Iran Hopes

2005-10-04T20:24:00.000-07:00

The regime is planning to release 15 of "less problematic" students from Evin prison. The Ministry of Sciencses is producing a list to this effect! How bizarre! As if all this time the regime had not been aware of how many students there were in its prisons! In any event, it is yet unknown as to who is going to make it to the list. Will, for example, Akbar and Manouchehr Mohammadi, and Ahmad Batebi who were arrested during the student uprising in 1999, be released too? I suspect not!
Why this decision all of a sudden? For obvious reasons. They - i.e. the hardliner elements of the government in the executive and the judiciary- just want to make a democratic gesture, saying that "hey! look Khatami was not able to get students out of prison, but we were"! Besides, they are really struggling hard these days to at least get relieved from the international pressure over their atrocious human rights record. But measures as this latest one are only TEMPORARY MEASURES. Not every student political prisoner will be let out of their cells and even those who will be released by the regime, will remain under its close monitoring and will be returned, on most absurd grounds, as soon as possible.
Besides, those who know and worry about human rights in Iran want to see someone else to be released from Evin too. That person is: GANJI!

2005-09-28T19:04:00.000-07:00

Alireza Avaee has been appointed as the new head of Tehran judiciary department. He replaces the long serving mullah, Abbas Ali Alizadeh. It is said that Mortazavi, the notorious chief prosecutor will too be removed of his job soon. Changes are also taking place in the military positions.
Some have related these recent moves to the current nuclear crisis. It may well be so. However, it may also have to do with the upcoming visit by the UN rapporteur (which has not yet been officially confirmed, but the regime has been informed of its likelihood). The regime wants to get the torturers away from the scence. It is already in lots of trouble internationally and doesn't want to invite more.

Information or Imagination? Or Provocation?!

2005-09-21T18:37:00.000-07:00

The following is an extract from Kayhan today:

"While ever since the occupation of Iraq, there have been numerous signs indicating that terrorist operations targetting Iraqi people are organised and enforced by occupying forces, what happened last Tuesday has revealed everything and disclosed the true faces behind such barbaric crimes.

On Tuesday, Iraqi police at a check-point in Basra became suspicious of two British soldiers, who were wearing Al-Mahdi Army uniforms and carrying considerable amount of explosives. The British were arrested. The news of their arrest would not leave any doubt [among Iraqis] about the real identity of the terrorist acts and blast. People of Basra heard the news, their hearts still bleeding from the bereavement of those killed in terrorist attacks. They rushed towards the police station where two Britons were kept, demanding the Iraqi police that the two British terrorists appear on TV with their explosives and in their fake Al-Mahdi uniforms so that the truth behind the years of US-UK conspiracy against Iraqis and their role in terrorist attacks which have so far killed tens of thousands of Iraqi men and women becomes clear.Elsewhere, the HQ of the British troops in Basra, immediately after receiving the news of the arrest, dispatched two fully equipped brigades to the police station. They were armed with heavy weapons and tanks. [...] Once faced with the mob, the opened fire to them. [...]
One might argue that these two British soldiers were operating under cover to penetrate the Al-Mahdi Army. This is a ridiculous argument, as they did not have the slightest knowledge of Arabic. [...]. Besides their appearance (blonde hair and blue eyes) would raise suspicion in the naivest of the Iraqis, let alone the members of the Al-Mahdi who are professional fighters.
[Besides] how could they justify their carrying of explosives and remote transmission kit that are defined equipments used by terrorists? Would these men, as members of the British troops who have the whole area in their control, have any problem for carrying such things [as British soldiers] that would have justified their use of Al-Mahdi uniforms?
The above points demonstrate that the two Britons were in the course of conducting a terrorist operation and, as always, intended to attribute their act to Iraqis by leaving some indicators such as the Al-Mahdi uniform. [...]

The Marionette Returns Home

2005-09-18T20:53:00.000-07:00

Photo: ISNA (The message on the banner reads: "Greetings to the messengers of the [Islamic] Revolution".)

Ahmadinejad returns home to report back to his master that he has successfully taken Iran another step closer to UN sanctions. At Tehran's airport, a small crowd of Sepahis and their families were waiting to greet him. How they want to make Ahmadinejad a Mossadegh! In 1952, Mossadegh went to the UN to defend Iran's right against the British exploitation. He was seen as a symbol of resistance not only by Iranians, but also by other oppressed nations. However, the fact is that Mossadegh had not come to power by cheating. Nor did he have such a suspicisous background as Ahmadinejad does. His cabinet members were not terrorists and torturers either. And he was a 'politician', not a religious preacher.

Ahmadinejad's speech at the UN was just a recitation of ideas postulated by mullahs such as Messbah. Have a look at the latter's book on 'Mahdaviat' and you will find this by yourself. As a matter of fact, Ahmadinejads' speech had two parts: the first one which was on ideas of justice and Imam Zaman (Shia's Messiah) came from Messbah. The second part on nuclear energy was from Shariatmadari (head of Kayhan newspaper and Khamenei's close fellow).

Besides, Ahmadinejad did not meet with European heads of state. Why? Because, Larijani advised him not to do so as he was certain that Ahmadinejad was not capable of negotiating with such political figures as Blair and de Villepin.
Mossadegh was the messenger for Iranian nation at the UN, whereas Ahmadinejad was nothing but a messenger for the regime. He did his job very well.

2005-09-16T01:55:00.000-07:00

When I was a teenager, I had a friend called Shahram. He was a very nice and friendly boy. Everyone liked him. Wherever Shahram was, there was happiness. He would tell jokes, make fun of our neighbours to make us laugh. But his jokes were not like the types of jokes my other friends used to make.
When I left Iran, we somehow lost contact. I hadn't heard from him for a number of years until last week when I ran into one of our common friends. I asked him about Shahram. He said that I'd better not look for him anymore. 'He is not the same person he used to be', my friend said. When I insisted, he gave me his phone number. I was very happy that I eventually found Shahram. I called him. First he sounded very happy to hear me after such a long time. But as soon as I said to him that I wanted to see him, his tone changed. He tried to make excuses. But when I told him that I will not stay in Iran for long, he finally gave up and agreed that we meet somewhere.

We met in a cafe close to his place. My first impression was that he had changed a lot. He was not as cheerful as he used to be. In fact, he was not cheerful at all, although he said he was happy with his life. But I could notice that he was trying to hide something from me. I tried to extract that secret from him. He resisted, saying he was not willing to lose another friend. At last, he revealed the secret. He told me that he was gay and has suffered a lot because of this. His family had found about this and almost abandoned him. As he was saying these things, he fell into tears. Shahram said he had attempted suicide on a couple of occasions. I asked him whether he had considered leaving Iran. His responsed: "why should I leave the country I love, only because of my sexuality"? He also said that he had a boyfriend and neither of them would want to leave Iran. Shahram said he and his boyfriend had no problem in terms of hanging out in the city or travelling. That was no surprise to me though, given that in Iran it is much more difficult for heterosexuals to appear in public than for homosexuals. But what Shahram found unfair was that he could not live his life, express his emotions, etc. in the same way as others do. Then he asked me: "you are a lawyer, you tell me, why shouldn't we have equal rights as others do? [do other Iranians have rights?] Why should we be treated so differently? As if we are nothing else BUT pervert homosexuals?"

I know many like Shahram are suffering in Iran. Many are even forced to get married only to abandon their "pervert" behaviour. But I don't think Iranian society is prepared to approach homosexual rights now. Sexuality, both heterosexuality and homosexuality, is an absolute taboo. When husbands and wives cannot talk about their sexuality, and sexual need, when sexuality is completely absent from public (and private) attention, how can one expect a politician, an MP, a political figure venture into this? I don't know. All I could tell Shahram was that he and his boyfriend would have no future in Iran because the society is not yet ready to take them. Gay and lesbian rights are not a priority in Iran. There are 'more serious' issues than gay rights. Was I right? I'm not sure. All I know that Shahram, the cheerful teenager, has now turned into a depressed and anxious man.

2005-09-13T20:41:00.000-07:00

Today, Ahmadinejad left Tehran for New York on an official five-day visit to attend the 60th session of the UN General Assembly. According to reports, a number of Iranians are preparing to demonstrate outside the UN headquarters in protest to Ahmadinejad's presence (and other issues?). But what message will that send? Who is/are the organiser(s) of this protest? What is their real purpose? Could it be achieved in this way? Who will benefit from such a move? These are the questions that I wish I had clear answers for.

2005-09-10T02:55:00.000-07:00

It has been a month since Ahmadinejad, the least popular president of all times moved to the presidential palace in Pastor Street. He came to office by luring people with his idealistic promises that he certainly will not able to deliever. He is praying day and night for some heavenly help. So far, he has been lucky. God seems to be on his side. The price of oil is rising rapidly which has enabled him to accrue unexpcted amount of money and spend them at will. Only last week, his government allocated 100 million dollars from the ‘foreign currency savings account’ in subsidy for pupils enrollment in the new school year.
But the problems that his government is facing are far more serious and cannot be resolved by such temporary measures as injecting oil money. Widespead corruption, unemployment, deep division between the rich and the poor, crime, and lack of social justice are among the most significant problems in Iran. In addition, the divide between key figures within the regime is growing deeper. And this time, there is no attempt to disguise the divide. Karoubi, for example, has expressly referred to the critique of power as his intention for establishing his new political party. In a more recent time, he has also announced that he will not run for Khobregan Assembly (which is in charge of monitoring the leadership) next year. Elsewhere, the Expediency Council has turned into a scene of conflict: Ahmadinejad has not attended a single session of the Council since he has become the president. He obviously is not comfortable to be part of the Council which Rafsanjani heads. He has prayed to God that his master (Khamenei) show more empathy to him than what he has for Rafsanjani. It seems that God is on his side. (See Iran Scan).
In the meanwhile, political groups and parties are trying to find a way to curtail the absolute power of Ahmadinejad’s master. They have no doubt that with the current pattern of power, any attept towards reform or democracy is doomed to fail. But what kind of strategy will the come up with? No one knows yet. Besides, their passive political conduct during their heydays is still fresh in people’s memory. Thus, it is hard to conceive of their success in winning people’s heart in the near future. So, God seems to be on Ahmadinejad’s side on this too.
The US is loing its patient with the Islamic regime and wants to force it to stop its nuclear program. Economic sanctions are seen as the best viable solution. But, how will sanctions affect the Iranian regime? To answer this, we only need to recall the experience with UN sanctions on Iraq that were imposed after the 1991 Persian Gulf war. For over ten years Saddam’s Iraq was under sanctions. But did they serve their purpose? Did Saddam fall as a result of their imposition? The main bearers of the predicaments caused by the sanctions were Iraqi people, not the government who, hand in hand with UN officials, were making benefit of the emabargos! (And of course, this is no secret now). Imposing economic sanctions on Iran will be no different either. The regime, no doubt, knows where to find the resources it wants. And if the intention behind this plan is to weaken the position of the regime, it will certainly fail too. History suggests that Iranians become solidly united whenver they come under foreign pressure or encounter foreign hostility. Moreover, once under UN sanctions, the government can no longer be held liable for its inability to deliever its promises. It can readily point the finger to the US and the UN for causing all troubles in Iran. Besides, it would be likely that the government declare ‘emergency status’, under which it will be able to suppress, as it has done before, any political opposition. Will God be on Ahmadinejad’s side here too? This time its up to Americans to decide as to whether to bring God on Ahmadinejad’s side.

2005-09-08T21:03:00.000-07:00

A UN special rapporteur on human rights will soon (that is, in a few weeks time) be visiting Tehran . The main thing on his agenda will be meeting with Ganji and other political prisoners. I think the regime has now got enough time to decide whether it would prefer the rapporteur to meet with Ganji inside or outside prison (the rapporteur is intent on meeting with him and he will not accept excuses). Besides they should make up their minds as to what kind of impression they would want to deliever to the rapporteur by continuing to keep Abdolfatah Soltani in custody without charge.

From Commander Qalibaf to Mayor Qalibaf...(and to Presdient Qalibaf?)

2005-09-06T21:35:00.000-07:00

Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf has been appointed as new mayor of Tehran. He gained the majority of Tehran City Council votes (8 to 7) to get the position. Qalibaf is Iran's fomer chief police commander, from which he resigned in last April to participate in the ninth presidential race. Although he was regarded as a top contender, he eventually ranked fourth in the race of eight rivals.

Some observers argue that Qalibaf's appointment as mayor has come as a result of an internal compromise between hard-liners and conservatives. He might have a good record in initiating reforms in the police form but has no credentials in civil management. Hardliners themselves are already divided in terms of their reactions to Qalibaf's election as mayor. While some tend to favour him for his background in Sepah and police force as well as loyalty to Khamenei, others seem not to have forgotten his attempts during elections to distance himself from the ultra hardliners and to depict himself as an advocate of -albeit moderate- social, economic, and political freedom.

Be it as it may, Qalibaf has got a marvellous opportunity to prove himself as a competent 'civilian' leader. No doubt that he has not given up his ambitions for becoming Iran's president one day. So will he use this new job as a ladder to the top job in the same way as Ahmadinejad did? Will Qalibaf be the next Iranian president?

2005-09-05T20:05:00.000-07:00

Latest on Katrina (Tue. morning Tehran time):

Mayor of New Orleans: the death toll of Hurricane Katrina may be thousands. (more)
EU countries are sending food and other supplies to the victims of Hurricane Katrina, after the US asked the EU and Nato for emergency help at the weekend. (more)
Iranian Red Crescent Society has voiced readiness to provide relief assistance to the victims of Hurricane Katrina in the United States. (more)

2005-09-04T00:00:00.000-07:00

1) Thousands of people are believed to have died as a result of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans in the US. A total human disaster. Many countries have offered aid to help with the relief effort. Among them are Sri Lanka, one of the poorest countries still suffering from the pains caused by tsunami, and Indonesia, another tsunami hit country. Even Cuba and Venezuela put aside their differences with the Bush administration to offer assistance. But what did the Iranian government have to offer? Zilch! Not even a word of condolence to the victims. And this is the government which claims that it wants to take the lead in 'globalising Islam'!
I recall when earthquake hit the Iranian city of Bam in December 2003, Bush was among the first leaders of the world to react by expressing his sympathy with the victims (the US also sent considerable aid to Iran). On another corner of the globe, John Howard, the Australian PM, in his new year message to Australian nation, said that the hearts and minds of Australians were with Iranians at the time hardship. But what did the "leader of Islamic civilisation" had to say to Americans as he appeared to preach on the festive day of Maba'ss (the day when Angel Gabriel was revealed to Mohammad)? Nothing but the same worn-out stories of hostility of enemies of Islam towards Iran.

So I wish to speak for all Iranians who are well-known for their kindness and caring attitude towards others: Our hearts are with victims of this massive and sad human tragedy. We have not forgotten Americans' generousity during the time of our nation's hardship (in Gilan and Ghazvin in 1990, in Bam in 2003) and we wished we would have been able to return the favour. Alas! We are not.

2) The US has refused to issue entry visa for Iranian parliamentary delegation to attend the World Conference of Speakers of Parliaments, which will be convened at the UN this month. This act is clearly against the norms of international law and in breach of US obligations. However, it would be interesting to see how many states would react to this decision by the US, considerin that since the appointment of Ahmadinejad as president, many countries have already restricted their diplomatic exchanges with Iran. And frankly, the conference would be better off without a delegation who got their position by cheating in the elections, wouldn't it?

2005-08-31T17:10:00.000-07:00

At the time of publishing this post, the bridge stampede deaths in Baghdad is reported at 852 by some sources and expected to climb. Condolences are all that I can offer to grieving Iraqis.

Conspiracy plot hatchers have come out quickly. The Age (Australia) reports: 'Iran today led a worldwide chorus of horror and outrage over the deaths of almost 1,000 people in a stampede as they headed to a Shi'ite shrine in Iraq, blaming "suspicious hands" bent on causing havoc in the country.
Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi expressed his country's "condolences and sympathy with the Iraqi people and government." Asefi said: "suspicious hands are involved in conspiracies to incite violence and bloodshed among the different Iraqi groups and tribes so that they disturb the security and calm of the Iraqi people. " '

Let's ignore such comments. At least, let Iraqi people grieve in peace.

2005-08-30T15:23:00.000-07:00

Ali Motahari, son of the prominent Islamic Republic ideologist Morteza Motahari, has suggested that the Iranian regime "must consider creating an Islamic Union of [Muslim] States". This idea of 'Islamic globalization' is frequently heard in Iran these days. As I stated in one of my previous posts, this was the slogan of the Islamic regime in the early days of its establishment. Its recent revival as an strategy is aimed at detracting Iranian people from the numerous domestic problems that the new government is seemingly unable to tackle.

Advocates of the idea of the union of Islamic nations seem to forget that the Isalmic Conference Organisation was established for precisely the same purpose but was relinquished much sooner than predicted for its inability to deliever its promises, and for its political bias and insensitiveness. Besides one important point that Motahari and those who support his theory of Islamic globalisation do not address in their theory is what role Iran would play in such a process, should it ever happen. Would Iran take the lead? Considering that Iran has made itself almost completely alienated in the Muslim world by its deeds, it is hard to conceive such a role for Iran. The majority of Muslim world, or at least the key nations such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Persian Gulf states, have already distanced themselves from Iran and its policies. Moreover, in a number of countries in the Middle East and Afghanistan and Pakistan, there are ongoing attempts to show that Shia Iranians are not even real Muslims. For instance, there are losts of books that are being published, and electronic messages getting circulated to deliever that message.

Therefore, it seems that instead of spending its resources on futile projects such as Islamic globalisation, the priority for the Iranian regime must be to gain some decent reputation, domestically and internationaly, as a successful Islamic state.

2005-08-27T03:02:00.000-07:00

Mehdi Karoubi, former Majlis speaker, has formally established his new political party: E'temad-e Melli (National Trust). Addressing the would-be party members, Karoubi has highlighted the 'critique of power' as a major priority.

There is something exotic about this title. There was a time when everything bearing the term 'national' would be changed into ‘Islamic’. national consultancy assembly (Majlis) was changed into Islamic consultancy assembly and the national aviation company was re-named as Aviation of the Islamic Republic. But now, it seems, nationalist sentiment is increasing as a strategy to unify a fragmented society. A party whose majority is composed of former revolutionary and Islamists have chosen such a title as national trust. Thus, Karoubi wants to create trust. How? By offering opportunities for the 'critique of power', that is, by upsetting the pillars of the totalitarian authority. He acknowledges that the behaviour of the institutions of power is producing dangerous impact on people in terms of trusting their rulers. This kind of acknowledgment, however implicit, by a political party is unprecedented in Post(and pre) Revolution era.

Admittedly, it is too early to invest hope in Karoubi's party. It is still unclear how far it is willing to go in its critique of power and what dimensions and institutions of power it will address. Be it as it may, what has to be valued at this early stage is the very consciousness among influential figures such as Karoubi (and perhaps Rafsanjani) as to the danger caused by the growingly deep division between the centre of power and the Iranian populace.

2005-08-23T16:11:00.000-07:00

This regime is getting bolder and bolder. Yesterday, they hired a number of bullies to march in front of European embassies in Tehran "in protest against Europeans policies towards Iran's nuclear program". The mob burned the flags of France, Germany, and Britain. State News agencies, and newspapers (Kayhan, Jomhuri, etc.) claim that the protesters were 'students'. BUT THEY WERE NOT! They might have been pupils at regime's schools of violence and hatred, but they certainly were not students in the proper use of the term. They were Basijis from Ashura squad (Gordan-e Ashura). They get money to do these things. One day they are 'students', another day they are 'volunteer suicide bombers', the next day they are 'law enforcers', enforcing their law upon women who do not observe rules of their version of Islam.

Iranian students are not disrespectful to other nations, even when they become frustrated by acts of foreign nations or when they want to defend their rights against totalitarianism. The regime is fully conscious of the political sensitivity towards the Student Movement inside and outside Iran. Therefore, it wants to put its dirty hands on it and lay claim to it for its own evil purposes. Student associations must denounce such acts. I wonder why newspapers such as Shargh that used to be on students side are so disappointingly passive these days in terms of defending students against such accusations.

2005-08-22T16:49:00.000-07:00

Ahmadinejad’s cabinet is dubbed by his advocates as ‘revolutionary’. There is nothing scandalous about a revolutionary cabinet per se. It can succeed better than its predecessors. However, the danger that lurks out of this form of cabinet is the propaganda of the self-asserted intellectuals backing this cabinet and the credulity of those who are on the receiving end of the propaganda. Let’s not forget that in contemporary Iran, the revolutionary tendency has always been presented under the banner of Islam (the Shi’ee version of it, of course).

And what is so dangerous about this tendency? The danger is that religion, i.e. Islam, is used as a resource, as the only remedy, to deify the persons (like Khomeini, Khamenei and now Ahmadinejad) and to make sacred their ‘victories’ in a way that will always agree with the regime’s oppressive agenda. Consider the following from Ahmadinejad’s government charter:
“Imam Khomeini was such a [civilization-making] leader who, like Messiah, was able to rage a new spirit into the skeleton of the nation and revive the nation’s competence in civilization-making. He was a gift of God to the Iranian nation who could feel his devine breathe.” And among the ‘values’ that the new government enlists are: “to obtain God’s satisfaction through spreading justice and kindness and offering service to followers of God”.

In this way, the inherent evils of society are concealed under a heavy layer of moral/religious exhortation. Sadly, the oppositions inside the country are missing too easily this massive opportunity to make aware people of the dangers posed by the lies that are being spread by the new government.

2005-08-18T22:40:00.000-07:00

I am in Mashad, north east of Iran, on a short business trip. I had heard about Khatami's coming to Mashad for piligirmage (to pay respect to Shia's eighth Imam). So I decided to go and see him somehow. He was welcomed and cheered by a considerably big crowd gathered at Imam Reza's Mausoleum court. It was interesting to see how popular he still is among people although he is no longer their president.

He also delievered a speech which I found very inciting and revealing. He said: "enemies of Iran are not only those foreign enemies who do not want to see a progressive Iran. But there are also domestic enemies who are even more dangerous." Khatami added that the real enemies of Iran are those who want to promote a backward and outdated thought which stems from their reactionary views. Their views, Khatami said, "are anti-thought against conscience, and immoral". Khatami also warned against the move which wants to instutionalise old-fashioned and superficial beliefs and impose them on people". If you wish to get an idea about to whom Khatami was directing his attacking words, have a look at my last post below.

It looks like Khatami has eventually got his tongue back!

2005-08-17T21:39:00.000-07:00

Recently, Ahmadinejad government agenda has been published. I have been reading it over the past few days. It contains numerous intersting and thought-provoking points and I think it can be an important source to help us discern the political mindframe that this new government is going to represent.

What especially struck me about this agenda was its fascination with the establishment of a 'universal just government' as a 'macro-strategy', which implies a return to the early revolutionary slogans. At that time, and for some time after the Revolution, the idea of 'Hukumat-e Adl-e Ali' (a state based on Imam Ali justice system) was a popular slogan. A reflection of that can be found in Article 3 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic where the government is placed under the obligation "to support, by all means, the oppressed across the world".

Almost thirty years on, and now the ninth government of the Islamic regime founds its agenda on the same old slogan(s). What this backward move reveals is that the regime has admited its failure in delievering its promises. But it is not brave enough to abandon those empty idealist promises and engage with the real world. Even worse, to disguise its failure, the regime has come up with more lies. The only difference is that this time those lies are flavoured and wrapped by some more passionate, linguistically complex, sorcerous tone. Besides, has the Islamic regime not yet understood that it cannot and should not speak and make laws for the entire world? Isn't it disgraceful for a government to claim that it will bring justice to the whole world when its own citizens have been suffering from its injustices for such a long time?

2005-08-15T19:29:00.000-07:00

The so-called reformists have denounced Ahmadinejad's cabinet line-up. They argue that the new government is prone to become "docile to external powers" - by which they implicitly refer to the Leader and bodies under his control. Further, they argue that by picking up ministers who are not autonomous in their roles and thoughts but represent a homogeneous body, Ahmadinejad has failed his own motto during the election in which he had promised that his cabinet would represent diversity of interests and thoughts (the 70-million cabinet).

I wonder where these 'reformist think-tanks' were when Khatami was froming his cabinet in 2001 to advise him on the inclusion of diversity of interests? Moreover, at least Ahmadinejad's proposed list reflects that he is listening to his leader who brought him to power. But did Khatami listen to the millions of people who voted for him? His second cabinet was one of the weakest and least efficient cabinets in Islamic regime's history. Besides, he had no discernible agenda. Ahmadinejad, however, has a well-defined agenda - be it a dictated one or otherwise- and seems to know how to realise it. All of his moves can easily be read in line with that agenda. But Khatami only gave promises without knowing if they were realisable or he would have the capacity to deliever them. And obviously at that time, these think-tanks were too content with 'their victory' to think about an agenda. Suddenly, they have woken up to an ultra-hardliner government which seems to be intent on making life difficult for them. Too late, but at least they are awake to see where they failed.

2005-08-14T01:49:00.000-07:00

A few hours ago, Ahmadinejad submitted his list of ministers to the Majlis for vote of confidence (for further information on the names on the list click here).

Is this an 'ultra-hardliner' cabinet? Names such as Mohseni Ejehi (Ministry of Information [security]) and Saffar Harandi (Ministry of Culture) would make it hard to answer this question in negative. Mohseni Ejehi is particularly notorious for the role he played as the chief prosecutor of the Special Court for the Clergy in the imprisonment of Abdollah Nouri (Khatami's first minister of interior and an outspoken critic of Khamenei). Prior to that, in 1998, he was the trial judge of the court that convicted Gholam Hossein Karbaschi, Tehran's former mayor, on embezzelment charges - while it was believed Karbaschi was paying the price for supporting Khatami in 1997 presidential elections. Mohseni Ejehi is not an unknown figure among 'ettelaati's' [security officers]. He served in a variety of positions related to the Minsitry of Information in 1980's and 1990's. After leaving the Ministry, he remained a major player in coordinating security operations against dissidents through other security agencies (with their operation headquarters in Sepah and the Judiciary), called 'parallel security agencies'.

Saffar Harandi is another name on the list that sticks out like a sore thumb. He is a member of the editorial board of Kayhan the hardliner Tehran daily. He is a strong advocate of suppressing any opposition voice. So, the censorship office of the ministry of culture will become very busy once he takes office.

But how are the public reacting to this list? In fact, what surprises me is that people, generally, do not really seem to care about these developments. I asked a few people if they were in any way concerned about the names on Ahmadinejad's list, and they simply said no. People listen to the news passively. They are too preoccupied with making the ends meet to care about censorship or a Gestapo-like ministry of information.

2005-08-07T02:53:00.000-07:00

In his editorial today, Hossein Shariatmadari, Kayhan's boss, has argued that Iran is no longer a member to the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). In his very ludicrous argument, Shariatmadari refers to Article x(2) of the 1969 treaty which states:
"Twenty-five years after the entry into force of the Treaty, a conference shall be convened to decide whether the Treaty shall continue in force indefinitely, or shall be extended for an additional fixed period or periods. This decision shall be taken by a majority of the Parties to the Treaty".
In Shariatmadari's view, the decision made according to the above provison by the majority of the member states at the NPT Review and Extension Conference in 1995, according to which the NPT was extended for an indefinite duration without conditions, did not create any obligation for Iran, since, Shariatmadari writes, the decision did not go through the 'constitutional channels' for ratification. In other words, Shariatmadari has come up with a new doctrine in international law: when the duration of a multilateral treaty is extended by the decision of the majority of states (and the decision is to be enforced without condtions), for the decision to become legally binding, each and every member state must ratify it, since, Shariatmadari teaches us, the decision renders the already ratified and enforced treaty into an entirely new one! Obviously, his buddy, Mr. Firouz Aslani (a law don at Tehran university law school) has not taught him yet that there is a huge difference between extension of a treaty and its modification. Ultimately, he concludes that Iran has not been a member to the NPT since 1995 and as such its 'cooperation with the IAEA' must have stopped long time ago. He goes on to question the Iranian governments (under Rafsanjani and Khatami) as to why they had submitted to 'the illegitimate demands of the IAEA and the European threats'.

This is not the appropriate place to examine in detail the flaws of Shariatmadari's absurd argument, which simply reflects his lack of knowledge and competence in law and international law (something that I am sure does not surprise anyone). What is worth paying attention, however, is his persistence on urging Iran to pull out of the NPT and resume all uranium enrichment-related activities regardless of the demands of the IAEA (representing the demands of the international community). What objective are Shariatmadari and his fellows in Majlis and Sepah pursuing? What do they mean when they say the new government must give the Europeans a 'categorical and solid response' and teach them (and the US) 'a good lesson'? Jannati (the Guardian Council secretary general) said in Friday prayers last week that 'we' (i.e. him and his fellows in the Brethren) want to enforce our right (to develop the nuclear program) and we will pay the price for that". Would Jannati pay the price of a war? Or the Iranian people? But what benefits would Jannati and Shariatmadari and their likes' make out of another war? To find the answer to this question one only needs to look at how the deliberately prolonged Iran-Iraq war consolidated the pillars of the regime.

2005-08-03T17:51:00.000-07:00

Police say they are still investigating the assassination of Moghaddasi which took place last Tuesday in Tehran. While speculation is rampant and no police or security authority has yet directly linked the assassination to Ganji's case, Mobasheri, the chief of the Revolutionary Courts has told Kayhan that he does not see the two unrelated. Does this indicate a new project of oppressing dissidents is getting under way?

There is little doubt that Iran is coming to the verge of a deep domestic and international political (and social) crisis. There are reports of unrest in West and South East of the country. The political structure of the regime has changed dramatically after the recent election. Those who were previously deemed to be the insiders of the 'circle of trust' are now openly out of it. At the international level, the situation is getting worse for the regime. Its options are limited: either to surrender to foreign pressure and abandon its nuclear ambitions, or face the tough consequences that might put an end to their existence. The 'war committee' convened at the Ministy of Foreign Affairs yesterday is an indication for a grave concern.

On the other hand, the history of the Islamic regime shows that, at times of crisis, 'terror' has always been adopted as the best strategy to distract attention from the causes and centres of crisis, and, at the same time, to silence the opposition voices and international demands. A frightening fact about this strategy is that it draws no line that cannot be crossed. Saving the regime justifies every action. To give an example, in 1994, when the regime was under heavy international pressure for its human rights violations and terror aborad, and there were unrests taking place across the country, the regime's security strategists, then nested in the Ministry of Information, came to the conclustion that inciting terror and fear would be the best outlet for the crisis. The bomb explosion in the shrine of Imam Reza (Shia's eighth Imam)- the holiest place in Iran - was carried out under this strategy. Around fifty pilgrims were killed in that incident. Shortly afterwards, a "Mehdi Nahvi" was named as the prime suspect and after a few days it was in the news that Nahvi was shot dead in a shooting incident with the security officers in south of Tehran. There was no information as to who Nahvi was, what his probabale motivations were, or what background he had. But, the regime made the most out of this incident by reinforcing its oppressive measures domestically and gesturing for the international community that it is the main victim of terror and not the Iranian people persecuted by it inside and outside of the country.

It seems that the same strategy is gaining momentum once again. Reading hardliner newspapers such as Kayhan, Ressalat, and Jomhuri, one can easily draw similarities between the language used today and in the early to mid 1990s . Judge Moghadass (literally translated, his family name means sacred) was a 'holy man', a man of virtue, very religious, etc. But he was not holier than the Imam's shrine and his pilgrims. If his assassination would help saving the regime, it must be done - the strategy would say. Thus, my speculation is that soon we will hear of another poor fellow who either gets killed in a shoot out leaving behind letters in support of Ganji or some opposition groups, or gets arrested and then confesses to his empathy for Ganj's or some anti-regime cause. What will follow from that is not hard to predict.

More on yesterday assassination

2005-08-02T17:39:00.000-07:00

Kayhan's today headline reads: "The trial jude of Ganji's case assassinated". For now, I leave it to you to interpret this very telling headline, but I will write on it in my posting later today. Ah, one more thing, Ahmadinejad officially begins his new job as the Iranian president from today.

2005-08-02T15:34:00.000-07:00

Judge Ahmadi Moghaddas, Tehran's deputy chief prosecutor, has been assassinated (BBC report here). It is yet unknown who was behind this act, so one cannot rush to conclude that it was politically motivated. But whatever the motive, this assassination is sending a terrifying message: violence and terror is frighteningly growing as a means for 'settling accounts'. This can be the beginning of a chaos, a social disaster.

2005-07-31T00:20:00.000-07:00

While Ganji is hovering between life and death in Milad Hospital, his lawyer, Abdolfatah Soltani has been arrested by Mortazavi's (Tehran chief prosecutor) men (not by the police). Shahroudi (head of the judiciary) is reported as saying that Ganji's recent remarks, in which he stated his belief that "Khamenei must go", have made his case "legally difficult".
Shahroudi is right. Challenging Khamenei's power makes everyone's case difficult. All political prisioners in Iranian jails are there only because they questioned Khamenei's authority. They did not commit a crime, but apostacy. For the Brethren, there is a huge difference between committing a crime and committing apostacy. The former is dealt with by the courts and hence falls under the jurisdiction of Shahroudi. But sins are for Mortazavi to handle. Ganji is not a 'criminal', but an unforgiven apostate in the eyes of the Brethren. And those who defend an apostate share his sins. This is why Soltani was arrested without due process. He was 'outside' the law in the same way as Ganji and other political prisioners are.

It is very sad, but Ganji is destined do die. Death is his punishment for what he did to Khamenei. Khatami, Shahroudi, Rafsanjani can do nothing to save him - even if they sincerely want to.