeli hardliners.
[21]
And
they know that Iranian public opinion solidly supports
the cause of Palestinian rights; and that Ahmadinejad's
anti-Jewish rhetoric has harmed, not helped, the
Palestinians.
Some of these "leftists" say that whatever Ahmadinejad's
faults, the mass upsurge in Iran plays into the hands of
U.S. imperialism. On the contrary, a people's
pro-democracy movement is the worst fear of the many
authoritarian regimes on which Washington relies to
maintain its hegemony; such as the rulers of Egypt,
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan and elsewhere. And not
just among U.S. clients. It is significant that news of
the demonstrations was heavily censored in China and
Myanmar, and that the Russian government was one of the
first to congratulate Ahmadinejad on his "victory."
Hugo Chavez too congratulated Ahmadinejad. As Reese
Erlich, author of The Iran Agenda who frequently appears
on Democracy Now!, has commented,
"On a diplomatic level, Venezuela and Iran share
some things in common. Both are under attack from
the U.S., including past efforts at 'regime
change.' Venezuela and other governments around
the world will have to deal with Ahmadinejad as
the de facto president, so questioning the
election could cause diplomatic problems.
Is Ahmadinejad more progressive than his opponents in
terms of social and economic policy? Is he a champion
of the Iranian poor?
As leftists we are very familiar with rightwing
politicians disingenuously claiming to care about the
poor and the working class. The Islamic Republic has
long included a social welfare component to help it
maintain support. Ahmadinejad has undertaken some
populist programs, utilizing some of the revenues
generated by the sharply higher price of oil. But, even
ignoring the fact that basic democratic rights and
women's rights are hardly the exclusive concern of the
well-to-do, the Islamic Republic, and especially
Ahmadinejad's presidency, have not been good for the
workers and the poor of Iran.
Anyone purporting to support the working class has to
back independent unions so that workers can defend their
own interests both in the work place and in the society
at large. However, Iran has still not ratified
international labor conventions guaranteeing freedom of
association and collective bargaining and abolishing
child labor,
[23]
and unions in Iran have been subjected
to horrendous repression. As the International Campaign
for Human Rights in Iran has reported
[24]:
"Iranian workers are still unable to form independent
trade unions, a right denied both within Iran's labor
code and de facto repressed by the government in action.
The government routinely arrests and prosecutes workers
demanding their most basic rights, such as demands for
wages unpaid, sometimes for periods as long as 36
months. Security forces often attack peaceful gatherings
by workers, harass their families, and even kill them,
as happened during a gathering by copper miners in Shahr
Babak, near the city of Kerman, in 2004."
Under Ahmadinejad's presidency, the situation has been
especially grim:
"Two leading trade unionists, Mansour Osanloo and
Mahmoud Salehi, are currently in prison. Another one,
Majid Hamidi, recently the target of an assassination
attempt, is hospitalized. In addition to being
imprisoned and fined, eleven other workers were flogged
in February 2008 for the crime of participating in a
peaceful gathering to commemorate International Labor
Day, May 1st."
"In January 2006, security forces arrested nearly a
thousand members of the Syndicate of Workers of Tehran
and Suburbs Bus Company, attacked some of their homes,
beat their families, and even detained the wives and
children of the leading members, to prevent a planned
strike. Since then, most members of the Syndicate's
central council have been targets of prosecution and
imprisonment. The Syndicate's leader, Mansour Osanloo,
is currently serving a five- year sentence, while he
suffers from eye injuries due to earlier beatings, and
is in danger of going blind. Fifty-four members of the
Syndicate have been fired from their jobs and are
prosecuted in courts for their peaceful activities."
Teachers' attempts to organize and collectively bargain
have also met violent repression.
Just this past May Day, the government beat participants
in a peaceful labor event and arrested the leaders.
[25]
And in June, a committee of the International Labour
Organization cited Iran for the "grave situation
relating to freedom of association in the country.
[26]
What makes the need for unions in Iran so important is
that large numbers of workers are forced to work under
temporary contracts that permit even more exploitation
of labor than usual. One common practice is for workers
to be fired and then rehired every three months as a way
to deny them pensions and other benefits.
What do we want the U.S. government to do about the
current situation in Iran?
There is a great deal that the Administration can do.
Obama should promise that the U.S. will never launch a
military attack on Iran or support an Israeli attack. He
should commit the United States not to support terrorism
or sabotage operations in Iran, and immediately order
the cessation of any such activities that may still be
occurring. He should lift sanctions against Iran --
certainly not as a reward to Ahmadinejad for stealing
the election, but because the sanctions have a negative
impact on the Iranian people and provide one of the main
justifications for Ahmadinejad's iron rule. He should
take major initiatives toward disarmament of U.S.
nuclear and conventional weapons, and he should withdraw
all U.S. troops from Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia,
Kuwait and Pakistan. And he should work to promote a
nuclear-free Middle East, which includes Israel. By
reducing these threats, Obama would thereby be removing
one of the main rationalizations for Iranian repression
(as well as for its nuclear program).
What should we do about the current situation in Iran?
We need to make it clear to the Iranian people that
there is "another America," one that is independent of
the government and opposed to its oppressive and
anti-democratic foreign policy. Our support comes with
no strings attached and no hidden agenda. Iranians
should be made aware that it is American progressives --
not the U.S. government or the hypocrites of the right
-- who offer genuine solidarity.
Is it right to advocate a different form of government in Iran?
As leftists, the Campaign for Peace and Democracy
supports radical change everywhere that people do not
have full control over their political and economic
lives. We advocate such change in the United States, in
France, in Russia, in China. And we support it in Iran
too. But we do not support the United States government
-- or Britain or Israel or any other country -- imposing
"regime change" outside its borders by force. What was
wrong with Bush's invasion of Iraq in 2003 was not that
the regime of Saddam Hussein was overthrown -- his was a
hideous regime and anyone concerned with human decency
wanted it ended -- but that Bush asserted that the
United States had the right to invade. Political change
imposed by a foreign army, or brought about by the
covert operations of foreign intelligence agencies, is
unacceptable, and it is especially unacceptable when the
foreign power concerned has a long history of
interventions for its own sordid motives: to impose its
domination, to control oil resources, to establish
military bases.
But do we support the Iranian people if they act to end
autocratic rule in Iran? Of course! This is a government
that, in addition to its just-completed election fraud
and vicious attacks on its own citizens, imprisons,
tortures, publicly flogs and hangs political opponents,
labor activists, gays, and "apostates," and still
prescribes execution by stoning as the penalty for
adultery. The Head of the Judiciary declared a
moratorium on executions by stoning in 2002, but at
least five people are known to have been stoned to death
since then, two of them on December 26, 2008.
[27]
Workers have no right to strike. A woman's testimony is
worth half that of a man's and women have limited rights
to divorce and child custody. The regime imposes gender
apartheid, segregating women in many public places.
Veiling is compulsory and enforced by threats, fines and
imprisonment. We should support Iranians' efforts to end
these barbaric practices.
Of course, when similar torture was carried
out by the U.S. government, U.S. media only referred to "harsh
interrogation techniques." See Glenn Greenwald, "The
NYT calls Iranian interrogation tactics 'torture',"
Salon, July 4, 2009.
Joshua Mitnick, "Why Iran's Ahmadinejad is preferred in Israel; The incumbent president will be easier to isolate than reformist leader Mr. Mousavi, say some leading Israeli policymakers,"
Christian Science Monitor, June 21, 2009.
by Ervand Abrahamian (source: London Review of Books)
Thursday, July 23, 2009
London Review of Books – Vol. 31, No. 14 (23 July 2009)
Ervand Abrahamian writes about the protests in Iran
Iran has a healthy respect for crowds and for good reason. Crowds brought about the 1906 constitutional revolution. Crowds prevented the Iranian parliament from submitting to a tsarist ultimatum in 1911. Crowds scuttled the 1919 Anglo-Iranian Agreement, which would have in
effect incorporated the country into the British Empire. Crowds prevented General Reza Khan from imitating Ataturk and establishing a republic in 1924 – as a compromise he kept the monarchy but named himself shah. Crowds gave the communist Tudeh Party political clout in
the brief period of political pluralism between 1941 and 1953. Crowds in 1951-53 gave Mohammad Mossadegh, the country's national hero, the power both to take over the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and to challenge the shah's unconstitutional control of the armed forces. Crowds – aided by clerics – provided a backdrop to the 1953 military coup organised by the CIA and MI5. Crowds in 1963 began what soon became known as Khomeini's Islamic Movement. And, of course, crowds played the central role in the drama of the 1979 Islamic Revolution – with the result that the new constitution enshrined the right of citizens to hold peaceful street
demonstrations.
It was an awareness of the importance of crowds that prompted the regime to rig the presidential elections last month and thus inadvertently trigger the present crisis. In the months before the elections, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had seemed to be a shoe-in for a second
four-year term. He enjoyed easy access to the mass media; his competitors were limited to websites and newspapers that were closed down at any provocation. He had won his first term after running a populist campaign against Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former president who for many epitomised the regime's worst features – nepotism, cronyism and financial corruption. He enjoyed the support of Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader, who shared his deep distrust of the West and probably his ambition to pursue a nuclear programme at
all costs.
Ahmadinejad also had the backing of much of the military-clerical- commercial complex running the country: the Revolutionary Guards and the affiliated Basij militia with more than
three million members; the clerical 'foundations', quasi-state organisations that employ hundreds of thousands; and the bazaar merchants with their lucrative contracts with central government. He had placed so many former colleagues from the Guards in key
positions that some claimed he had carried out a quiet coup d'état. He
had consolidated his support among the evangelicals, known in Iran as
the 'principalists', by courting Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi, an
influential right wing cleric in Qom who sits on Iran's Assembly of
Experts; by often referring to the imminent return of the Mahdi (the
Messiah); by generously patronising the Jam karan shrine where the
Mahdi was supposedly last seen; and by claiming he had felt his divine
presence when denouncing the US before the UN General Assembly. He
had channelled the money from the recent oil bonanza into mosque
construction, rural projects, government salaries and even cash
handouts. He boasted that he was putting the oil money on
people's dining tables. Some American presidents win elections by
cutting taxes. Ahmadinejad tried to win by handing out potatoes.
What is more, the reform movement seemed divided and
disillusioned. In the 2005 elections, faced with a choice between
Ahmadinejad and Rafsanjani, many reformers had stayed at home. This
time, Mohammad Khatami, the reform president between1997 and 2005, was
poised to run, but then withdrew, leaving the reform field to Mir
Hussein Mousavi and Ayatollah Mehdi Karroubi. The former, an
architect turned academic, had not been seen in the political arena
since 1989: between 1981 and 1989 he had served as Khomeini's prime
minister. In 1997, reformers had privately asked him to run for the
presidency but he had deferred to Khatami. Like many members of the
intelligentsia in his generation, Mousavi had entered politics fired
by a mix of Islamic fervour and Fanonist anti-imperialism. But once
the revolution had achieved its main goals – the overthrow of the
shah and the declaration of independence from the US – many of these
militants gradually came round to the view that the Islamic
Republic would wither unless it allowed greater democracy, pluralism
and individual rights. The reactionary clergy, they realised, now
posed the main obstacle to Iranian modernity. Karroubi, a close
associate of Khomeini who had served as the speaker of Parliament,
head of the Association of Militant Clergy, and director of the
Martyrs Foundation, shared many of these sentiments and in one
respect was even more liberal, advocating greater privatisation of the
economy. He had run in the 2005 elections, gaining much support in his
home region, and after the elect ions had lodged an official complaint
that Revolutionary Guards had manipulated the vote in favour of
Ahmadinejad. It was generally suspected that the Guardian Council,
which has the authority to vet presidential candidates, permitted
Karroubi and Mousavi, as well as Mohsen Rezai, the moderate-conservati
ve former commander of the Revolutionary Guards, to run this time
because it was confident that they had little chance.
This confidence was reinforced by a pre-election poll taken by a
Washington-based organisation called Terror Free Tomorrow: The Center
for Public Opinion. The poll found that of 1001 Iranians
interviewed by phone from outside Iran, 34 per cent favoured
Ahmadinejad; 14 per cent Mousavi; 50 per cent had not yet made up
their minds; 80 per cent wanted the constitution to be altered
so that the Supreme Leader would be elected directly by the public; 70
per cent wanted to give the UN greater access to the country's nuclear
facilities; and 77 per cent wanted better relations with the US.
Apologists for the regime who continue to cite this survey ignore
these findings, as well as the significance of the name and location
of the polling organisation.
Once the actual electoral campaign – by law restricted to just ten days
– got started, the race became much tighter. A similarly dramatic
shift in public opinion also occurred in 1997. Then the general
expectation had been that the well-known conservative candidate would
win an easy victory over Khatami, the little known reformer. Yet the
latter's campaign had suddenly caught fire: 80 per cent of the
electorate came out to vote, and more than 70 per cent supported him.
Such volatility is understandable in a country which doesn't have any
deep-rooted political parties.
This time three major factors converged to produce a shift in
public opinion. The first was the series of six prime-time televised
debates, which were watched by almost every household in the country.
These debates galvanised the whole electorate. Instead of attacking
each other, the challengers focused their fire on Ahmadinejad,
concentrating on his economic record. They took turns in
showing that reliable statistics – in sharp contrast to those
produced by the president – put inflation at 25 per cent,
unemployment at 30 per cent, and the number of those living in
poverty at a record high. Ahmadinejad tried to change the subject,
harping on Rafsanjani's wealth and falsely accusing Mousavi's wife of
pulling strings to obtain her doctorate. This angered women and
reminded viewers that four of Ahmadinejad's own ministers had claimed
phony foreign degrees.
Ahmadinejad was also sharply criticised for damaging national 'honour' –
through, for example, his denial of the Holocaust – and for pursuing
adventurist foreign policies that isolated Iran and jeopardised
its security. His opponents all favoured better relations with the
outside world. Ahmadinejad had won the 2005 election by running not only
against Rafsanjani but against Bush. This time he had neither.
Instead he had to contend with Obama, who had removed the main
stumbling-block to negotiations – the prerequisite that Iran should
stop all uranium enrichment. He had accepted the right of Iran to have a
nuclear programme. He had stopped all talk of 'regime change'. He had
apologised for the 1953 coup. He had ended the irritating practice
of differentiating between the Iranian government and the Iranian
people, and addressed himself to the 'Islamic Republic of Iran'. And
he had offered to end economic sanctions if Iran would give verifiable
guarantees that it would not build nuclear weapons. For many
Iranians, foreign relations were tied to domestic bread-and-butter
quest ions. It was clear that there would not be jobs for the ever
increasing number of high school and college graduates unless the
country's vast untapped gas and oil reserves were developed. It was
equally clear that these reserves would not be developed unless
relations with the West – and especially the US – improved. Karroubi
made fun of Ahmadinejad for boasting that the Iranian educational
system was so good that a high school pupil had achieved nuclear
fusion in her basement. At one point Ahmadinejad lost his cool and
called Karroubi a 'Hitler'.
The second factor was Mousavi's ability to challenge Ahmadinejad on his
own turf. Once Mousavi had returned to the limelight, he was
quick to remind the public that he had been Khomeini's prime
minister in the 'heroic days' of war and revolution. Besides his
reputation as a competent administrator, he had nationalised a host of
industries, launched a rural construction programme, drafted a
progressive labour law, advocated land reform, and introduced war - time
price controls and rationing, thereby, for the first and probably only
time in Iranian history, narrowing the income gap between rich and
poor. He wasn't just a populist talking ecstatically about the good old
days: he had been a key figure in those days. His Mir title also helped
– 'Mir' is the Azeri version of 'Sayyed' and signifies descent from
the Prophet and the 12 Imams. An impressive number of organisations and
personalities prominent in the early days of the revolution threw their
weight behind him. They included the labour unions; the
Association of Qom Seminary Teachers; the Association of Mil it
ant Clerics; the Mujahedin Organisation of the Islamic Revolution;
Grand Ayatollah Montazeri, at one time the designated Supreme Leader;
Ayatollah Taheri, the senior cleric in Isfahan; Hojjat al-Islam
Khoeni, the mentor of the students who took over the US Embassy;
Hojjat al-Islam Mohtashemi, Khomeini's main troubleshooter in
Lebanon when the Revolutionary Guard presided over the creation of
Lebanese Hizbullah; and relatives of Revolutionary Guards martyred in
the Iraqi war. Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad's own populist credentials were
tarnished when a member of his inner circle told the press that
he had placed many family members and associates in high
positions. To woo secular nationalists and the old left, Mousavi
brandished on his campaign trail a large portrait of Mossadegh –
anathema to the right wing clerics.
The third factor was the women's movement. Mousavi's wife, Zahra
Rahnavard, a scholar and artist who is a prominent champion of womens'
rights, entered the fray and campaigned alongside her husband – the
first time this had happened in Iranian history. This galvanised the
women's movement – especially the One Million Women Campaign, which
takes in a wide spectrum from Islamic feminists to liberal nationalists
to leftist and even Marxist activists. The women's movement had been
crucial to Khatami's victories. It was poised to be just as important
to Mousavi.
By the last days of the campaign, good-natured crowds were pouring
into the cities, threatening to turn the world upside down, and most
serious of all, mocking those on high – Ahmadinejad was pictured with
Pinocchio's nose. The government appeared to be losing control of
the streets. The Washington polling agency that had expected an easy
Ahmadinejad victory admitted that its predictions were probably out of
date. Eyewitnesses re ported that the election had turned into a
'real race', that the demonstrations were 'rattling' the government
and that the Revolutionary Guards were fearful of a 'velvet
revolution'. Some polls taken by the opposition predicted a victory for
Mousavi. Even if these polls were too optimistic, they did indicate
that Ahmadinejad's lead had been drastically cut – perhaps to the
point where he would not win the required 50 per cent in the first
round and would therefore have to compete against his main
opponent in a second round, as required by the constitution.
A second round would have posed a serious threat: it would
have led to more campaigning and more unruly street
demonstrations. It would have accentuated the shift in public
opinion. And it would have strengthened Mousavi – Karroubi had made it
clear that he would endorse him in a second round. It was generally
thought that Ahmadinejad wouldn't be able to improve on the number of
votes he gained in the first round and so would enter any second round
at a clear disadvantage. To preempt this, the Interior Ministry, which
was running the election and was headed by a millionaire friend of
Ahmadinejad, acted decisively, giving Ahmadinejad not just a
majority but such a resounding one that dwarved the votes gained
by his opponents. The minister purged unreliable civil servants from
the electoral commission – some even claimed that Ayatollah Mesbah
Yazdi had issued a fatwa allowing the faithful to miscount votes. He
restricted the number of permits issued to poll observers;
prevented some of them entering the 45,000 polling stations; set
up more than 14,000 mobile electoral trucks (making the vote easy
to fiddle); printed far more ballot papers than there were eligible
voters; cut off communications to Mousavi and Karroubi's headquarters
on the day of the elections (Mousavi's offices in Qom were torched
in a mysterious attack); and, as a clincher, at the end of election day,
broke precedent by not having the ballots tabulated on the spot but
instead rushed to the ministry where they were 'counted' by his aides.
Within hours of the polls closing, the interior minister declared
Ahmadinejad to be the winner with 66 per cent of the vote. Mousavi,
he said, had won only 33 per cent. The minister also declared that
a record number – 85 per cent of the electorate – had voted.
Congratulating the nation on the victory, Khamenei described the
result as 'divinely inspired'. Three days later, the ministry issued
more detailed statistics with provincial breakdowns: Ahmadinejad had won
24.5 million votes, Mousavi 13.2 million, Rezai 678,240 and
Karroubi 333,635. According to Chatham House, there are serious
problems with these statistics. In two provinces, more than 100 per
cent of eligible voters voted. Karroubi, who received more than
five million votes in 2005, got fewer than 340,000 this time, and
lost even in his home province. For Ahmadinejad to have won more than 24
million votes, Chatham House found, he would have had to keep all
the votes he got in 2005, win over those who had voted for Rafsanjani on
that occasion, all of those who had stayed at home, and, on top
of that, up to 44 per cent of the voters who backed reform candidates.
This decisive 'victory' was intended to put an end to street
demonstrations, but it had the opposite effect, outraging many who
felt not only cheated but insulted – especially when Ahmadinejad
described those who questioned the results as 'specks of dirt'. There
were vociferous protests in many parts of the country and Mousavi and
Karroubi called for a silent rally to be held at Azadi (Freedom) Square
in Tehran on Monday, 15 June. The call was heeded by around a million
people – the conservative mayor of the capital put the number at three
million. The scene was reminiscent of the rallies held in the
same square during the 1979 revolution. As in 1979, the
security forces were kept away to prevent clashes. The rally drew all
kinds of protester: old and young, professionals and workers,
bazaaris and students, men and women with sunglasses and headscarves as
well those with the full length chador. Lines of protesters nine
kilometres long converged on the square from the northern, better-off
districts as well as from the southern, working-class ones. Volunteers,
many of them election workers, gave the procession a semblance of
organisation. Students marched from Revolution Square, near the
university campus, to Freedom Square under a banner reading 'From
Revolution to Freedom'. Others – many wearing green, the colour of Shia
Islam, dis played banners saying 'What Happened to My Vote?' or
'Ahmadinejad, you could not see our votes but you could see the
divine light' – an allusion to the president's supposed experience
at the UN. An old man carried a sign saying: 'I am not a speck of
dirt, I am a retired teacher.' Eyewitness accounts agree that feeling
was not so much against the Islamic Republic as against the stifling
of the reform movement. It was a mass protest against vote-
rigging. Exiled groups, not surprisingly, hail ed these scenes as
amounting to a revolutionary challenge to the Islamic Republican
interpretation peddled, for different reasons, by the regime.
However one interprets it, it was the largest rally held in Tehran
since the height of the Islamic Revolution. Similar rallies were also
held in many provincial capitals, notably Isfahan and Shiraz.
Government spokesmen tried to control the damage by arguing that the
opposition might have some support in the cities but that Ahmadinejad
had carried the countryside. This argument was soon picked up by Western
policymakers – especially State Department diplomats – who had
argued in favour of striking a 'grand bargain' with Iran in the
fashion of Nixon in China, and were worried that a potential
rapprochement would be sabotaged by the unrest. But the few reliable
accounts we have from the countryside dismiss the not ion that
Ahmadinejad has a strong rural base. Although the Islamic
Republic is strongly sup ported in the countryside, many people there
– rural inhabitants constitute only 35 per cent of the country's
population – dislike Ahmedinejad because of his broken promises,
and because he funnelled benefits to Revolutionary Guards and Basijis,
and those with connections to the clerical foundations. Eric
Hoogland, who has studied rural Iran for many years and cannot be
described as an opponent of the Islamic Republic, has claimed that
in the region he knows well outside Shiraz – a region that
should be Ahmadinejad's heartland since it is Shia and
Persian-speaking – only between 20 and 25 per cent supported him.
Out rage when the interior ministry took away the ballot boxes
before the votes could be counted turned into open anger and
protests when the election results were announced.
Shaken by the 15 June rallies, the regime launched a massive crackdown,
the full extent of which remains unknown. It banned all
demonstrations, threatened to execute anyone participating in or
calling for such protests, and sent out tens of thousands of
Revolutionary Guards and Basijis armed with assault weapons as well as
motorbikes, knives and truncheons. It sent vigilantes into university
dormitories. At least 20 people were killed in the clashes and
more than 4000 associates of Mousavi and Karroubi were arrested –
their main strategists and campaigners, as well as journalists
sympathetic to the opposition. It jammed foreign broadcasts, shut
down newspapers and websites, disrupted telecommunications and expelled
many foreign journalists – others were confined to their
offices, and some were jailed. It broke into private homes and
arrested those suspected of shouting 'God is great' from their rooftops.
It launched a media campaign claiming that the opposition was
inspired, financed and organised by a sinister 'foreign hand': Britain,
and the BBC, tended to be singled out here. (The regime put less
blame on the US probably in order to dangle the possibility of future
negotiations. ) It also tortured prisoners, including prominent
figures, who were made to confess before TV cameras that they had
participated in a Western plot to launch a velvet revolution. As a
sop to public opinion, Khamenei asked the Guardian Council – 12
conservative judges – to investigate complaints of electoral
irregularities. The Guardian Council found a discrepancy of three
million votes, but concluded that this would not have made much of
a dent in Ahmadinejad's 11 million lead. States that orchestrate
99.5 per cent support for their candidate in elections can always claim
that 10 or 20 per cent here or there will not make much of a difference,
but Iran has a tradition of relatively competitive, if controlled
elections. Mousavi and Karroubi, endorsed by many prominent clerics,
rejected this verdict, called for new elections, and even declared the
presidency of Ahmadinejad to be illegitimate.
The regime appears to have weathered the storm, at least for the
time being. The revolt has not turned into a revolution, even though
these events have much in common with those of 1979 – similar rallies,
similar slogans ('God is great'), similar tactics and similar
griping about 'foreign interference'. But there are major
differences: the monarchy had almost no support, but the republic
has a solid base – the 25 per cent of the population who consider
themselves true believers. The shah had lost the allegiance of the
armed forces. The republic is fully equipped with three million
Revolutionary Guards and Basijis, trained to deal with civil
disturbances. The monarchy had been challenged by a mass revolutionary
movement. The Islamic Republic faces a mass reform movement that
wants to strengthen its democratic features at the expense of its
theocratic ones.
The crisis has created two long-term dangers for the regime.
First, the presidency continues to be held by a demagogic politician
who does not shy away from confronting the US, and who seems to have
little grasp of his limits. He claims Iran is a major power – maybe
even a superpower – and dismisses the US as a spent force that 'can't do
a damn thing'. It's not for nothing that the other candidates
consider him a dangerous adventurist. Nuclear negotiations are
unlikely to go anywhere. On the contrary, they are likely to
degenerate into acrimony, leaving the US in a much stronger and
Iran in a much weaker position than ever be fore. Not surprisingly,
the Israeli government cheered Ahmadinejad's victory – a Mousavi
victory would have been an obstacle to a possible Israeli strike
on Iran's nuclear facilities. Second, the crushing of the reform
movement has closed off avenues for change, and dampened hopes for
peaceful evolution. By denouncing children of the revolution as
foreign-paid 'counter-revolutiona ries', Khamenei, Ahmedinejad and
their allies have alienated a considerable proportion of the
population – maybe even the majority – and could end up transforming
reformists into revolutionaries. By moving away from democracy
towards theocracy, the regime has removed an important component of
its original legitimacy. Some would argue the country has ceased to be a
republic and has become a military-backed theocracy a Shia imamate
equivalent to the medieval Sunni caliphates.
Ervand Abrahamian's History of Modern Iran came out in July.
By Navid Shomali Any analysis of recent developments in Iran following the self-styled re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad must take the bigger picture into consideration.
To reach a correct judgement concerning recent developments in Iran and the self-styled re-election of President Ahmadinejad, it is vital to view the whole picture: national and international.
For some, otherwise objective/ anti-imperialist forces outside Iran, the national and historical context of the election campaign have become blurred by the internal and external response to it. The principal source of the distortion has been the response of the US government to the Ahmadinejad's "victory".
However, using the US response, as a starting point for an objective assessment of recent events is dubious practise, worse it risks falling into the intelligence communities 'wilderness of mirrors'. For neither the US nor the Tehran dictatorship speak with one voice or one intention.
One example illustrates this duplicity. Only a few months ago while the US government and mass media dissembled the possibility opening a third military front in Iran, the Iranian regime itself huffed and puffed anti-Zionist anti- USA rhetoric whilst simultaneously seeking economic and military co-operation with the US. For its part the US government was discretely offering non-interference in return for Iranian co-operation and non-intervention in the US campaign in Afghanistan.
In this context few suggested all out solidarity with the fundamentalist fascists in Afghanistan, who in turn are opposed by the fundamentalist nationalists in Iran on a religious not political basis.
This green light from Tehran for the US Afghan military and economic campaign also enabled the US to silence its sabre rattling, while maintaining its anti-Iranian rhetoric.
Thus the re-instatement of Ahmadinejad greeted by the US with muted expressions of concern for the democratic process and crocodile tears for the deaths of post election demonstrators, gunned down by Ahmadinejad's thugs for expressing their own democratic concerns in major cites throughout Iran.
Virtually from the outset the Iranian election was likely to be rigged. Such an outcome is always possible when a dictatorship faces widespread opposition. However, mass participation in the election also places the dictatorial regime on the back foot.
Since his last "election" Ahmadinejad has postured around the world as a great leader, boasted of his conversations with God, denied the Nazi holocaust, trampled on human rights in Iran, jailed his opponents. However above all, Ahmadinejad is a willing and enthusiastic representative of the Iranian theocratic and mercantile class. The same class which has squandered for almost thirty years the anti-imperialist ambition of the '79 revolution, repressed working class and student organisations, indulged in brutal and primitive torture and executions, imposed sever restrictions on the rights of women as well as those with other religious convictions, and now dresses in pseudo anti- imperialist clothes. The reality is the President has no clothes.
This must be the basis for any progressive assessment of political reality in Iran. Wide sections of the Iranian population have taken this as their starting point and have expressed their opposition on the streets. It is their experience, which informs and motivates the protest and like all dictatorships faced with democratic peoples opposition it has responded with violence and tragedy.
Now it is the Iranian masses and their autonomous organisations, which need support. The clerical regime is continuing with its posturing, hiding behind its trade links with other nations, claiming conspiracies, seeking scapegoats and responding with its customary iron fist.
There are many comparisons in the history of world politics, but whatever subtleties of difference there are, the theocratic regime in Iran has clearly demonstrated it is on the wrong side of history. Supporters of the movement for peace, independence, freedom and liberty in Iran should not be dragged alongside.
Elections in Iran - Open letter of support to the demonstrators in Iran
This open letter (dated 24/06/09), signed by a number of international academics amongst whom Noam Chomsky and Juan Cole, is a letter in support of the demonstrations that are taking place in Iran following the controversial presidential elections.
This morning Ayatollah Ali Khamenei demanded an end to the massive and forceful demonstrations protesting the controversial result of last week's election. He argued that to make concessions to popular demands and 'illegal' pressure would amount to a form of 'dictatorship', and he warned the protestors that they, rather than the police, would be held responsible for any further violence.
Khamenei's argument sounds familiar to anyone interested in the politics of collective action, since it appears to draw on the logic used by state authorities to oppose most of the great popular mobilisations of modern times, from 1789 in France to 1979 in Iran itself. These mobilisations took shape through a struggle to assert the principle that sovereignty rests with the people themselves, rather than with the state or its representatives. 'No government can justly claim authority', as South Africa's ANC militants put it in their Freedom Charter of 1955, 'unless it is based on the will of all the people.'
Needless to say it is up to the people of Iran to determine their own political course. Foreign observers inspired by the courage of those demonstrating in Iran this past week are nevertheless entitled to point out that a government which claims to represent the will of its people can only do so if it respects the most basic preconditions for the determination of such a will: the freedom of the people to assemble, unhindered, as an inclusive collective force; the capacity of the people, without restrictions on debate or access to information, to deliberate, decide and implement a shared course of action.
Years of foreign-sponsored 'democracy promotion' in various parts of the world have helped to spread a well-founded scepticism about civic movements which claim some sort of direct democratic legitimacy. But the principle itself remains as clear as ever: only the people themselves can determine the value of such claims. We the undersigned call on the government of Iran to take no action that might discourage such determination.
Signed by:
AGAMBEN, Giorgio, Università IUAV di Venezia, Venice
ALAMDARI, Kazem, California State University, Los Angeles
ALLIEZ, Eric, Middlesex Universtiy, UK
AMSLER, Sarah S, Language and Social Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham
ANDERSON, Kevin B, Professor of Sociology and Political Science, University of California, Santa Barbara
ASAD, Talal, Graduate Center, City University of New York
BADIOU, Alain, École Normale Supérieure, Paris
BALKAN, Nesecan, Hamilton College
BANUAZIZI, Ali, Professor of Political Science and Director, Program in Islamic Civilization and Societies, Boston College
BAYAT, Asef, Professor of Sociology and Middle East Studies, Leiden University
BEHROOZ, Maziar, Associate Professor of Middle East History, San Francisco State University
BENHABIB, Seyla, Eugene Meyer Professor of Political Science and Philosophy, Yale University, New Haven
BEYER, Vera, Kunsthistorisches Institut der Freien Universität Berlin
BIENIEK, Adam, Jagiellonian University, Chair of Arab Studies, Institute of Oriental Philology , Cracow, Poland
BLIBAR, Etienne, Paris X, Nanterre, and University of California, Irvine
BOCHENSKA, Joanna, Dept. of Kurdish Studies, Jagiellonian University, Cracow, Poland
BOGDAN, Jolan, Dept. of Visual Cultures, Goldsmiths College, UK
BOSTEELS, Bruno Bosteels, Cornell University
BRAULT, Pascale-Anne, Professor of French, Dept. of Modern Languages, DePaul University
BRUNO, Michael, Dept. of Philosophy, Lewis and Clark College, Portland, OR
BRUSTAD, Kristen, Associate Chair, Dept.
Of Middle Eastern Studies, University of Texas at Austin
BURGE, Tyler, University of California, Los Angeles
BURGERS, Jan-Willem, Australian National University
BUTLER, Judith, University of California, Berkeley
BUTT, Gavin, Senior Lecturer & Programme Leader in MPhil / PhD,
CARDIN, Maryam, IUT of the University of Marne-la-vallée
CHOMSKY, Noam, MIT, Cambridge MA USA
COHEN, Joshua, Stanford University
COLE, Juan R. I., Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History, University of Michigan
DABASHI, Hamid, Professor of Iranian Studies and Comparative Literature, Columbia University, New York
DE CARO, Mario, Dept. of Philosophy, University of Rome
DI LUCIA COLLETI, Laura, Conseillor Province of Venice
DOGRAMACI, Sinan, University of Texas at Austin
DOLEZALEK, Isabelle, Freie Universität Berlin
DOMINIAK, Piotr, Chairman of ASK Association in Raciborz, Poland
DORFMAN, Vladimiro Ariel, Duke Universtiy, Durham, North Carolina
DÜTTMANN, Alexander Garcia, Goldsmiths College
EHSANI, Kaveh, Assistant Professor of International Studies, DePaul University
EISENSTEIN, Zillah, Professor of Politics, Ithaca College
ENGELMANN, Stephen, University of Illinois at Chicago
EPSTEIN, Barbara, History of Consciousness Dept., University of California, Santa Cruz
FALK, Richard, Professor of International Law Emeritus, Princeton University
FARHI, Farideh, Dept. of Political Science, University of Hawai'i at Manoa
FARNOODY-ZAHIRI, Nelly, UCLA
FASY, Thomas M., Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York City
FATIMA KHAN, Mahruq, Assistant Professor of Women's, Gender and Sexuality Studies, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse
FIELD, Hartry, Professor of Philosophy, New York University
FORAN, John, Professor of Sociology, University of California, Santa Barbara
FRIEDLAND, Roger, Professor of Religiou Studies and Sociology, UCSB
GAJEWSKA, Katarzyna, University of Poland
GANDJBAKHSH, Amirhosseing, Research Director, National Health Institute, Washington DC
GANZ, David, Universität Konstanz, Germany
GARRETT, Don, Dept. of Philosophy, New York University
GASIOROWSKI, Mark, Political Science and International Studies, Louisiana State University
GLOGOWSKI, Aleksander, Jagiellonian University, Cracow, Poland
GODMILOW, Jill, University of Notre Dame
GOLE, Nilufer, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris
HÁJEK, Alan, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University
HALLWARD, Peter, Middlesex University, UK
HASHEMI, Nader, Assistant Professor of Middle East and Islamic Politics
HEGASY, Sonja, Zentrum Moderner Orient, Berlin
HERRERA, Linda, Institute of Social Studies (The Hague)
HIBBARD, Scott, DePaul University, Chicago
HOEFERT, Almut, University of Basel
IVEKOVIC, Rada, Collège international de philosophie, Paris, Université Jean-Monnet, Saint-Etienne
JIMENEZ, Maria, Université Paris Sorbonne, Paris IV
KAPLINSKY, Raphael, Professor of International Development, The Open University, UK
KESHAVARZIAN, Arang, Associate Professor of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies, New York University
KHOSROVANI, Sahar, University of Maastricht
KORBEL, Josef, School of International Studies, University of Denver
KOWALIK, Tadeusz, professor of economics and humanities, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw , University of Illinois, Chicago
MCINTYRE, Michael, International Studies, DePaul University, Chicago
MEHDIZADEH, Hamidreza, Illinois Institute of Technology
MEMMI, Paul, Paris Ouest Nanterre la Défense
MORUZZI, Norma Claire, University of Illinois at Chicago, Political Science, History, Gender and Women's Studies
MOSES, Claire G., Dept. of Women's Studies, University of Maryland
MOSHTAGHI, Nazgol, University of South Florida
NAST, Heidi, DePaul University, Chicago
NATCHKEBIA, Irina, Tbilisi University
NOYAU, Colette, Dépt des Sciences du langage, CNRS, Université Paris-Ouest
OBDRZALEK, Suzanne, Dept of Philosophy, Claremont McKenna College
PATTERSON, Ian, Director of Studies in English, Queens' College Cambridge
PETTIT, Philip, University Center for Human Values, Princeton University
PHELPS, Christopher, Dept. of History, The Ohio State University
PIRVELI, Marika, Szczecin University, Poland
POTTER, Robert, Professor Emeritus, University of California, Santa Barbara, USA
PRÉVOST, Sophie, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Ecole Normale Supérieure, Paris
PRINZ, Jesse, Professor of Philosophy, City University of New York
PROUST, Joëlle, Director of Research, Institut Jean-Nicod, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Ecole Normale Supérieure
PSTRUSIŃSKA, Jadwiga, Head of Dept. of Interdisciplinary Eurasiatic Research, Institute of Oriental Philology, Jagiellonian University, Cracow
RAKOWIECKI, Jacek, Collegium Civitas, Poland
RANCIÈRE, Jacques, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Paris (St. Denis)
REZAEI ,Ali, Dept. of Sociology, University of Calgary, Canada
RIGGLE, Nicholas Alden, Philosophy, New York University
ROMAN, Richard, University of Toronto
ROSENTHAL, David M., Professor of Philosophy, Cognitive Science Concentration Graduate Center, City University of New York
ROSS, Eric B., Visiting Professor of Anthropology and International Development Studies, George Washington University, Washington, D.C.
SAHNI, Varun, Inter University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics (IUCAA), Ganeshkhind, Pune
SANBONMATSU, John, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Dept. Of Humanities and Arts, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, MA
SCHAEFER, Karin, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Germany
SCHELLENBERG, Susanna, Professor of Philosophy, Research School of the Social Sciences, The Australian National University, Canberra
SCHIBECI, Lynn, (retired) Dept. of History, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico
SCHIELKE, Samuli, Centre of Modern Oriental Studies, Berlin
SCHRECKER, Ellen, Professor of American History at Yeshiva University, New York
SCHWABSKY, Barry, Senior Critic in Sculpture (retired), Yale University
SEDGWICK, Sally, University of Illinois, Chicago
SHAHSAVARI, Anousha, Persian Lecturer, University of Texas at Austin
SHEIKHZADEGAN, Amir, University of Freiburg
SIEGEL, Susanna C., Professor of Philosophy, Harvard University, Cambridge
SIMPSON, Dick, Head of the Political Science Dept.
KOWALSKA, Beata, Jagiellonian University, Poland
KOZLOWSKI, Pawel, Professor of economics, Polish Academy of Sciences
KUMAR, Victor, University of Arizona
LARRIVÉE, Pierre, Aston University, Birmingham
LEMISCH, Jesse, Professor Emeritus, History, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, USA
MARTINON, Jean-Paul, Dept. of Visual Cultures, Goldsmiths College, UK
MASROUR, Farid, Dept. Of Philosophy, New York University
MCFARLAND, Andrew, Political Science Dept. , University of Illinois, Chicago
SINGPURWALLA, Rachel, University of Maryland, College Park
SOSA, Ernest, Rutgers University Philosophy Department
SPERBER, Dan, Institut Jean Nicod, CRNS, Paris
STEINSEIFER, Martin, Universität Giessen
STUART, Jack, Minneapolis, MN
Tabb, William K., City University of New York
TAVAKOLI-BORAZJANI, Farifteh, Freie Universität Berlin, Institut für Iranistik
TAVAKOLI-TARGHI, Mohamad, Professor of History and Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations, University of Toronto
TISSBERGER, Martina, Freie Universität Berlin, Dept. of Educational Sciences and Psychology
TOHIDI, Nayereh, Professor and Chair, Gender and Women's Studies Dept., California State University, Northridge
TOSCANO, Alberto, Goldsmiths College, UK
UNGER, Peter, Professor of Philosophy, New York University
VAHDAT, Farzin, Vassar College, New York
VAN BLUEMEL, Emeritus Professor of Physics at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, in Worcester, MA
VAN BRUINESSEN, Martin, Chair of Comparative Study of Contemporary Muslim Societies, Dept. of Theology and Religious Studies, Utrecht University
VICTORRI, Bernard, Directeur de recherché CNRS, Ecole Normale Supérieure, Paris
WATZL, Sebastian, Dept. of Philosophy, Columbia University
WHITE, Stephen, Dept. of Philosophy, Tufts University
WINANT, Howard, Professor of Sociology, University of California, Santa Barbara
ZIAI, Hossein, Director of Iranian Studies, UCLA Dept. of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, Los Angeles, CA
ŽIŽEK, Slavoj, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia and the European Graduate School
ZUK, Agnieszka, University of Nancy
ZUPANCIC, Alenka, Institute of Philosophy of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts.
IFJ Leaders Call on Ahmadinejad to Free Journalists Held in Iran
Media Release
25 June 2009
The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), the world's largest organisation of journalists, has called on Iranian leaders to end the intimidation of local and international media which has seen leaders of Iran's journalists' union forced into hiding for their safety.
In a letter to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President re-elected in controversial elections which led to widespread protests over the past week, IFJ leaders have expressed particular concern over the fate of Karim Arghandepour, a well-known Iranian journalist and an elected member of the IFJ's global Executive Committee. He has not been heard of since his arrest in the official crackdown that has followed public protest over the presidential election.
Also in hiding is Ali Masrooie, the Chair of the Association of Iranian journalists. "Like other journalists' leaders he is fearful of being targeted by the authorities for his staunch defence of journalists and their right to work independently," said IFJ President Jim Boumelha and General Secretary Aidan White in their letter to the Iranian President.
On Monday, the Iranian authorities entered the offices of Kalemeh Sabz, pro-Mir Hossein Mousavi newspaper and arrested all the media staff present. According to the report, the Iranian security agents are now operating inside independent newsrooms, controlling and imposing censorship on what goes to printing. Iranian journalists are threatened of being arrested if they speak to foreign media. It has been also confirmed that Iason Athanasiadis, a Greek journalist who was reporting for the Washington Times had been arrested over the weekend.
The IFJ says targeting of media, arbitrary arrest of Iranian journalists, and unprecedented restrictions imposed on foreign media, including blocking of internet sites amount to a comprehensive violation of Iran?s commitments to respect human rights and free expression under the Iranian constitution. The IFJ warns that restrictions on foreign media threaten to obscure the reality of what is happening on the ground.
The IFJ says these violations must end immediately and all detained journalists set free. "We ask you to guarantee the safety of all Iranian journalists so that they can all return to work free of the threat of arrest and intimidation," said the IFJ.
The Federation has also called upon its member organisations in 123 countries to petition the Iranian authorities "to lift the cloud currently hanging over Iranian journalism."
For more information, contact + 32 2 235 22 07
The IFJ represents over 600,000 journalists in 123 countries worldwide
POST-ELECTION UNREST - Shades of grey in Iranian Politics
Progressives in Iran ought to be able to count on active and principled solidarity from the world trade unionists and the left rather than being demeaned as dancing to imperialism's tune. Morning Star By: John Haylett
Wednesday 24 June 2009
Iran's Guardian Council accepts that in 50 cities the number of votes cast in last week's electoral polls was in excess of those on the electoral register. However, for council spokesman Abbas Ali Kadkhodaei, this did not mean that there had been "major fraud or breach in the election."
Kadkhodaei explained that 100 per cent-plus voter turnouts are not unusual since voters are not restricted to voting in the areas where they are registered.
He suggested that the discrepancies amounted to no more than about 3 million votes out of 40 million, which would not have altered the result announced within two hours of the polls closing - namely that regime candidate Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had romped home with 63 per cent.
However, the three opposition candidates in the election believe that the level of what they do not hesitate to call fraud is bigger than that admitted by Kadkhodaei.
Former revolutionary guards commander Mohsen Rezaei, who is noted for his brutal repression of democratic forces in the 1980s, previous prime minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi and ex-speaker Mehdi Karoubi detailed no fewer than 646 election "irregularities."
They demanded a rerun of the presidential election and, in Mousavi's case, continued to do so even after supreme leader Ali Khamenei imposed a ban on protests and urged obedient acceptance of the result.
"The country belongs to you. Protesting against lies and fraud is your right," Mousavi told demonstrators who risked arrest and assault by uniformed and plain-clothes agents of the state.
The theocratic regime slammed interference in the process by imperialist states, especially Britain, and expelled two British diplomats, occasioning the usual tit-for-tat response by London.
US President Barack Obama was "appalled and outraged by the threats, beatings and imprisonments of the last few days."
He joined "the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost" in a way that was beyond him during Israel's orgy of destruction and slaughter against Gaza six months ago.
Iranian Foreign Minister Hassan Ghashghavi also criticised United Nations secretary-general Ban Ki Moon for "meddling" when he voiced dismay over Tehran's use of threats and violence against demonstrators.
Ban was told that his stance had "damaged his credibility" in the eyes of "independent" countries by "ignorantly following some domineering powers which have a long record of uncalled-for interference in other countries' internal affairs and colonisation."
Certainly, Britain and the US have vile records of occupying Iran, misappropriating its oil wealth and imposing a brutal autocracy on its people, twice.
Iranians have little positive to learn of democracy from the land of hanging chads, where George W Bush's camp stole the 2000 presidential election, or from Britain, where democratic accountability is so stunted that, when John Bercow was elected speaker of the House of Commons, Gordon Brown announced that he would take the decision to the hereditary head of state and seek her acceptance of it.
"Iranians have little positive to learn of democracy from the land of hanging chads, where George W Bush's camp stole the 2000 presidential election"
The alacrity with which the international community - the real international community not the one fraudulently substituted by Washington and its hangers-on - accepted Ahmadinejad's re-election has convinced many people that to support the protesters in Iran's cities is to do imperialism's work for it.
Cuban President Raul Castro congratulated the proclaimed victor and looked forward to deepening Iran-Cuba friendly ties and co-operation.
His Venezuelan comrade Hugo Chavez called on the world "to respect Iran because there are attempts to undermine the strength of the Iranian revolution.
"Ahmadinejad's triumph was a triumph all the way. They are trying to stain Ahmadinejad's triumph and through that weaken the government and the Islamic revolution. I know they will not succeed," he said.
What is clear is that Iran is a close ally of both Cuba and, especially, Venezuela, lining up together in the international oil cartel OPEC and decisively rejecting US domination.
It makes sense from a state point of view to maintain and build these relations and, diplomacy being what it is, satisfaction with interstate relations will often translate into overblown expressions of affection.
Be that as it may, trade unions and the left in Britain, while expressing solidarity for progressive developments in countries where workers' representatives are in government and for other states that refuse to bow the knee to imperialist threats, should not commit philosophical suicide by knee-jerk responses of defence for the indefensible in the name of anti-imperialism.
Similar mistakes have been made by the left in the past and brought little benefit to those committing them or to the states accorded such excessive loyalty.
We have to make our own analysis of states such as Iran, taking into account the views of comrades who struggle there for national independence, democracy, equality and workers' rights.
Some defenders of the Khamenei-Ahmedinejad regime insist that those protesting against election fraud emanate solely or mainly from Tehran's gilded northern suburbs, but this is clearly untrue.
Not only did protests break out in many other urban areas but also in the poorer south of the capital.
And although students were prominent in the demonstrations, all sections of society, including working people and banned left-wing organisations, took part to demand their democratic rights.
The country's communists, the Tudeh Party of Iran, have been fully involved in the protests. Tudeh issued its most recent statement, communique No 6, on June 21 (www.tudehpartyiran.org).
The TPI has the distinction of having suffered the murderous onslaught of both the Pahlavi monarchy after the Western-masterminded overthrow of nationalist prime minister Mohammed Moussadegh in 1952 and, subsequent to active participation in the 1979 popular revolution, facing a similar fate at the hands of the theocracy.
The party accuses the current regime of presiding over an economic approach that favours the rich over the poor.
It recalls that article 44 of Iran's constitution, which was passed in the early stages of the revolution, provides, in an economy consisting of three sectors - state, co-operative and private - for "all large-scale and mother industries, foreign trade, major minerals, banking, insurance, power generation, dams, and large-scale irrigation networks, radio and television, post, telegraph and telephone services, aviation, shipping, roads, railroads and the like" to be state-owned.
This was amended by the supreme leader's executive order in 2007 and warmly welcomed by the International Monetary Fund.
The IMF commented: "Recently the government has been pursuing privatisation more seriously. According to the executive order issued by Ayatollah Khamenei regarding article 44 of the constitution, more than 80 per cent of state-owned enterprises must be privatised in the next 10 years. The executive order on article 44 revitalised privatisation plans. Privatisation of state-owned enterprises will be completed by the end of the five-year plan."
In line with IMF guidelines and in stark contrast to Venezuela's pro-people policies, internal markets have been opened up, with huge increases in consumer goods imports for the wealthy and consequent damage to domestic production, increased national debt and growing impoverishment.
Pressure on working-class living standards has sparked strikes and public protests, including action by Tehran bus workers, which have been met with repression.
Tehran bus workers' union leader Mansour Osanloo still languishes in jail for the crime of being a trade unionist.
It is a false dichotomy to suggest a choice between supporting Iran's working people in their struggle for peace, democracy, human rights and social justice and the country's right to resist imperialist domination.
National independence is best served by a society united for progress rather than groaning under repression.
The recent election has exposed fissures within the elite of the Velayat-e Faqih (Supreme Leader) regime, which may open possibilities for progressive forces.
Those forces ought to be able to count on active and principled solidarity from trade unionists and the left in Britain rather than being demeaned as dancing to imperialism's tune.
In the past, to better understand politics in Iran one needed to pay critical attention to its chosen name since the 1979 revolution: The Islamic Republic of Iran.
For decades since the 1979 revolution the primary tension defining politics in Iran had stemmed from the irreconcilable contradiction at the heart of its constitution between its "Islamist" (particularly the concept of velayat-e faqih or rule by the supreme jurisprudence) and its republican ideals; or, if you will, between the will of the ruling clerics and the will of the people. As many commentators have observed, the tension had existed from the outset of the revolution and has expressed itself in the establishment of a parallel or dual form of government that continues to privilege the appointed over the elected institutions and offices of the state.
Over the years, since the end of the Iran-Iraq war in the late 1980s, and especially since the mid-1990s, "reformist" movements and politicians have pressured the regime to strengthen its republican aspects and weaken the tight grip over power by the unrepresentative clerical institutions such as the Guardian Council. Of course, as we all know, the conservative establishment fought back and managed to limit the gains of the reformists, especially during the Khatami years (1997-2005).
This much is broadly acknowledged and is widely known by most Iran observers. But what are less discussed are the emergence and the evolution of a third element in Iranian politics since the end of the Iran-Iraq war. And that is, the increasing militarization of politics and economics in the Islamic Republic.
It was indeed the two-times ex-president Mr. Rafsanjani, the now powerful head of the Expediency Council, reportedly Iran's richest individual, and supporter of Mousavi candidacy against Ahmadinejad, who as president introduced the regime's paramilitary forces to the economy in order to reconstruct the latter in the aftermath of the Iran-Iraq war. This move gave them an ever-increasing stake in the economy. Exact figures are hard to come by, however, it is clear that by now the Revolutionary Guard controls several hundred factories and industrial complexes and were in the recent past awarded lucrative gas and oil pipeline construction and the contract for the expansion or completion of Tehran's underground metro project.
But it was not until the hyper-militarization of the post-9/11 US policies in the Middle East, the ultimate defeat of the first phase of official reformism under Khatami, and the election of Ahmadinejad to presidency in 2005 that the regime's para-military organizations made serious inroads into the realm of politics itself. Of note, the macabre George W. Bush-Ahmadinejad dialectic permitted Tehran to embed this particular form of virulent militarism inside the halls of power and justify this momentous shift in familiar terms of the managerial discourses and practices often associated with times of heightened national security concerns. Today there is even a widespread talk of a new game-changing alliance between the Supreme Leader Khamenei and the paramilitary elite whose defining characteristics were forged during the Iran-Iraq war years in the 1980s. An ominous sign of this development was the incorporation of the quintessential paramilitary force known as baseej into the Revolutionary Guard structure last year. The Guards are reportedly represented by upwards of 80 representatives in the parliament, have many of their members appointed to ministerial and provincial governorate positions, and are said to be accountable only to the Supreme Leader himself.
The question of whether the supreme leader needs the Guard more or the reverse is true has been raised in some quarters but was made less poignant so long as Washington and Tel Aviv had persisted in their open belligerency toward Iran, and there were genuine concerns about the possibility of military strikes against Iran. Under these circumstances one could view the ascendancy of a hyper national security state in Iran as a temporary phenomenon, a necessary though undesirable development, and as the preferred regime response to existential military threats to its and indeed the nation's soverignty.
With the advent of the Obama factor however the macabre dialectic of Washington-Tehran Axis of Military Neoconism was suspended and required further clarification of positions by key players.
Aside from "Islamism," republicanism, and militarism, there is a fourth element that has been under-discussed as well by most commentators on developments in Iran and one without which the unfolding of events do not make much sense. This is the presence and growth of a heterogeneous social movement for democratic change in Iran. It consists of movements by students, teachers, workers, urban youth, women, and, significantly, increasingly important segments of the elite. They are overwhelmingly in favor of non-violent means of bringing about democratic changes in both politics and culture indicating a degree of maturity largely missing in the movements for change in the 1970s against the late Pahlavi state. Examples include the One Million Signature Campaign by women seeking gender equality, the syndicalists associated with the Tehran bus transport workers, and the recently announced Solidarity Committee for Democracy and Human Rights in Iran.
Tehran fears this movement and found the Axis of Military Neoconism between Ahmadinejad and George W Bush rather convenient for employing its favored managerial discourses and practices to keep this movement at bay. However, the Obama factor, and the partial suspension of this symbiotic relationship combined with the unexpected enthusiasm of people of Iran to use the June 12 presidential election as a means to advance their interests led to a potentially explosive mix pending state decision as to how to proceed in this uncharted terrain.
Indeed June 13 (the day after the election) may turn out to be the most pivotal moment in the entire postrevolutionary period. This is a moment in which the clerical rulers could have chosen to embrace the path to peaceful democratization of politics and culture and away from the exclusionary politics of the past, including the prerevolutionary past of the Pahlavi era. Iran is socio-politically equipped to be a model for democratic development in the entire region of the Middle East. Something that (1) the Arab rulers in most of the region's countries, who are allied with the US, fear the most, as it empowers prodemocracy forces in their troubled domains, and (2) the hawks in Washington and Tel Aviv also fear as it deprives them of the imperial alibi for their Iran plan unless they are to ignore public opinion at home, an unlikely proposition short of another 9/11-like terrorist event.
The stakes are enormously high for the nature of politics to come in Iran and far beyond. Tehran's initial response to the election indicates that the regime favors the hyper national security state as status quo rather than as a short-term geopolitical imperative, and confrontation with the movement for democratic change instead of reconciliation. More important than whether there was election fraud is that Tehran seems to see it's own narrowly defined needs as more important than the needs and the forcefully-expressed interests of the majority of Iranians and that it is not ready as yet to treat the people as citizens with dignity and rights in the public arena of politics and culture.
It is important to note that the regime does not fear the Guardian Council-approved "reformist" or "moderate" Mousavi per se. Instead what it fears is (1) the non-violent heterogeneous movement working to bring about democratic changes in the realms of politics and culture, and (2) a "reformist" president unexpectedly turned into the candidate of this movement and backed enthusiastically by the will of the majority.
The latter fear seems to have a more specific context as well which involves inter-factional rivalries among the key ruling sectors of the regime. Inter-factional rivalries are nothing new in the Islamic Republic. However, their intensity today is remarkable indeed. The entire world was afforded a glimpse of this internal feud during a televised presidentail debate when president Ahmadinejad accused Mr. Rafsanjani, the powerful clerical head of the Expediency Council, of massive corruption. It is unlikely that such a frontal assault in such a public moment could have been undertaken without a green light from the Supreme Leader himself. The relevant facts here are that Rafsanjani openly and actively supported the candidacy of Mr. Mousavi while it was understood that Khamenei backed Ahmadinejad. However, a victory for Mousavi in the absence of the massive public support he in fact received would not have constituted an intolerable outcome for the Supreme Leader. The determining factor here was the presence of such a public backing. Under these circumstances a Mousavi victory assumed special significance and would have (1) exacerbated the system's Islamist/republican contradiction (between its arbitrary center of (real) power located in the office of the Supreme leader and the (unintended) power of an elected president with a broad public mandate for change), and (2) strengthened Rafsanjani. It seems Mr. Khamenei wished to avoid both outcomes.
At any rate, If the clerical leadership does not move away from its ruinous position it is likely that segments of the movement for change may radicalize and re-introduce some of the destructive and rigid mindset of those seeking revolutionary changes during the Pahlavi period in the late 1970s. The regime may be forcing the movements to choose between passivity before a hyper militarized state or open revolt.
Radicalization need not involve ruinous rigidities of discourse and practice. It could mean the expansion and further politicization of demands. It could involve greater contemplation and clarity about the nature and logic of the forces arrayed against democratic changes internally, in the region, and globally. It could include greater openness to engaging the state and the public through forms of civil disobedience. All of these would be welcome developments indeed.
What is certain however is that if the clerical regime does not reverse course there would be a lot of pain and suffering. The times call for boldness and wisdom. The state of in-between "Islamism," republicanism, hyper militarism, and intensified reformism, with imperialism in the background, is neither desirable nor stable. Too the path to further militarism at home is ruinous for the people and empowers imperialists to carry out their designs. The regime must choose reconciliation not with the "reformist" rivals of Ahmadinejad per se but with the movements for democratic change before it is too late.
Faramarz Farbod is an Iranian lecturer living in USA.
Statement of the Central Committee of
The Tudeh Party of Iran on Upcoming
Presidential Elections!
Joint struggle and cooperation of forces fighting for reform, freedom and social justice is needed to defeat the candidates of the Supreme Leader (Vali-e-Faqih) and the ruling reaction
4 Jun 2009
Dear compatriots,
The 10th presidential elections will be held in a few days, under very critical circumstances. Four years after coming to power of the anti-people and deeply reactionary administration of Ahmadi-Nejad - a president hand-picked and installed by the Supreme Leader and the sole and direct representative of military-security forces of the country - the people will be going to the polls at a time when an overwhelming majority of them are living under conditions much worse than before and faced with back-breaking economical pressures, deep suppression and severe poverty. Among the factors that have triggered the people's deep and extensive discontent against the regime of Velayat-e-Faqih (the rule of the Supreme Religious Leader) and its appointed administration are detrimental economical policies causing bankruptcy of the manufacturing sector; increasingly high unemployment rate and runaway inflation rate; unprecedented waste and misuse of astronomical oil incomes in the last 4 years by the parasitic organizations, by the regime leaders and their dependents, and by military-security system of the regime; heightened atmosphere of suppression and terror and ongoing attacks on the working class, women's, youth and students' movements; and intensified pressure on religious and national minorities. It wouldn't be such a baseless claim if we said that Ahmadi-Nejad's government has been one of the most reactionary governments in the thirty-year history of Islamic Republican regime.
The Differences between the 10th Presidential Elections (this summer) and the Elections of 2005
The 9th presidential election in 2005 was held under very different circumstances from today. The serious inadequacies during the eight years of Khatami administration, the inability of that administration to deliver the promises they made and to advance the reforms, and inaction regarding improving the conditions of deprived people, the working class and low-paid in particular, made a large portion of social forces, who were disheartened and disappointed with the reform process, refrain from participating in the elections. Harmful divisions among the reformists in government and the decision by a large portion of opposition forces to boycott the elections, allowed the reaction to extensively organize all of its resources and engage the military and security forces in order to pull from the ballot boxes the name of the most fitting agent to press forward its agenda.
Four years into Ahmadi-Nejad's government, now substantial sections of the population, social forces, and opposition and freedom-loving forces of the society - having experienced the devastating policies of this government and its direct and indirect impact on their daily lives - are now approaching the elections with a different point of view from June 2005. Existing signs indicate the general will of the people to participate in the elections and to free themselves from Ahmadi-Nejad's government. In the coming days, the will of the people must be converted to a broad social force going to polls.
Possibilities, Hurdles and Complexities
With Mir-Hossein Mousavi's entry into the presidential race and with the sudden departure of Khatami, which undoubtedly was influenced by the direct or indirect assertions of the Supreme Leader, the process of the 10th presidential election has been facing with serious hurdles and complexities. In the past few weeks, we criticized the vagueness of policies of the reformist candidates and asked for the clarification of the candidates' positions.
Standing against the reformist candidates, are Mahmood Ahmadi-Nejad as the representative of military-security sectors and factions close to Khamenei (the Supreme Leader), and Mohsen Reza'i representing sections of fundamentalist forces opposing Ahmadi-Nejad, who believe that four years of Ahmadi-Nejad government and its deeply monopolist approaches has undermined their interests. These two are participating in the elections against a background of serious disagreements among the supporters of the Supreme Leader regime over the incompetence of Ahmadi-Nejad administration.
What is certain is the fact that if the election is held without extensive interference and fraud on the part of forces affiliated with the Revolutionary Corps, the Basij militia, and the thugs attached to the office of the Supreme Leader, then individuals like Ahmadi-Nejad and Reza'i will face a heavy defeat. Received reports and evidence indicate that the ruling reaction, aware of this fact, is planning to organize extensive vote rigging in order to ensure that the name of one of its candidates is pulled out of the ballot boxes. This plot can be defeated only and only through the powerful presence of millions of people at the polls, and imposing their supervision on the process, that this plot can be defeated.
Today, having experienced the last four years, and considering the objective and subjective reality of our society, knowing the level of organization of social forces, and the role and power of political forces, it is not right to stay neutral in the course of the developments based on unrealistic perceptions, and decide not to participate in the elections. In the current conditions, staying neutral and adopting the role of a mere observer of the events will only serve the crisis-ridden policies of Ahmadi-Nejad's government. The election campaign is an important arena for struggle against the regime of Velayat-e-Faquih, and an avenue to expose the anti-people track record of the regime and its appointed government in various arenas. Furthermore, the election is an opportunity for mobilizing the social forces across the country, for joint effort and cooperation of progressive and freedom-loving forces, and also for mobilizing and organizing various forces of the movement, and to extend its capacity and resources of the movement to counteract the plots of the reaction. Encouraging the people to stay at home and boycotting the elections under the pretext of "not legitimizing the regime", not only will not solve any problem, but also serves the policies of the reaction to control the outcome of the elections. Refraining from participating in the elections could only be justified if it could become an incisive tool in discarding the regime of Velayat-e-Faquih. Taking advantage of the limited possibilities available, in order to organize the social forces, and making an effort to impose the demands of people on the reformist candidates, is a step towards revitalizing the spirit of struggle and overcoming the setbacks due to the outcome of the previous presidential elections and the coming to power of Ahmadi-Nejad.
Election Candidates and our Party
Immediately after the candidacy of the two state reformists was announced, we stressed on the need for the clarification of their policies and viewpoints. In recent weeks, both representatives of the reformist groups have stated their positions and declared their viewpoints about political, social and economic issues. Our party examined the plans announced by the reformist candidates, and also reviewed the past track record of Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Karrubi, and hence believes that the capacity and capability of these candidates, even if they keep their promises and deliver the programmes they have proclaimed, could help the revitalization of the reform process only to a limited extent. Eight years of Khatami's government proved that preserving the existing power structure in Iran, compromise and submission to the regime of Velayat-e-Faqih, and lack of reliance on the masses is a serious hurdle against affecting positive developments in the society. The issue of observing the rights and freedom of people and moving on the path to fundamental and democratic developments is not possible in a country in which the law and executive power and military and security forces are exclusively in the hands of one person, i.e. the Supreme Leader. It is only with discarding this principle that the aforementioned changes could be made. The reform process is only about creating opportunities for organization and growth of the popular movement and mobilizing and equipping such a social force that could eventually impose the will of people on the ruling reaction. On this basis, our party views the process of election not within the sole framework of voting for Mousavi or Karrubi, but to mobilise forces to defeat Ahmadi-Nejad and Reza'i as the candidates of the Supreme Leader's (Velayat-e-Faqih) regime. Voting for reformist candidates under the current circumstances means voting No to the Supreme Leader regime and its candidates in the election. We believe that people will succeed in vigilantly doing so.
The central committee of the Tudeh Party of Iran calls upon the politically-conscious people of Iran and all the forces that support reform, freedom and justice to join forces in the struggle to defeat the candidates of reaction - Mahmood Ahmadi-Nejad and Mohsen Reza'i. Succeeding in this task is one step, even though small, towards alleviating the current pressures and moving toward revitalising the reform process and rebuilding the social forces for the future crucial struggle to discard the regime of Velayat-e-Faquih. In these circumstances, the ruling reaction will do all in its power to prevent the realization of the people's will. Having had the experience of the 9th presidential elections, the ruling reactionaries are well aware that if they succeed in mounting a calculated propaganda campaign together with extensive interference in the elections, by their security forces such as Basij militia, and preventing the participation of a vast portion of the electorate alongside political and social forces, through exerting pressure on them, once again they will be able to pull Ahmadi-Nejad or his equivalent from the ballot boxes. The only way to confront these manoeuvres of the regime is the strong presence of millions of people at the polls, and organizing protest campaigns against fraud and interference of the forces of the Supreme Leader in the election process. The united will and action of millions of voters in this most crucial election could play an instrumental role in favour of the national interests and in resolving the country's serious socio-economic and political problems. This is not the time to stay at home and leave the ballot boxes entirely to the supporters of the Supreme Leader. The void left by millions votes of the people will be filled with manufactured and rigged votes of the reactionaries monopolizing power. This must not be allowed to happen!
Central Committee of Tudeh Party of Iran
4 June 2009
Tehran Bureau
By MUHAMMAD SAHIMI in Los Angeles
This is the author's fifth article in a series on Iran's presidential election. Part I described the political and economical landscape in Iran. Part II provided a brief history of the important political groups in Iran after the revolution, their place on the political spectrum and their present position on the issues. Part III profiled the four candidates and Part IV described the latest developments.The present article continues describing the important developments of the past week, including several unexpected ones.
15 May 2009
Only two weeks remain to Iran's 10th presidential election and the campaigns of the four candidates are in high gear. To kick things off, we'll turn to who's supporting who.
Mir Hossein Mousavi
As described in Parts III and IV, with few exceptions, Mr. Mousavi has secured the support of just about all the major reformist/democratic groups in Iran. But, as a further sign of the strength of his candidacy, the Society of Teachers and Researchers of Qom's Seminaries (STRQS), known in Iran as the Majma' Modarresin va Mohagheghin-e Hozeh Elmiyeh Qom, which consists of left-leaning clerics who teach in Qom's seminaries, declared its support for Mr. Mousavi. Note that STRQS did not support any candidate in the 2004 election.
In addition, 2500 university professors have also endorsed Mr. Mousavi. At the same time, some major figures in the conservative/principlist camp, led by Mr. Emad Afrough, the Tehran deputy to the 7th Majles (the parliament), announced the formation of a committee in support of Mr. Mousavi. The reformist minority caucus in the Majles, which refers to itself as the Imam's Line Faction, also threw its support behind Mr. Mousavi.
Sedaa-ye Edaalat (Voice of Justice), a reformist newspaper, also announced its support for Mr. Mousavi, as did Jomhouri-ye Eslami (Islamic Republic), a principlist daily (originally founded by Ayatollah Khamenei).
In a subtle but unmistakable sign that, if elected, he would work with Mr. Mousavi, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei paid a visit to Mr. Mousavi's ailing father on May 16.
Another sign of Mr. Mousavi's increasing strength were two huge rallies, one held in Tehran and another in Tabriz in the Azerbaijan province. May 23 was the 12th anniversary of the election of Mr. Mohammad Khatami to the presidency in 1997, which the reformists celebrate as the birthday of the reform movement in Iran. A huge rally marked this event in Tehran. Thousands of youth flocked to this event donning a piece of green cloth, which is the color of Mr. Mousavi's campaign logo. While Mr. Mousavi was not present at the rally, campaigning in another city, his wife Dr. Zahra Rahnavard, Mr. Khatami, and many other notable figures participated in the rally and harshly criticized Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Mr. Khatami declared that, "A magnificent country like Iran cannot be run only by the judiciary and security and military officials," a reference to the quasi-military government of Mr. Ahmadinejad, whose brutal crackdown of critics is supported by the judiciary. Another speaker, the movie director Kambouzia Partovi, declared, "Over the past four years a [political] dwarf [Mr. Ahmadinejad] has humiliated us."
The Ahmadinejad camp retaliated by accusing Mr. Mousavi's supporters of acting like supporters of Adolf Hitler (who used to wear brown outfits), propagating lies, and creating divisions among the people. Mr. Ahmadinejad himself went so far as saying that it was illegal for his competitors to criticize his government!
About 50,000 people gathered for Mr. Mousavi's rally in Tabriz, which is the provincial capital of East Azerbaijan, home to Iran's Turkish population. Mr. Mousavi, a Turk himself, spoke in part in Azeri, the language of the Turkish population there, which provoked huge roars of approval.
A major strength in Mr. Mousavi's campaign has been his wife, an artist and university professor, who has tirelessly campaigned for him. She has been present at all the major rallies, delivering tough speeches criticizing the government, and promising a much more open government if her husband is elected. This has generated considerable support for Mr. Mousavi among the women.
Mahdi Karroubi
The Office for Consolidation of Unity (OCU), an umbrella group representing the vast majority of university student organizations, announced its support for Mr. Karroubi. It issued a long statement in which it analyzed Iran's present political situation, and referred to Mr. Karroubi as belonging to the "moderate wing of the political establishment," not as "a leader for fundamental changes." It stated that its representatives met with those of Mr. Karroubi and presented them with a list of questions and demands. After it received satisfactory responses to its demands, the OCU declared, it decided to support Mr. Karroubi, since Mr. Mousavi's campaign was unresponsive to their request for a meeting. The OCU also criticized those who have called for the boycott of the election on the ground that they are not democratic.
In addition, Mr. Karroubi has attracted the attention of many Iranians in the Diaspora, because he has spoken courageously and with much clarity about the problems that Iran is facing. He has attacked the military/security establishment, accusing them of interfering in the electoral process. He has also spoken clearly about the need for respecting human rights, particularly women's rights, and the rights of ethnic and religious minorities.
In a bid for attracting more support, Mr. Karroubi announced that, if elected, he will appoint Mr. Gholamhossein Karbaschi, his campaign manager and former popular mayor of Tehran, and who is a member of the Executives of Reconstruction Party (a reformist group; see Part II), as his First Vice President. (There are eight vice presidents in Iran.) The ERP is, however, supporting Mr. Mousavi.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Ayatollah Mohammad Reza Mahdavi Kani, one of the most influential conservative clerics, and Secretary General of the Association of Militant Clergy (of Tehran Province), the most important conservative clerical group, announced his support for Mr. Ahmadinejad. This was much less than what Mr. Ahmadinejad's supporters had hoped for (they wanted the support of the AMC itself). As described in Part IV, the central committee of the AMC could not agree on supporting Mr. Ahmadinejad. There were widespread rumors that heated discussions took place among the members of the central committee of the AMC. According to these rumors, most senior members of the AMC were opposed to supporting Mr. Ahmadinejad.
The principlist faction in the Majles could not agree on supporting Mr. Ahmadinejad either. Only about 57 of the deputies supported Mr. Ahmadinejad. Most tellingly, the Speaker, Dr. Ali Larijani, and at least 50 other principlist deputies refused to support Mr. Ahmadinejad. Supporters of Mr. Ahmadinejad tried to retaliate by preventing Dr. Larijani from getting elected as the Speaker for the 3rd year, but did not succeed.
Mohsen Rezaee
As discussed in Parts III and IV, Mr. Rezaee does not have an independent social base of support. Thus, no major group has supported him. However, a surprise announcement was made by Dr. Larijani, the Majles Speaker, in which he declared his support for Mr. Rezaee. More than anything else, the announcement (which some websites close to Mr. Ahmadinejad denied) indicates the deep fissures within the ranks of the conservatives.
Scandal and Rift in the Military
A major scandal broke out regarding the support of the high command of Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corp (IRGC) for Mr. Ahmadinejad. Brigadier General Mohammad Pakpour, commander of IRGC ground forces, wrote a letter to Mr. Ali Saeedi (a mid-ranking cleric), the political representative of the Supreme Leader to the IRGC high command (whose job is to convey the Leader's views to the armed forces), saying,
As I told you in our [recent] meeting, the issue of the presidential election has created fissures among the commanders of the ground forces of the Sepaah [the IRG]. Please advice us on how to address the problem,
hence indirectly soliciting the Supreme Leader's view on the election. In response, Mr. Saeedi wrote,
Dear brother General Pakpour, commander of the ground forces of the Sepaah, the explicit view of the Supreme Leader is the re-election of Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It is mandatory for the commanders of the Sepaah to follow the Leader's view and also convey it to their personnel.
The exchange was published in Yaa Lesaaraat-e Hossein, the mouthpiece of Iran's Hezbollah (which has not supported Mr. Ahmadinejad), and was apparently distributed widely within the IRGC and the Basij militia. The exchange created a huge uproar. It forced the public relations department of the IRGC to issue a denial, which no one believed since Yaa Lesaaraat had printed copies of the original letters. The exchange also took place right on the heels of an interview in which Mr. Saeedi, who is also a member of the AMC, said:
I am asked whether we should obey the explicit orders of the Supreme Leader [that he has only one vote to cast, and the rest is up to the people], or consider and interpret what he has said implicitly [that people should vote for someone who would stand up to the West, i.e., Mr. Ahmadinejad]. I say that we should follow the direction that the Leader has identified for us, which is as clear as the sun, although some people do not see it,
hence implying that Ayatollah Khamenei supports Mr. Ahmadinejad. The uproar over Mr. Saeedi's position was so strong that the websites and newspapers close to Mr. Ahmadinejad accused the reformists of being behind such a plot to discredit him.
Nationally-Broadcast Speeches
Under huge public pressure and after scathing criticism from the reformist camp, the National Iranian Radio and Television (NIRTV) network allocated airtime to all the candidates on its major channels. The candidates used this platform to speak directly to the nation in a live broadcast.
Mr. Mousavi's speech was particularly impressive. In addition to harshly criticizing Mr. Ahmadinejad for his domestic and international misdeeds and the woeful state of the economy, Mr. Mousavi spoke like a true nationalist, bolstering his patriotic credentials and reinforcing what the late Mahdi Bazargan, the first Prime Minister after the 1979 Revolution and himself a major nationalist figure who had also served in the government of Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh, had once said about Mr. Mousavi, "He [Mr. Mousavi] is a devout Mosaddeghist," an ultimate compliment to a former revolutionary. The main criticism about Mr. Mousavi's nationally-broadcast speech was that he put too much emphasis on the significance of the first few years of the 1979 Revolution. But, then again, those were Mr. Mousavi's formative years as a national politician.
Likewise, Mr. Karroubi strongly criticized Mr. Ahmadinejad, declaring that, "no one - professors, students, workers, teachers, anybody - has been secure over the last four years." He criticized the claim by some of Mr. Ahmadinejad's supporters that they are in contact with Mahdi, the Shiites' 12th Imam who is supposedly hidden and will come back one day. Mr. Karroubi spoke in defense of the rights of citizens and minorities, and other aspects of civil society. He declared his willingness for improving relations with the United States.
Mr. Rezaee played up his military experience and declared that, "If the government falls into our [able] hands, Israel and the U.S. will not dare to attack Iran, because Israel knows that I can destroy it with a single counterattack." He also declared that Mr. Ahmadinejad had taken Iran to the edge of a terrifying abyss.
Mr. Ahmadinejad tried to counter the attacks and criticism by presenting a softer image of himself, talking about all the progress that Iran has made during his presidency (which is disputed by most experts), particularly in the area of uranium enrichment and the confrontation with the West over the issue.
Several Iranian websites reported that support for Mr. Mousavi has sharply increased after his nationally-broadcast speech. It remains to be seen whether this translates into a larger turn-out on voting day, the key to the outcome of the election.
NIRTV has scheduled six one-on-debates between the candidates, starting June 3.
The Revolutionary Guards are Worried
Despite the obvious fissures, even among the IRGC commanders (see the above), the ideological propaganda division of the IRGC has tried to present a united front against the reformists, and has harshly criticized their two candidates. This has led to rumors and speculation about what the IRGC might do if a reformist is elected president.
In its May 25 issue, News and Analyses, an internal daily bulletin published by the ideological department of the IRGC and distributed among its commanders, strongly criticized Mr. Karroubi and accused him of presenting a bleak picture of Iran, and threatened to take him to court over his criticism of the Government during his nationally-broadcast TV speech.
In its latest issue, published on May 25, the weekly Sobh-e Saadegh (True Dawn), published by the political department of the IRGC and distributed among the armed forces and the Basij Militia, accused Mr. Mousavi and his supporters of "violating the Supreme Leader's order not to harshly criticize the Government," and, "presenting a bleak image of Iran, similar to that in the last years of the imperial rules [in the 1970s]." It then described some of Iran's progress under Mr. Ahmadinejad and concluded that, "These claims [the reformists'] are baseless."
In particular, in a strongly-worded article, Mr. Yadollah Javani, a hard-liner who writes regularly for Sobh-e Saadegh, criticized Mr. Mousavi, and claimed that Mr. Khatami has major differences with him, only two days after the huge rally in Tehran in which Mr. Khatami declared his full support for Mr. Mousavi. The website Basirat, which is run by the political department of the IRGC, called Mr. Mousavi "A man from the past that has been thrown into the present times."
Uranium Enrichment as a Campaign Issue
Mr. Ahmadinejad and his supporters consider Iran's uranium enrichment program their own major achievement. Never mind that the program had actually started much earlier, in the late 1980s. But, boasting about the program is not the only thing that Mr. Ahmadinejad and his supporters do. They also attack the administrations of Messrs Khatami and Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani for incompetence on the issue and making too many concessions to the West, hence attempting to discredit the reformists.
Last week, in the latest round of accusations and counter-accusations and in a campaign speech in Semnan, Mr. Ahmadinejad declared that the Sa'dabad Agreement was "one-sided and was imposed on Iran by the Western powers." He came very close to declaring its signing by the Khatami administration treason. Recall that the Sa'dabad Agreement (named after Iran's presidential palace in Tehran) was signed by Iran, Britain, France, and Germany in October 2003, according to which Iran suspended voluntarily its uranium enrichment program, and began carrying out the provision of the Additional Protocol of its Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, even though the signing of the Additional Protocol had not yet been ratified by the Majles (it still has not been ratified). Mr. Hassan Abbasi, a leading supporter of Mr. Ahmadinejad and who is considered an ideologue of the conservatives, also accused the Khatami administration of "promising a ten-year suspension of the enrichment program."
In response, the Center for Strategic Studies (CSS) of the Expediency Council (a constitutional body headed by Mr. Rafsanjani that arbitrates the differences between the Majles and the Guardian Council), headed by Dr. Hassan Rouhani, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator during the administration of Mr. Khatami, declared that, " We warn the government for the last time that if it does not stop such propaganda, and use this important issue that the nation is facing as a tool for its goals, we will have to publish a lot of documents that would demonstrate the heavy price that the nation has paid for the incompetence of the government."
The CSS also declared that, "Everyone knows that the European countries wanted to pressure Iran into a long-term suspension of its uranium enrichment program, but Dr. Hassan Rouhani, the then Secretary General of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, did not accept it. Indeed, the statement issued after the signing stated explicitly that the suspension was for a limited time and on a voluntary basis." It then called the claims by Messrs Ahmadinejad and Abbasi "a sheer big lie."
Given that Dr. Rouhani is a conservative who does not belong to the reformist camp, such accusations and counter-accusation only show the deep fissures in the ranks of the conservatives.
Cold Hard Cash
Mr. Ahmadinejad and his supporters have been trying to literally buy votes. The government has been distributing cash and gold coins among various social groups, including teachers, nurses, university students, retirees, social workers, and peasants. But, last week, the government took the buying spree a notch higher. Etemaad (Trust), a leading reformist daily, reported that the government has sent letters to the Majles deputies, giving them checks for 20 million toumans (about $2000) and telling them that they can spend it any way they deem necessary in their districts. The government has also promised to compensate businesses that have suffered as a result of the worldwide recession. It is rumored that the government has spent up to $5 billion so far in this vain.
This has provoked widespread condemnation and protest, even among the conservatives. Dr. Rouhani demanded that the judiciary investigate "such unlawful payments." The Hezbollah issued a strong statement accusing the government of breeding a "culture of money worshiping." The National Inspection Organization, an arm of the judiciary that investigates corruption, has threatened to investigate the issue.
Will such tactics and generosity be effective? No one knows. But, as Mr. Akbar Ne'mat Zadeh, a former deputy oil minister and an aid to Mr. Mousavi said, "The people are shrewd. They take the money, but will not vote for him [Mr. Ahmadinejad]." After all, it is clear that the Government has suddenly become so generous - so close to the election!
With only two weeks left, election fever has spread throughout the country. All indications, ranging from the scathing criticism of the reformists by the Revolutionary Guards, to fissures among the conservatives, and distribution of cash among people, are indicators that the conservatives are terrified by prospects of a reformist victory.
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
Public Statement
AI Index: MDE 13/046/2009
15 May 2009
Amnesty International has today called on the Iranian authorities to ensure that the forthcoming presidential election to be held on 12 June 2009 are free of discrimination - particularly against women - and that candidates and voters are guaranteed effective exercise of their rights to freedom of expression and assembly during the election campaign. The organization's appeal was made in a letter addressed to Ayatollah Jannati, the Chair of the Council of Guardians , following the recent closure of registration of candidates for the presidential election.
The Council of Guardians screens all candidates for election to "ensure their suitability for the Presidency". Article 115 of the Constitution stipulates that candidates must be from amongst "religious and political personalities" [Persian: rejal] and possess: "Iranian origin; Iranian nationality; administrative capacity and resourcefulness; a good past record; trustworthiness and piety; convinced belief in the fundamental principles of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the official religion of the country." In previous elections, the majority of candidates registered were disqualified under these criteria, including all women. The exclusion of women appears to have been on an interpretation of the word rejal as meaning "men".
Amnesty International expressed concern that such requirements appear to contradict other articles of the Constitution which provide for equality of all citizens before the law; require respect for the rights of women and prohibit the investigation of a person's beliefs. In addition, they contradict Articles 2, 3, 18, 19 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to which Iran is a state party and which prohibit discrimination on any grounds, and require the state to respect and protect freedoms of belief and opinion. The screening requirements also contravene Article 25 of the ICCPR, which states that all citizens have the right to vote and to be elected to public office, without discrimination.
Amnesty International urged the Council of Guardians to ensure that no one is excluded from standing as a candidate solely on the grounds of their race, colour, sex, language, religion, social origin or political or other opinion, and in particular to ensure that none of the 42 women who registered to stand are barred from standing solely on account of their gender. The organization said it was encouraged in this regard by a statement made on 11 April 2009 by Dr Abbas Ali Kadkhodaei, the Spokesman of the Council of Guardians, that there is "no legal restraint" to the candidacy of women.
Amnesty International is also concerned at ongoing repression of dissent in Iran, which has worsened in recent months, and fears that Iranians who wish to express their opinions or exercise their right to assembly during the election campaign may face restrictions including harassment, arbitrary arrest and unfair trial.
Amnesty International has received reports suggesting increased waves of arbitrary arrests and harassment targeting in particular members of Iran's religious and ethnic minority communities, students, trade unionists and women's rights activists. Many, of those arrested are at risk of torture or other ill treatment. Other individuals arrested before this period have been sentenced to death. In addition, several newspapers have been closed down, and access to internet sites has been restricted, including some relating to human rights or which are operated by international broadcasters. In December 2008, the Office of the Tehran Public Prosecutor announced the formation of a "special office to review Internet- and SMS-related crimes and violations", stating that the office would review election campaign violations and "offensive remarks" made by SMS. These measures may in part be intended to stifle debate, prevent the organization of peaceful demonstrations, and to silence critics of the authorities in advance of the election.
All individuals and groups should be allowed to peacefully exercise their rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly, including in ways which dissent from state policies and practices, in the run-up to the presidential election. Any one currently detained for the peaceful exercise of their rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly should be released immediately and unconditionally. Other detainees should be released unless promptly brought to trial on recognizably criminal charges. All detainees should be protected from torture or other ill-treatment.
Recent cases of concern to Amnesty International include:
• The arrest on 19 April 2009 by officers of the Revolutionary Court in Tehran of Mehdi Mo'tamedi Mehr, a member of the Committee to Defend Free, Healthy and Fair Elections and a member of the Freedom Movement, a banned political party. Prior to his arrest he had been telephoned by a Ministry of Intelligence official and told that publication of a statement entitled "Civil Society Institution as Election Observers: An Assurance toward Free, Healthy and Fair Elections" by the Committee would be an act against national security. The statement was published anyway, and he was arrested. He has been accused of "acting against state security". On 29 April, security forces prevented other members of the committee from holding a meeting in the "Raad" Legal Institute which belongs to Mohammad Ali Dadkhah, a prominent lawyer and member of the High Oversight Council of the Centre for Human Rights Defenders (CHRD). The CHRD was forcibly closed in December 2008 and has not been allowed to reopen.
• At least three Amir Kabir University students who remain detained without trial in Section 209 of Evin Prison in Tehran following their arrests in February 2009. Other students arrested with them who have since been released have said that they were tortured in detention. On 28 April 2009, a Revolutionary Court judge said that eight students, including the three still detained, had been accused of cooperating with the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran, an opposition group based in exile. He said that they had intended to "carry out some activities in the university" during the forthcoming election..
• Ayatollah Sayed Hossein Kazemeyni Boroujerdi, who advocates the removal of religion from the political basis of the state, is serving an 11-year prison sentence imposed on 13 August 2007 after his initial death sentence for "enmity against God" was commuted. On 5 May 2009 he was allegedly beaten while held in solitary confinement in Yazd prison, where he is held in internal exile, after he sent an open letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, requesting that international observers be sent to Iran in order to assist the Iranian people in an open referendum on the system of government in Iran. Since then he has not been allowed to contact family members, who have said that prison officials told them he was being punished for his statement concerning the referendum.
• Over 100 people arrested in Tehran and Sanandaj in the run-up to, during, and after peaceful gatherings planned to celebrate May Day 2009. Although some have been released, dozens are believed to remain in detention, including Ja'far Azimzadeh, Shahpour Ehsani, and Bahram (Issa) Abedini, and six members of the One Million Signatures campaign Nikzad Zanganeh, Amir Yaghoubali, Kaveh Mozafari, his wife Jelveh Javaheri, Pouria Poushtareh and Taha Valizadeh.
• Sajad Khaksari, a reporter for the weekly Qalam-e Moalem (Teacher's Pen) and the son of Mohamad Khaksari and Soraya Darabi, both leaders of the Iran Teachers Trade Association (ITTA), was arrested on 26 April 2009 in front of the Ministry of Education. He was covering protests by teachers demanding that the government implement a pay-parity bill, passed in 2007, which would bring teachers' wages in line with other government workers.
• Two women's right defenders, who are both members of the One Million Signatures Campaign (also known as the Campaign for Equality) which is collecting signatures to a petition demanding equal rights for women, have been detained since 7 May 2009. The two, who have been active in defending women's rights in Qom for many years, had recently investigated an "honour killing" in Qom, which had attracted the attention of the authorities. Fatemeh Masjedi was arrested in Karaj, along with Gholam Reza Salami, a researcher into the women's movement, after her house in Qom was searched by Ministry of Intelligence officials, who confiscated some of her person
Home
Contact
us
