U.N. Special Rapporteur Ahmed Shaheed presents his report to the Human Rights Council in Geneva on Mar. 14, 2014. Courtesy of Mr. Shaheed's office.

By Omid Memarian
GENEVA, Mar 14 2014 (IPS)

Following the release Friday of his report to the Human Rights Council on the situation in Iran, U.N. Special Rapporteur Ahmed Shaheed urged Tehran to engage with U.N. mandates – firstly by permitting him to enter the country.

“Nobody has been able to go to Iran as a U.N. mandate-holder for nine years now,” Shaheed told IPS in Geneva, Switzerland, where the council is based."Personal attacks are nothing new...just think what Iranian citizens in Tehran or elsewhere might get if they speak out.” -- Ahmed Shaheed

“The next step would be Iran engaging with my mandate or if they wish with the other mandates as well,” said Shaheed, who was appointed to his post in June 2011 and has issued two earlier reports.

The 104-page report is based primarily on interviews with 72 Iranians living in three European countries in December 2013 and 61 statements by Iranians inside Iran and Turkey between September and December 2013.

The special rapporteur also examined reports compiled by organisations focusing on ethnic and religious minority rights in Iran.

While welcoming “positive overtures” made by the Iranian government since Hassan Rouhani became president in August 2013, the report states “they currently do not address fully the fundamental human rights concerns” raised by the U.N. and other human rights-focused bodies.

An estimated 1,539 individuals have been executed, including at least 955 for drug trafficking, since the establishment of the special rapporteur’s mandate in 2011, according to the report.

Some 687 individuals are also believed to have been executed in 2013, 369 of which were announced by official or semi-official government sources.

At least 57 individuals were publicly hanged (one of whom was pardoned after surviving the execution), including at least 28 women, in 2013, according to the report.

In addition to focusing on allegations of the abuse and imprisonment of activists, ethnic and religious minorities and members of the press, the special rapporteur estimates that 900 political prisoners are currently being held in Iranian jails.

Sarah Leah Whitson, the executive director for Middle East & North Africa at Human Rights Watch, told IPS the report’s “findings are consistent with what we’ve been documenting in Iran.

“If Rouhani really wants to make an impression as a leader who is serious about reform in Iran, the first thing he should do is call for a moratorium on executions,” she said.

“The gruesome numbers in a patently unfair justice system cry out for careful review and scrutiny of the evidence against all those facing death sentences in Iran,” added Whitson.

On Wednesday, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Rouhani has not delivered on his human rights promises after the release of his own report on Iranian human rights to the General Assembly.

His remarks were met with sharp condemnation from Tehran.

Ali Akbar Velayati, an advisor to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called Ban “the weakest secretary-general [in the history] of the U.N.”

Speaker of the Iranian Parliament Ali Larijani said the report was “dictated by Mossad and the CIA.”

Ban also called for Iran to allow Shaheed, who previously served two terms as the foreign minister of the Maldives, to visit Iran and investigate the charges that have been laid against it.

Last January, when a draft of the special rapporteur’s report was presented to Iran for feedback, Iran’s judiciary head Sadegh Larijani publicly spoke about the report, which violated a U.N. protocol requiring Iran to keep the report confidential until its release to the Human Rights Council.

“It is clear to all that preparing biased reports about the situation of human rights in Iran is aimed to exert more pressure on the Islamic Republic, and the Westerners don’t really have any human rights concerns,” said Larijani at a meeting of high-ranking judicial officials.

“Personal attacks are nothing new,” Shaheed told IPS, adding that “If a U.N. mandate holder, or the U.N. secretary-general, or other officials can be attacked so much for what they say, just think what Iranian citizens in Tehran or elsewhere might get if they speak out.”

“Iran is much better served if it engages in a debate,” he said.

The special rapporteur’s findings criticise the Iranian Supreme Leader’s extensive influence on the judiciary and the fact that his judgments can supersede judicial rulings.

The report also states that most reported violations of human rights in Iran occur during pre-trial stages, in detention centres or in court.

“The situation in Iran is not as bleak as Mr. Shaheed reflects in his report, but so long as there is no constructive dialogue between the two sides, nothing can be resolved,” a member of the Iranian delegation who asked not to be named told IPS.

The judiciary is constitutionally independent from the executive branch in Iran, but since the election of Rouhani, who campaigned on a platform of moderation, there has been a growing expectation for him to implement reforms.

But apart from the release of 80 political prisoners last year under Rouhani’s watch, which is noted by the report, hardline conservatives who dominate the Judiciary and the security establishment have shown little flexibility on the issue of reforms .

“Every country has issues, and Iran has a large share of that and it should address it by engagement,” Shaheed told IPS.

The Human Rights Council will vote on the renewal of his mandate following the report’s review on Mar. 17.

More than seven weeks after the secretive arrest of prominent Iranian diplomat Bagher Asadi, an Iranian official confirmed his detention Thursday, although he declined to provide further details.

Courtesy of Bagher Asadi/Facebook

“So far as I know, this individual (in custody) is an experienced foreign ministry diplomat and his latest assignment has been deputy for the D8 group secretary-general,” former foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki told the Iranian Student News Agency (ISNA). “But I am not informed about the details of the situation.”

The D8, of which Asadi was director of the secretariat, is a group of developing nations with large Muslim populations that have formed an economic development alliance. It includes Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan and Turkey.

A source close to the family told IPS that since his arrest, Asadi’s family has been under pressure from security forces not to discuss the matter publicly.

“They are worried that talking to the media will not help his situation in detention,” the source said on the condition of anonymity.

Another source close to the family told IPS, “We are in shock how the Iranian authorities can arrest somebody without even announcing it when he was at home.”

The source said that during the arrest, which occurred on Mar. 12, Asadi’s house was searched and his laptop and other personal items were confiscated.

“The authorities promised the family to release him after a few days, but he is still in prison. A few days after the arrest, Bagher called home and said he is okay. But since then there has been no news about his condition and the reason behind the arrest.

“We are concerned that he is under pressure and they want to break him,” the source added.

There appears to be official confusion as to Asadi’s status. Ahmad Bakhshayesh, a member of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security Commission, told Bahar newspaper Thursday, “Ordinarily, the arrest of a diplomat is a result of a violation he may have committed in the country in which he is stationed, or it could be political, for example about the subject of reformists.”

Speculating about the case, which he claimed no personal knowledge of, Bakhshayesh added, “I think this news must be wrong, and Reuters did wrong in publishing such news.”

This last was a reference to a Reuters article published Tuesday which first broke the news that Asadi had been arrested, although the reporter was unable to independently confirm the claim by anonymous sources.

Mohammad Reza Heydari, a former Iranian diplomat who joined the opposition following the violent post-election crackdown on street protesters in 2009 by the Iranian police and intelligence, told IPS that sources inside the foreign ministry told him that Asadi has criticised President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s policies in private meetings, and he may have been arrested after news of these talks were reported and leaked.

“Considering his way of thinking and his criticism, I believe they are building a case against him. Fabricating cases against individuals is a common practice of the Islamic Republic regime,” said Heydari.

“The Iranian regime has taken the Iranian people as hostages these days. He talked about the people’s rights and current affairs, and this was reported to Tehran by people he was socialising with, and this led to his passport confiscation and detention upon return to Tehran,” he said.

Among his foreign ministry colleagues, Asadi is known as one of the most professional Iranian diplomats. In a prescient January 2004 op-ed published by the New York Times, Asadi warned against the conservative group that could follow President Mohammad Khatami’s reformist cabinet.

“The conservatives’ blatant disdain for human rights and republican aspects of governance, among other things, would inevitably invite outside censure and further complicate an already tenuous relationship,” he wrote.

The Iranian mission at the U.N. did not return repeated calls by IPS for verification of the news or additional details about the arrest.

Although there has been speculation that the arrest is connected to upcoming national elections in June, Heydari believes it’s simply business as usual.

“This arrest is a part of the treatment the Islamic Republic gives its diplomats who speak their minds in the countries where they are stationed, aiming to give a lesson to the diplomats that if they express any opinions other than the ruling system’s, they will be severely dealt with,” he said.

Asadi’s arrest took place amidst other political arrests of reformists or critical activists over the past few weeks, as the Jun. 14 elections approach.

High-ranking officials have warned against the candidacies of former Iranian presidents Mohammad Khatami and Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, accusing them of involvement in the 2009 post-election events.

According to Heydari, the Foreign Ministry Inspection Office routinely tells Iranian diplomats prior to dispatching them on their missions that they must refrain from expressing opinions in the presence of individuals who could be potential state enemies, as those expressed opinions could be used against the state later.

“There should be freedom for people to talk. After all, in different meetings, people express their opinions. Monitoring the individuals everywhere and questioning them later are not sustainable methods,” he said.

Ahmed Shaheed, UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, reviews his findings at a meeting of the General Assembly’s Third Committee on the promotion and protection of human rights. Credit: UN Photo/Rick Bajornas

By Omid Memarian
UNITED NATIONS, Oct 25 2012 (IPS)

More than a year into his mandate, Ahmed Shaheed, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Iran, told the Third Committee of the U.N. General Assembly this week that the rights situation in Iran remains critical, especially as it pertains to human rights defenders, journalists, and religious and ethnic minorities.

According to Shaheed, more than 40 Iranian journalists are in prison, along with human rights defenders like Abdolfattah Soltani, Mohammad Ali Dadkhah, and Mohammad Seifzadeh. These individuals, along with prominent activist Narges Mohammadi, were members of a human rights organisation under the direction of Nobel Peace Laureate and attorney Shirin Ebadi.

Due to government harassment, Ebadi is now forced to live outside Iran to continue her human rights advocacy.

Altogether, Shaheed’s report estimates that some 32 lawyers have been prosecuted since 2009, and that at least nine defence attorneys are currently imprisoned.

Since his appointment in June 2011, the Iranian government has refused to respond to Shaheed’s multiple requests to travel to Iran and visit prisons there, although he conducted nearly 100 interviews with sources both within and outside the country to prepare his reports.

He told IPS on Tuesday that the Iranian government’s response to his mandate and his reports has been “evolving”, even though Tehran has repeatedly denied him a visa to visit the country.

“Their initial response was that they would not deal with me at all,” Shaheed told IPS. “Now you see that they have actually responded to reports that are out there. In fact, I have written about 20 different communications to the Iranian authorities and I have received some responses to these inquiries, so they haven’t entirely ignored me.”

Shaheed is not the only official barred from visiting Iranian prisons. Last week, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was denied a request by the judiciary to allow him to visit Evin Prison, where most political detainees are held.

Though Shaheed’s and Ahmadinejad’s reasons for visiting Evin Prison may be quite different, the Iranian security apparatus’ lack of transparency and lawlessness appear to have closed the doors of the notorious prison even to high-ranking Iranian officials.

Last week, Shaheed’s report was distributed among U.N. diplomats. Immediately after its release, the head of Iran’s judiciary denounced the report as “baseless”.

“The U.N. Special Rapporteur’s third report, like his previous reports, is full of baseless and untrue statements,” Sadegh Larijani said on Iran’s state television. “Most of what they say takes issue with a fundamental discussion which pertains to all Islamic countries, and it is one which objects to Islamic laws, and unfortunately, Islamic countries are asleep, because presently we are the target of such talk.

“Nonetheless, all of this is an attack on them. Most of the issues are objections to Islamic laws. They object to our Islamic values,” Larijani told reporters.

Shaheed denies the accusations. “We can discuss the Sharia law itself and also the case of Iran’s commitments to international law,” he told IPS. “But that dialogue must happen, and my point to Iran is: observe your own laws, they are written by the people of Iran, some of them recently, and they will improve a vast majority of issues that are there. I think international alertness about what is happening in the country will help address issues of concern.”

One of the major issues raised by Third Committee members as well as Shaheed’s report was the glaring increase in the number of executions in Iran.

In June 2012, two men were sentenced to death for consuming alcohol for the third time, the report states. “At least 141 officially-announced executions are known to have been carried out between January and early June 2012. Several sources have reported that another 82 secret executions would have been carried out during the same time period, and that there were 53 executions across the country during one week in May 2012; 43, the majority of executions were reportedly related to drug offences.”

Larijani says that the death penalty is implemented in the interest of public safety. “The executions are mostly carried out for drug traffickers and sex offenders. How can we sell out the country’s peace to your rhetoric?” he said.

In response to a question by IPS regarding how his reports might impact rights victims’ lives inside Iran, Shaheed said, “If you are a victim of rights violations, documenting your case helps you. Being the voice of the voiceless is an important role that the mandate holder can play. Of course I was very disappointed when this past Monday, 13 people were executed. But as more people talk about Iran, I think we will begin to make a difference.

“I’m not the only one talking about Iran,” Shaheed emphasised. “The Human Rights Committee this past year raised some very serious concerns about Iran, and Iran is again up for review in Geneva next year. I am sure there are issues of concern, and I think all this focus on violations and the prescription of what should be done and the desire on the part of other people to engage with Iran to define ways to address these issues is important.”

The United States, Britain, Canada, Norway, Switzerland, the Czech Republic and Brazil welcomed Shaheed’s report and asked Iran to cooperate with his mandate.

To prepare his report, Ahmed Shaheed talked to more than 100 victims and witnesses inside and outside of Iran. Credit: UN Photo/Evan Schneider

By Omid Memarian
NEW YORK, Mar 8 2012 (IPS)

A United Nations envoy has called on the Iranian government to release all political prisoners and prisoners of conscience, and to conduct an extensive, impartial and independent investigation into the violence that followed the 2009 presidential election.

In a 36- page report released at the Human Rights Council in Geneva Wednesday, Ahmed Shaheed, the U.N. special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran, catalogues allegations that amount to a “striking pattern of violations of fundamental human rights guaranteed under international law”.

“Mr. Shaheed’s report has utmost importance to the people of Iran, as it proves how oppressed Iranian people are and that their human rights are violated,” Iranian human rights activist and 2003 Nobel Peace Laureate Shirin Ebadi told IPS. “It is also important from an international point of view, because an impartial international authority has reviewed the people’s claims and has presented a report.”

Iranian authorities had refused Shaheed’s request for a country visit in September 2011. In October, he presented 58 cases of human rights violations in his interim report to the U.N. General Assembly, prompting a harsh response from Iranian officials who questioned the U.N envoy’s credentials and the credibility of the sources used in the report.

In January, Shaheed’s report was sent to Iran for review by government officials. But instead of addressing the issues raised in the report, they again accused Shaheed of bias and inaccuracies.

“The Special Rapporteur was engaged in propaganda by participating in forums and gatherings that were contaminated by Western espionage agencies, Zionist elements and terrorist groups,” according to Iran’s official response as stated in the report.

It also stated that sources of information, such as reports or complaints, lacked credibility, and that no positive reference had been made to meetings with officials and representatives of civil society.

Shaeed countered that he fulfilled his mandate to the best of his ability on the basis of voluminous information collected from a variety of independent and reliable sources.

“This rapportueur and the report are all lies,” charged the head of Iran’s judiciary, Sadeq Larijani, during a conference on human rights in Tehran in February.

Mohammad-Javad Larijani, the head of Iran’s High Council for Human Rights, also accused Shaheed of promoting Western interests, particularly those of Washington, which has been steadily ramping up the pressure on Tehran over its nuclear programme.

“Just by listening five minutes to him, we understand Mr. Shaheed’s and the U.S. secretary of state’s remarks are the same,” Larijani said.

In order to fulfill his mandate, the U.N. envoy talked to more than 100 victims and witnesses inside and outside of the country.

One student interviewed for the report told IPS that he was contacted by Skype and was able to explain what happened to him during two months in detention.

“Even if Mr. Shaheed could travel to Iran, me and others could not meet with him for the severe consequences we might have faced afterward,” he told IPS on the condition of anonymity. “The Iranian judiciary will never let him enter Iran because they cannot open the doors to the prisons and let him talk to human rights victims.”

Morteza Kazemian, a prominent political activist and journalist who spent nine weeks in solitary confinement after the 2009 presidential election, told IPS that, “This report can create diplomatic and legal pressure on violators of human rights in Iran, limitations and pressure that can be effective and not harm the people of Iran, as a war would.

“Mr. Shaheed’s new report is published at a time when there are serious military threats against Iran,” Kazemian added. “Unfortunately, allegations of non-peaceful nuclear activities have affected the issue of human rights violations in Iran.”

Reza Moini, the head of Reporters Without Borders’ Iran and Afghanistan Division, told IPS, “You must bear in mind that the Islamic Republic authorities did not allow Mr. Shaheed to go to Iran, and basically deprived him of a chance to visit with a large group of witnesses, victims, or even government officials.”

Thirteen members of Moini’s family, including one of his brothers, have been executed since 1980.

Shaheed’s report notes a dramatic increase in the number of executions in Iran, from less than 100 cases in 2003 to at least 670 cases in 2011.

“This report is successful as a diary of the suppression of the past two years and the rapporteur has, fortunately, been able to meet with many victims outside Iran, and has recorded their stories,” Moini added.

“However, it does not establish a relationship between the suppressive mechanisms and (Iran’s) current laws. This is why most of the demands of the victims of official suppression are absent. The biggest group of victims in this area are journalists and bloggers, and that is not a small number.

“The other point is that though impunity from punishment is quite clear throughout the report both in practice and in the victims’ tales, there is no emphasis about finding a clear solution for this problem in the recommendations section,” he said.

Ebadi also lamented that the special rapporteur was barred from conducting an on-the-ground investigation in Iran, but said she believed the report was thorough and presented an accurate picture.

“The fact that the Iranian government did not allow Mr. Shaheed in the country and did not issue him a visa, though inappropriate in nature, did not have an impact on the accuracy of Mr. Shaheed’s report, as he is well-informed about Iranian affairs through contacts by witnesses from inside and outside Iran who have shared their own observations with him,” she said.

“An extension of Mr. Shaheed’s mission has utmost importance for the people of Iran,” she added.

Human Rights Council members will decide on whether or not to renew Shaheed’s mandate for another year on Mar. 22.

Excerpt:

By Omid Memarian and - -
NEW YORK, Feb 28 2012 (IPS)

Amid mounting tensions between Iran and the United States over Tehran’s nuclear programme, perhaps nothing less than an Oscar to the acclaimed feature film “A Separation” could have brought smiles to the faces of millions of Iranians who see most news as bad news these days.

From left: Merila Zarei (Actress), Asghar Farhadi ('A Separation' Director) and Tahmineh Milani (Director). Credit: CC BY 2.0

In 1997, Majid Majidi’s “Children of Heaven” was nominated for an Oscar, but lost to “Life Is Beautiful” from Italy.

“‘A Separation”s position has surpassed the Iranian independent cinema; it is now (emblematic of) national hope,” the prominent Iranian director Tahmineh Milani told IPS in a telephone interview from Tehran.

“A lot of people really need for this film to be more successful, like a public hope, because Iranian society, especially among the youth, is so depressed that this prize has created hope and public solidarity,” she added.

The film portrays a struggling middle-class couple whose moral values are put to the test when an incident reveals hidden layers of the characters’ personalities and dignity.

In January, when Asghar Farhadi won the Golden Globe Award in the Best Foreign Language Film category, in his short speech, he said only that his people are a “peace loving” people. Many criticised him for not using the podium to send a stronger message from such a unique venue when millions of people were watching.

But Farhadi, well-known for not getting involved in politics at home, had the most political speech of the 84th Academy Awards, a speech that not only pleased millions of Iranian viewers but also Iranian officials who have been hammered by the international community with a series of severe sanctions and threats of a military attack against Iran’s nuclear sites over the past months.

“At this time many Iranians all over the world are watching us, and I imagine them to be very happy,” said Farhadi, adding, “They are happy not just because of an important award or a film or filmmaker, but because at the time the talk of war, intimidation, and aggression is exchanged between politicians, the name of their country, Iran, is spoken here through its glorious culture, a rich and ancient culture that has been hidden under the dust of politics.”

Farhadi, who is expected to go back to Iran shortly after his trip to the U.S., walked a fine line in keeping his speech neutral, not specifying Iran or the West as the source of ongoing tensions, and made his speech all about the Iranian people.

“I proudly offer this award to the people of my country, the people who respect all cultures and civilisations and despise hostility and resentment,” Farhadi added.

Merila Zarei, a veteran actress in Tehran who appears in “A Separation” told IPS, “The fact that the film was made by a group of Iranian cinema professionals and has been seen able to compete with films from other parts of their world, based on international standards, is an honour for Iran’s cinema and film industry, and it helps our country’s culture and film industry to be recognised in the world.”

“Perhaps this Oscar can be a good starting point for others to follow the Iranian cinema more seriously,” she said.

For Zarei, working with Asghar Farhadi was an extraordinary experience. “As an experienced actress, working with him was like learning in a classroom,” Zarei said. “He taught us so many nuances expertly, affecting the way our work flowed. I believe that was the result of his knowledge, awareness, and expertise.”

“A Separation” earned a first Oscar for Iran at a time when the country’s film industry, particularly since the 2009 presidential election, has been under unrelenting pressure from authorities.

Last month, the government shut down the independent “House of Cinema” (Khane Cinema), the Iranian Alliance of Motion Picture Guilds, which has more than 6,000 members.

In September 2011, Iranian authorities arrested five documentary filmmakers and accused them of working or cooperating with the BBC Persian Service. The five documentarians were never tried in court and were released weeks later.

Last year, Jafar Panahi, one of Iran’s most prominent directors, was sentenced to six years in prison and banned from filmmaking, interviewing and traveling for 20 years for making a movie on Iran’s 2009 electoral unrest and subsequent crackdown. Panahi’s co-director, Mohammad Rasoulof, was also sentenced to one year in prison.

“The atmosphere was so constricted last year, and the inappropriate implemented policies have now reached a negative stage in the government-sponsored cinema,” Tahmineh Milani told IPS when asked about the freedom filmmakers exercise inside Iran.

“When we bring up issues and report on the shortcomings and deficiencies, we prepare the background for cultural and social growth,” Milani said in a telephone interview from Tehran. “Artists are not obligated to prescribe remedies for the society. They can only report the pain. The one who (should) come along and find the solution is the person who is the country’s macro manager.”

“It is these types of criticism that solve the problem,” Milani said. “But now the authorities say, ‘We don’t have any problems at all for you to bring up. Whoever brings up the problems is my enemy.’

“But it isn’t like that at all. I am not considered a political person myself, but I cannot withhold my reaction to the shortcomings or to the deep social issues in our society, I cannot remain silent.”

Excerpt:

Amid mounting tensions between Iran and the United States over Tehran’s nuclear programme, perhaps nothing less than an Oscar to the acclaimed feature film “A Separation” could have brought smiles to the faces of millions of Iranians who see most news as bad news these days.

From left: Merila Zarei (Actress), Asghar Farhadi ('A Separation' Director) and Tahmineh Milani (Director). Credit:CC BY 2.0

Written and directed by Ashghar Farhadi, “A Separation” was Iran’s entry for the Academy Awards in the Best Foreign Film category. An acclaimed and powerful drama, the film received the first Oscar in Iran’s cinema history Sunday night in Los Angeles for a sophisticated story that captures the essence of everyday life and the difficulties of being honest when it’s costly to do so.

In 1997, Majid Majidi’s “Children of Heaven” was nominated for an Oscar, but lost to “Life Is Beautiful” from Italy.

“‘A Separation”s position has surpassed the Iranian independent cinema; it is now (emblematic of) national hope,” the prominent Iranian director Tahmineh Milani told IPS in a telephone interview from Tehran.

“A lot of people really need for this film to be more successful, like a public hope, because Iranian society, especially among the youth, is so depressed that this prize has created hope and public solidarity,” she added.

The film portrays a struggling middle-class couple whose moral values are put to the test when an incident reveals hidden layers of the characters’ personalities and dignity.

In January, when Asghar Farhadi won the Golden Globe Award in the Best Foreign Language Film category, in his short speech, he said only that his people are a “peace loving” people. Many criticised him for not using the podium to send a stronger message from such a unique venue when millions of people were watching.

But Farhadi, well-known for not getting involved in politics at home, had the most political speech of the 84th Academy Awards, a speech that not only pleased millions of Iranian viewers but also Iranian officials who have been hammered by the international community with a series of severe sanctions and threats of a military attack against Iran’s nuclear sites over the past months.

“At this time many Iranians all over the world are watching us, and I imagine them to be very happy,” said Farhadi, adding, “They are happy not just because of an important award or a film or filmmaker, but because at the time the talk of war, intimidation, and aggression is exchanged between politicians, the name of their country, Iran, is spoken here through its glorious culture, a rich and ancient culture that has been hidden under the dust of politics.”

Farhadi, who is expected to go back to Iran shortly after his trip to the U.S., walked a fine line in keeping his speech neutral, not specifying Iran or the West as the source of ongoing tensions, and made his speech all about the Iranian people.

“I proudly offer this award to the people of my country, the people who respect all cultures and civilisations and despise hostility and resentment,” Farhadi added.

Merila Zarei, a veteran actress in Tehran who appears in “A Separation” told IPS, “The fact that the film was made by a group of Iranian cinema professionals and has been seen able to compete with films from other parts of their world, based on international standards, is an honour for Iran’s cinema and film industry, and it helps our country’s culture and film industry to be recognised in the world.”

“Perhaps this Oscar can be a good starting point for others to follow the Iranian cinema more seriously,” she said.

For Zarei, working with Asghar Farhadi was an extraordinary experience. “As an experienced actress, working with him was like learning in a classroom,” Zarei said. “He taught us so many nuances expertly, affecting the way our work flowed. I believe that was the result of his knowledge, awareness, and expertise.”

“A Separation” earned a first Oscar for Iran at a time when the country’s film industry, particularly since the 2009 presidential election, has been under unrelenting pressure from authorities.

Last month, the government shut down the independent “House of Cinema” (Khane Cinema), the Iranian Alliance of Motion Picture Guilds, which has more than 6,000 members.

In September 2011, Iranian authorities arrested five documentary filmmakers and accused them of working or cooperating with the BBC Persian Service. The five documentarians were never tried in court and were released weeks later.

Last year, Jafar Panahi, one of Iran’s most prominent directors, was sentenced to six years in prison and banned from filmmaking, interviewing and traveling for 20 years for making a movie on Iran’s 2009 electoral unrest and subsequent crackdown. Panahi’s co-director, Mohammad Rasoulof, was also sentenced to one year in prison.

“The atmosphere was so constricted last year, and the inappropriate implemented policies have now reached a negative stage in the government-sponsored cinema,” Tahmineh Milani told IPS when asked about the freedom filmmakers exercise inside Iran.

“When we bring up issues and report on the shortcomings and deficiencies, we prepare the background for cultural and social growth,” Milani said in a telephone interview from Tehran. “Artists are not obligated to prescribe remedies for the society. They can only report the pain. The one who (should) come along and find the solution is the person who is the country’s macro manager.”

“It is these types of criticism that solve the problem,” Milani said. “But now the authorities say, ‘We don’t have any problems at all for you to bring up. Whoever brings up the problems is my enemy.’

“But it isn’t like that at all. I am not considered a political person myself, but I cannot withhold my reaction to the shortcomings or to the deep social issues in our society, I cannot remain silent.”

(END)

Less than two months before Iran’s parliamentary elections, as much of the opposition mounts a boycott of the polls, a wave of arrests and lengthy prison sentences for political activists and journalists appears to herald a renewed crackdown in the Iranian capital.

From left to right, Fakhressadat Mohtashamipour, Faezeh Hashemi and Iranian American Amir Hekmati were all sentenced within a week. Credit: Omid Memarian/open source

The pressure comes as Iran faces new sanctions from the West over its nuclear programme and increased tensions with the United States, with Iran threatening to close the strategic Strait of Hormuz and blockade up to a fifth of the world’s tanker-borne oil.

On Monday, Mehdi Khazali, the dissident son of an influential conservative ayatollah, was arrested and a few hours later, his popular website was hacked.

On Jan. 8, security forces arrested Saeed Madani, an influential member of the Nationalist-Religious group, which is critical of the Islamic government, while he was walking on the street with his wife.

That same day, journalist and ethnic issues researcher Ehsan Houshmand was arrested at his home. Journalist Fatemeh Kheradmand was also arrested.

On Jan. 3, the Tehran Revolutionary Court sentenced Faezeh Hashemi, a former member of parliament and daughter of Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani, head of Iran’s Expediency Council, to six months in prison for participating in anti-government protests.

Fakhressadat Mohtashamipour, an advisor to the interior minister in former President Mohammad Khatami’s cabinet, was also sentenced to four years’ suspended imprisonment. Her husband, Mostafa Tajzadeh, a prominent reformist figure and a former deputy interior minister, is currently serving a six-year term inside Evin Prison.

But the most shocking verdict belonged to Amir Hekmati, an Iranian- American citizen. On Monday, a lower court found Hekmati guilty of “cooperating with the enemy state of US, and the CIA against the Islamic Republic of Iran,” identifying him as a “Mohareb” (enemy of God), “and a corrupter-on-Earth”, and sentenced him to death.

Hekmati had entered Iran on Aug. 15 to visit with his family. On Aug. 29, he was arrested on espionage charges. During his four-month long detention, he did not have access to a lawyer, nor was he able to contact relatives in the U.S.

“Our biggest fear is for Amir to become a victim of the friction between Iran and the U.S.,” a source close to the family told IPS on the condition of anonymity. “All charges leveled against him are false. The claims made by the Iranian judiciary have stunned us all.”

On Monday, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said he was confident there would be a large turnout for the elections, the first national polls since the disputed 2009 vote that returned President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to power.

The Guardian Council is expected to release the list of approved candidates this week.

Iran’s two opposition leaders Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, as well as Mousavi’s wife, have been under house arrest since last February, while a large number of reformist figures are serving long prison terms.

By excluding reformists and other groups critical of the regime, a widespread boycott could seriously damage the legitimacy of the Iranian government, which has remained tarnished since the mass protests and arrests that followed the 2009 polls.

In order to keep the election machine going, it seems the Iranian leadership has chosen to follow a classic pattern: intensify the domestic crackdown on critics; curtail the flow of information via the media and internet; and finally, pursue aggressive foreign policy rhetoric.

“In the upcoming elections, the regime is trying to put pressure on journalists to scare them from covering the truth about these elections,” Mohammad Reza Nasab Abdollahi, a journalist from Shiraz province, told IPS. “The government considers the internet as a threat, and tries to disrupt it, because the regime knows about the important role the internet and social networks played in disseminating information during the 2009 election events.”

“This is why they try to block all the roads, so that information about the parliamentary elections is less able to find its way to the outside world,” he added.

Following the 2009 election and complaints of widespread fraud by reformist candidates who had run against Ahmadinejad, millions of Iranians poured into streets of Tehran to protest the results. Iranian authorities cracked down on the protesters, arrested thousands, and using violence, forced people back into their homes.

Last week, Mostafa Tajzadeh accused the Supreme Leader’s son of trying to quash dissent ahead of the March elections.

“The prison sentences for political activists have nothing to do with their activities, and are only meant to silence critics who are boycotting the elections,” Ali Tabatabaee, Tajzadeh’s son-in-law, told IPS. “As Mr. Tajzadeh said from prison, the pressure is directly applied by Mojtaba Khamenei, the Supreme Leader’s son, and they want to use all tools to silence the critics so that more people would participate in the elections.”

On Jan. 8, Intelligence Minister Heydar Moslehi reported the arrests of several alleged spies who he said “were aiming to carry out plans and programmes for the United Sates during the upcoming parliamentary elections through cyberspace and social relations with (sources) abroad.”

He has acknowledged that the vote may be “the most sensitive elections in the history of the Islamic Republic”.

A Tehran university professor said drily that talking with foreign media after the 2009 election is considered “sending information to foreign intelligence services”.

He told IPS in an email exchange that, “Based on an old tradition, Iran’s political and social atmosphere usually opens up near elections. Many prisoners are released and the press experiences a more open environment. But after the last presidential election, the regime is fearful that the opened atmosphere would lead to people’s pouring into the streets and resuming their protests, things that have been silenced through suppression for the past two years.”

The Iranian government is particularly sensitive about individuals who use the internet to express their opinions, whether in blogs or on Facebook or Twitter. One university in Iran has banned its students from joining Facebook.

On Jan. 1, the Iranian prosecutor general’s judicial advisor warned about “criminal” use of the internet related to the elections. According to the published 25-point list, even joking about the elections is considered a crime.

Three days later, the police’s cyber unit published a statement announcing that users at internet cafes would have to present a valid identification card, and provide personal information and telephone numbers. Owners are obligated to install closed circuit televisions in their establishments and to keep the captured images for six months, so that they may be reviewed.

Owners are also obligated to keep user information, including the dates and hours of usage, websites, and pages viewed, and keep the records for six months.

Still, many critics of the government remain unrepentant and undeterred.

A source close to Faezeh Hashemi, who was given a six-month term last week, told IPS, “Not only is this sentence not an added pressure on (opposition) Green Movement activists and politicians, it is a source of support for them to know that Mr. Hashemi’s family are by their side, too.”

“This is why she is pleased with this sentence, too,” the source said.

By Omid Memarian
UNITED NATIONS, Oct 20 2011 (IPS)

The U.N. special rapporteur for human rights in Iran defended his new critical report on the country Thursday after it was attacked by Iranian officials, who continue to insist he will not be allowed to visit the country.

Ahmed Shaheed, UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Credit: UN Photo/Rick Bajornas

The 23-page report criticised the Iranian judiciary for the treatment of two opposition leaders, Mehdi Karroubi and Mir Hossein Mousavi, who have been under house arrest for the past seven months.

On Wednesday, Sadeq Larijani, the head of Iran’s judiciary, rejected the report, saying, “We cannot accept human rights dictated by the West, as we have accepted a religious regime and defend Islam’s human rights principles assertively and of course wisely.”

“One of the important shortcomings of this report and the reason for its being cheap is that this rapporteur has almost [only] presented the claims by the regime’s opponents and enemies, whereas when a special rapporteur sets out to prepare a report, above and beyond any issue, he must maintain his objectivity, and not to hear the claims of one side who has been an opponent of the regime for years and to repeat them, without even the smallest effort to present these claims in a legal context,” Larijani said.

He also asked the prosecutor general and Iran’s Parliamentary Human Rights Committee to open a special case on U.S. crimes against Iran and Islamic countries.

Iranian authorities have consistently condemned all human rights resolutions adopted by the U.N. as U.S.-sponsored measures to pressure the Islamic Republic.

But Saheed, the former foreign minister of the Maldives, told IPS that while he will continue to attempt a dialogue with Iranian authorities, he nevertheless intends to move forward with a more comprehensive report, with or without Iran’s cooperation.

“I’m confident the report is reliable and can be useful in producing information about what is happening in Iran,” Shaheed said in response to a question at the press conference Thursday.

Since Shaheed’s appointment, Iranian officials have said he will not be permitted to enter the country. But that didn’t stop Shaheed from writing his initial report.

“I issued several communications to the Iranian authorities to introduce myself and express my interest in visiting the country,” Shaheed said, reiterating his appeal to Iranian authorities to extend their full cooperation with his mandate as required by the U.N. Human Rights Council.

“While I have not been successful in either meeting with Iranian authorities or securing an invitation to the country to date, I am hopeful that the government will consider my requests,” he said.

“We produce our report and submit to the country concerned to comment on it,” Shaheed said, adding that, “If there is factual inaccuracies they point them out, but in this current case I didn’t receive any comments from Iran, despite three weeks notice on this and even to date, I haven’t received any refutation of any of matters I have raised in the report.”

The report included allegations of obstructing free and fair elections, denial of freedom of expression and assembly, allegations of deprivation of the right to education, and the harassment and intimidation of religious and ethnic minorities, human rights defenders, and civil society and religious actors.

Shaheed also expressed concern about the Iran’s justice system, including certain practices that amount to torture, cruel, or degrading treatment of detainees; the imposition of the death penalty in the absence of proper judicial safeguards; the denial of reasonable access to legal counsel and adequate medical treatment; and the widespread use of both secret and public executions.

He also cited the use of capital punishment for juvenile offenders, and the application of capital punishment in cases that do not meet the level of serious crimes by international standards, such as narcotics cases.

Some activists say that the report failed to address other issues such as the crackdown on labour activists, Kurdish dissidents, and those who lost their lives during the post-election unrest in 2009.

“A number of families of post-election victims are willing to communicate directly with Mr. Shaheed whether he comes to Iran or not, and they expect their voices to be heard by him as the Iranian government will never hold those who killed protesters in the streets accountable,” a human rights activist in Tehran, who asked that their name be withheld, told IPS.

“They risk their lives for doing that and Mr. Shaheed should find a way to communicate with them,” the activist said.

In response to a question by IPS regarding the assaults by security forces on peaceful protesters following those polls, Shaheed clarified that his report is an interim report and he had very short time to prepare it.

“It was essentially the question of time and space that led to not mention that. I will of course look into this (matter) in my full report. The issue is already there and should be further pressed upon,” he said.

Earlier this week, in an interview with Fars News Agency, Mohammad Karim Ebadi, the deputy chairperson of the Iranian Parliament’s Human Rights Committee, said that, “The U.N. (special) rapporteur for human rights is beholden to the Zionist regime, and in the compilation of his fabricated and one-sided report, he has cooperated with the MEK who directly get funded by the CIA.”

He also said that the committee is pursuing a lawsuit against Shaheed by the Iranian judiciary, as the recent report is one-sided and “has been prepared under the management of international Zionism in order to pressure the Islamic Republic of Iran”.

When asked by IPS about this threat, Shaheed said, “My facts and report is already there, and I will welcome any constructive response.”

Excerpt:

By Omid Memarian
NEW YORK, Sep 23 2011 (IPS)

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s address to the United Nations Thursday followed the script of his previous six visits to New York, with strong criticism of the United States, messianic language, and vague utopian statements on how to govern the world, Iranian-style.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addresses the sixty-sixth session of the U.N. General Assembly. Credit: UN Photo/Marco Castro

The address “was similar in tone and content to his previous six speeches. It was a mélange of anti-imperialism, anti-Zionism, conspiracy theory, and Shiite fervour,” Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran policy analyst at the Carnegie Endowment, told IPS.

“The first six times he gave the speech, many people were shocked and offended. But I think he has become so predictable that his words no longer have the same shock value. It would have been far more shocking had he given a dignified address,” he said.

British Prime Minister David Cameron, who spoke shortly after Ahmadinejad, harshly and directly criticised the human rights situation in Iran and its president.

“He didn’t remind us that he runs a country where they may have elections of a sort but they also repress freedom of speech, do everything they can to avoid the accountability of a free media, violently prevent demonstrations and detain and torture those who argue for a better future,” Cameron said.

On Wednesday, Iran finally released two U.S. citizens who had been jailed for nearly two years. They were arrested in July 2009 while hiking near the Iran-Iraq border and accused of spying for the U.S., although no evidence was made public to support that contention.

However, just days before the pair were given bail, six Iranian documentary filmmakers were arrested by the intelligence service and later accused of cooperating with BBC Persian news channel and providing material for espionage activities.

They were taken into custody shortly after the news agency broadcasted a documentary about the life and politics of Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader.

“So we should never pretend that having elections is enough,” Cameron said, referring to Iran’s ongoing political and social crackdown.

Two of Ahmadinejad’s opponents have been under house arrest for the past six months, and hundreds of activists remain in jail for participating in peaceful protests after his disputed re-election in 2009.

“Ahmadinejad’s habitually vapid speeches at the U.N. this year was even more irrelevant and inconsequential in the context of the Palestinian bid for statehood,” Dr. Hamid Dabashi, a professor of Iranian studies and comparative literature at Columbia University, told IPS.

“The drama of this year has been the obscene speech of (U.S.) President (Barack) Obama preempting the Palestinian historic right to statehood and its regional and global echoes in the context of the Arab Spring,” he said.

“Ahmadinejad’s gibberish about global poverty, in the context of his own country’s deep economic woes, rising unemployment, expanded poverty line, and the cut in governmental subsidies, was as usual pompous and hypocritical, especially when compared to the principled position of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey against Israel.”

On Sep. 20, dozens of pro-peace and anti-war U.S. advocacy groups and individuals met with Ahmadinejad, but the organisations were largely handpicked and did not press the president on human rights issues.

“In a similar meeting last year, a couple of people touched on the election and its aftermath in their questions,” an activist told IPS on the condition of anonymity as she was not permitted to speak on behalf of her organisation. “Apparently, that made them unhappy and this year they controlled everything to avoid a similar situation.”

“Regarding the diversity of the groups and organisations (that) attended, it seems that it’s being somehow narrowed down to a size and quality that affected the possibility of having an open dialogue with Ahmadinejad,” the source added. “The environment was set to control the flow of conversation between the invitees and the Iranian delegation.”

During his time in New York, Ahmadinejad also met with a number of editors and journalists, but some Iranian-American journalists who cover Iran for major publications in the U.S. were not allowed to attend.

“I believe the organisers wanted to invite those who might ask more general questions about Iran’s regional and international politics rather than those who might have asked Ahmadinejad questions about human rights and his domestic power struggles,” an Iranian-American journalist told IPS on the condition of anonymity.

“The succession of democratic uprisings in the Arab world and the increasing prominence of Turkey on the global scene more than ever expose the systemic mendacity, backwardness, incompetence, and ludicrous visage of the Islamic Republic,” Dabashi told IPS. “Standing in the same row of ignominy as the Islamic Republic are the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and all other Arab potentates awaiting the judgment of history.”

Excerpt:

By Omid Memarian
NEW YORK, Sep 14 2011 (IPS)

Just 24 hours after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared that two U.S. hikers who have been detained for nearly two years would be released on bail, the country’s judiciary insisted that the decision remains under review.

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani meets with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Credit: www.leader.ir

On Monday, Shargh Newspaper in Tehran reported that Iraqi President Jalal Talabani had mediated talks with high-ranking Iranian officials leading to the imminent release of the two U.S. citizens, Shane Bauer and Joshua Fattal.

The pair has spent more than 770 days inside the notorious Evin prison in Iran. Their companion, Sarah Shourd, was released on bail in September 2010 and is now back in the United States.

The Iranian government has accused them of espionage. They were arrested in July 2009 while hiking near the Iran-Iraq border, although no evidence has been made public to support the contention of spying for the U.S.

Massoud Shafiee, a lawyer for the detained U.S. nationals, told ISNA news agency on Tuesday that after appearing before Branch 36 of the Tehran Appeals Court, he was informed that bail orders for Fattal and Bauer have been issued. The amount set was 500,000 dollars, the same as Shourd’s a year ago.

Shafiee said that as soon as the bail money is deposited, his clients would be released.

While 500,000 dollars may seem high, bail for political prisoners such as Abdollah Momeni, a student leader, was set at 800,000 dollars. Ahmad Zeidabadi, a prominent journalist, and Zia Nabavi, a student activist, both were given 500,000-dollar bails for a few days’ furlough.

Some analysts note that despite Ahmadinejad’s repeated claims of the judiciary’s independence, he spoke publicly about Fattal and Bauer’s release before the case judge was apparently even informed of the decision.

It is not yet clear what the appeals court’s decision was in the case of the two hikers, and how the original ruling has changed. If the court has not yet issued its final ruling, the two men will have to remain on Iranian soil until the final verdict is announced.

Therefore, it is likely that after their bails have been posted and they are released, they will have to stay at the Swiss ambassador’s residence, awaiting the final ruling. The Swiss Embassy has represented U.S. interests in Iran since 1979.

Ahmadinejad will deliver a speech at the U.N. General Assembly later this month, and considering the carefully choreographed media blitz he normally has waiting for him in New York, it is unlikely that Fattal and Bauer would be returned to the U.S. before the president heads home to Iran.

On Aug. 20, a lower court sentenced Fattal and Bauer to eight years in prison – five years for espionage and three years for illegal entry into Iranian soil.

“During the trial session, the representative from the prosecutor’s office did not present any evidence or documents showing my clients involved in espionage. Therefore I am astonished with this ruling,” Shafiee told IPS at the time, adding that, “The Appeals Court would most likely overrule the verdict.”

Despite signs that Ahmadinejad may have taken steps to release the two on humanitarian grounds, Shafiee said that the judiciary had long expressed dismay at the prolonged case, telling the lawyer that they had asked Ahmadinejad’s Intelligence Ministry to either present evidence for the charges or to release them.

According to Shafiee, it was such pressure that led to Shourd’s release in September 2010.

Abolghassem Salavati, the lower court judge who sentenced Fattal and Bauer to eight years in prison, is one of the most widely hated Iranian judges. He sentenced hundreds of political activists and journalists to long prison terms after the 2009 disputed presidential election.

He is considered the closest ally of the security apparatus and the Intelligence Ministry inside the judiciary. According to some prisoners, the interrogators and intelligence officers routinely informed detainees of their potential sentences, and Judge Salavati’s rulings would almost invariably deliver the promised sentences.

In the interview, Ahmadienajd said that the hikers are being released on humanitarian grounds, but sceptics believe that Tehran might have received some favours in return.

In May 2010, Heydar Moslehi, Iran’s intelligence minister, hinted that Tehran might be open to a prisoner swap with the United States. On Sep. 7, the director of Iranian Expatriates Affairs at the Foreign Ministry announced that, “Eighty Iranian nationals held in jails abroad were freed in August.”

“Following intensive diplomatic efforts, the nationals were released from prisons in the United Arab Emirates, Iraq, Serbia, Qatar, Thailand, Malaysia, Japan, and Cyprus,” Hamid Reza Shakeri-Niasar told Fars news agency.

It remains unclear whether there is any connection between the release of the two hikers and those 80 Iranian prisoners. Washington has repeatedly said that it was not “contemplating any kind of prisoner swap”.

The release of Shourd a year ago was also timed to coincide with the U.N. General Assembly, and eased some of the pressure on Ahmadinejad regarding the hikers and Iran’s worsening human rights record.

The latest announcement appears to be following that same strategy.

“While Iran’s two most prominent political opposition leaders, Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, have remained under house arrest for more than six months, and while hundreds of activists, lawyers, and journalists have been sentenced to years in prison, Ahmadinejad intends to shift the attention from a wide range of wrongdoings against his people and receive a free ride from the U.S. media while he is there through news about the release of the two Americans,” a political activist in Tehran told IPS on condition of anonymity.

“The bad news is that I think the U.S. media will buy it,” he added.

One family member of a political prisoner told IPS, “It seems that Mr. Ahmadinejad’s humanitarian sentiments start working whenever he goes to New York, and this works only for non-Iranians. The question is whether the Americans would have been released if he was not going to America.”

Excerpt:

By Omid Memarian
NEW YORK, Aug 8 2011 (IPS)

Last week’s appointment of a ranking member of Iran’s influential Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as the country’s new oil minister could lead to a more unaccountable and unpredictable military with greater influence on the government in Tehran, analysts say.

Rostam Ghassemi speaks to parliament prior to the Aug. 3 confidence vote. Credit: Courtesy of ILNA

It has built up a sprawling business empire since the 1979 Revolution, with annual revenues estimated at some 12 billion dollars and investments in sectors ranging from oil, gas and petrochemicals to cars, bridges and roads. It also controls the paramilitary Basij militia.

Organisations affiliated with the IRGC hold key roles in the ballistic and nuclear industries, and design and carry out military and civilian operations outside of the country.

The pressure on parliament to approve the posting appeared to be immense. At the Aug. 3 confidence vote, which ended 216-22 with seven abstentions, Rostam Ghassemi’s appointment was vocally opposed by only a single conservative member, Ali Mottahari.

“Appointing a military commander as the oil minister would cause a union of political power and economic power and this could lead to corruption,” he cautioned.

Mottahari recalled the period 1989 to 1997, under Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani’s presidency, when Iran’s intelligence ministry was allowed to engage in economic activities. During that period it became clear that the ministry’s operatives were directly involved in the murders of dissident Iranian intellectuals and writers.

Mottahari added that parliamentary oversight of the oil ministry would become much harder with an IRGC commander at the helm, and said that asking questions of the minister or putting him up for a vote of confidence would be difficult.

A foregone conclusion

A journalist present at the parliamentary vote called it “a complete show”.

“During the vote, Speaker Ali Larijani told the MP’s ‘to vote for Mr. Minister.’ This meant that everyone had to vote for him,” she told IPS.

A U.S. State Department official told IPS in an email that, “Iran is tarnishing OPEC’s prestige by naming a minister linked to both [nuclear] proliferation activities and human rights abuses as the head of Iran’s oil ministry, when Iran holds the OPEC [Organisation of the Petroleum-Exporting Countries] presidency.

“IRGC General Rostam Qasemi has been sanctioned by the U.S. and EU for his nuclear proliferation activities as head of Khatam-ol-Anbia, the construction and business arm of the IRGC and currently the largest contractor of government projects in Iran. His appointment shows the expanding influence of the IRGC in Iran’s economy,” the official said.

Washington most recently sanctioned the IRGC on Jun. 8 for human rights abuses against the Iranian people.

Putting an IRGC commander in place as oil minister completes the military’s domination of Iran’s economy, politics and military- intelligence apparatus.

In assuming his new post, Ghassemi will resign as head of the IRGC’s Khatam-ol-Anbia Construction Base, considered the most important financial unit of the Guards and currently the largest contractor of government projects in Iran, a position he has held since 2007. The base was established in 1990 with the agreement of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Over the past four years, the entity has been the contractor for 1,500 of the country’s most important government projects.

Power struggles at the top

In May, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismissed Oil Minister Massoud Mirkazemi, also an IRGC commander. According to a source familiar with the oil ministry and the IRGC, the reason for Mirkazemi’s dismissal was that he had divulged expenditure reports to the supreme leader.

“Mirkazemi considered himself above Ahmadinejad and had very close relations with Ali Khamenei and his allies, and in some cases, he provided his reports directly to Iran’s supreme leader, and Ahmadinejad found this very hard to tolerate,” the source told IPS in a telephone interview.

“But Mirkazemi’s dismissal created a lot of anger among the high- ranking IRGC commanders,” he added.

Shortly after, Ahmadinejad tried to appoint a member of his inner circle, Mohammad Ali Abadi, as the interim oil minister, but was unsuccessful in gaining the support of top officials and the parliament.

Ghassemi was reportedly not Ahmadinejad’s favourite candidate for the post. However, by choosing an IRGC commander who is less influential within the leadership, the president could improve his fractious relationship with the parliament and the IRGC, while also having an oil minister he is better able to control.

Hossein Bastani, a political analyst with BBC Persian Service who was secretary-general of the Iranian Journalists’ Association during Mohammad Khatami’s reformist presidency, believes that “in reality, the head of the Khatam-ol-Anbia Base is no less powerful than the oil minister, maybe more.”

Bastani believes that the Khatam-ol-Anbia Base has not been directly involved in Iran’s nuclear programme, as “the military parts of the programme are carried out by IRGC’s Ballistics Division, and the nuclear parts are carried out by Iran’s Atomic Energy Organisation.”

“Of course the billions of dollars spent on IRGC’s economic projects are all spent through the Khatam-ol-Anbia Base,” he noted.

A political analyst in Tehran, speaking on condition of anonymity, told IPS, “The general policies of the oil ministry, including certain expenditures that are never reflected in official reports, such as Iran’s nuclear programme, are determined by Iran’s supreme leader.”

“All individuals appointed to the position of oil minister are those who are completely trusted by the Iranian leadership. Many of the Islamic Republic’s international under-the-radar activities are funded by Iran’s oil ministry. Even if the oil minister is not involved in such projects, he would know about their financial transactions,” he added.

Excerpt:

By Omid Memarian
NEW YORK, Jun 20 2011 (IPS)

Millions of Iranians who have lived under an intense level of internet filtering and advanced monitoring systems for years may soon benefit from new technology that sidesteps the censors.

From left: Ehsan Norouzi, Issac Mao, Cyrus Farivar, and Mehdi Yahyanejad Credit: Omid Memarian

One of these projects has been dubbed “Internet in a suitcase”. According to the Times, the suitcase – financed with a two-million- dollar State Department grant – could be smuggled across the border and quickly set up to allow wireless communication over a wide area with a link to the global Internet.

“There are a number of research groups working on circumvention tools and alternative digital networks solutions to allow surpassing Internet censorship around the world,” Mehdi Yahyanejad, the co- founder of Balatarin.com, a popular website that played a pivotal role in mobilising protesters after Iran’s June 2009 contested presidential election, told IPS.

“The hope is that at least the news of such efforts would decrease the Iranian government’s resolve to enact a type of National Internet Network which would be cut off from the rest of the world,” he said.

In recent years, Iran has aggressively expanded its control over the Internet. In 2010, Iranian authorities announced the creation of the “Internet Police”, in charge of monitoring Persian-produced content.

The country has also long sought to create a “National Internet Network” to separate Iranians from the World Wide Web, a project said to cost some 1.5 billion dollars.

Since the 2009 polls, the Iranian opposition and dissidents have used the Internet as a mobilising force to bring people to the streets, embarrass the authorities for their wrongdoings, and generally challenge the dominant narrative of the government and its satellite media.

The Internet Police is ostensibly charged with “fighting internet- related crimes” and “protecting, assets, interests, and national secrets”. The chief of Iran’s national police force, Esmaeel Ahmadi Moghaddam, told reporters that “social networking on the Internet has imposed a heavy cost on the country.”

In early March, the minister of communication and technology said that a “National Network of Information” or “National Internet Network” will become operational in 18 months, or late 2012.

On Mar. 4, the Ministry of Communication and Technology declared that the “National Internet” would not be a replacement for the World Wide Web.

However, many believe that Iran’s ambitious plan to isolate the country further from the outside world is unrealistic and costly.

“Iran, unlike other countries that have highly restrictive access to the Internet – North Korea, Cuba, Burma – is a country with a functional, internationally-connected economy,” Cyrus Farivar, author of “The Internet of Elsewhere”, told IPS.

“It makes it hard to just pull the plug on it,” he said. “Remember, Iran’s Internet penetration rate is about 35 percent – so one in three Iranians. That’s a lot.”

Farivar believes Iran’s plan to build a National Internet Network would be difficult, but not impossible.

“Keep in mind that all the ISPs [Internet service providers] in Iran are currently controlled by the government and the Iranian government holds a lot of power over them,” he said.

“Not only can they filter, censor, monitor the Iranian Internet, but they can slow it down (as they did in June 2009), and conceivably turn it off completely if they wanted to. The reason why I say it would be hard to do is not for a technical reason, but rather an economic/social one.”

Others see Iran as drawing on the more restrictive policies of countries like China, although with significant differences.

“China is much more open than Iran to connect the world today and [has] more Chinese Internet businesses, including dozens of them listed in states’ stock markets which can sustain its domestic needs already,” Isaac Mao, a prominent Chinese activist and director of the Social Brain Foundation based in Hong Kong, told IPS.

“China is unlikely to separate itself from the world, neither sustain its censorship system longer for more years. In this practice, Iran is more like North Korea,” he said.

Ehsan Norouzi, an Iranian Internet activist and journalist, told IPS that Iran’s Internet war with the world is just another ideological war.

“The Iranian government has nothing to offer except for rhetoric and bluffs vis-a-vis actions that could change the equation, such as satellite internet, the internet suitcase, the balloon, or whatever else,” he said.

“It is the foreign media who are pumping up this subject, and this is exactly what the Iranian government wants,” Norouzi added. “They want to pretend that they are presenting the world with something new that contains their ideologies.”

Currently, almost all websites and blogs that criticise the government, along with social networking websites such as Facebook and Twitter, YouTube and even a large number of lifestyle websites, are filtered inside Iran.

Some Iranian activists in the United States have repeatedly asked the U.S. government to provide financial support for efforts to get around Iran’s expensive filtering system. They’ve also asked the government to provide a satellite internet system by which people get access to the Internet without fear of being identified.

“Compared to what Iran is spending to curb people’s access to the Internet, what the U.S. is spending is too little,” a security network analyst in Tehran told IPS on the condition of anonymity.

“Iran has been able to acquire the equipment needed to enhance its restriction level over the internet, even though it’s been under severe economic sanctions, and is moving fast forward, but what Americans claim to do in countering the Iranian regime’s Internet, in terms of scale and effectiveness, is poor and politically motivated,” the analyst said.

Excerpt:

By Omid Memarian
GENEVA, Mar 21 2011 (IPS)

Forty-nine United Nations member-states have co-sponsored a resolution asking for a special mechanism to monitor Iran’s human rights situation, which is expected to be voted later this week at the UN Human Rights Council (HRC).

Rights situation in Iran has been drawing the focus at the the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. Credit: Omid Memarian / IPS

Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe, the U.S. representative to the Council, told IPS that establishing a special monitoring mechanism for Iran by the HRC is very significant. “Because the council in the past has been resistant to taking initiative on what we call country specific human rights situation,” she said.

“There is a general sense that countries are often fearful of being criticized and therefore they would protect other countries from being criticized by the council so that when it comes their turn to being criticized maybe others stick with them,” she added.

“We think the facts speak for themselves,” she maintained, referring to Iran’s human rights record and plead for a special mechanism at HRC. “The reason, there is so much support for this, cross regionally, is because the facts in the case of Iran are extreme when it comes to human rights.”

Observers attending the session believe that Iran’s verbal attacks on the U.S. will not be able to disrupt the consensus among the member states of the UNHRC, on the worsening human rights situation in the country.

A number of Western diplomats close to the process under way told IPS that the Iranian government had intensely lobbied with the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) and the Non Aligned Movement (NAM) to oppose the adoption of a special mechanism, but had not received vocal support.

The U.S. sponsored move obtained flanking support from UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. He published on Mar 14 an interim report about the deteriorating rights situation in Iran, expressing serious concern about the Islamic Republic’s lack of regard for its international commitments such as the United Nations resolutions. In this report, the Secretary General pointed to 60 executions inside the Mashad Prison — executions the Iranian authorities have never announced.

According to reports by staff members of the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, in discussions with their Iranian counterparts, they verified the accuracy of reports of executions earlier made by independent human rights organizations.

“The report highlights many areas of continuing concern for human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran,” stated Ban’s interim report. “The Secretary-General has been deeply troubled by reports of increased executions, amputations, arbitrary arrest and detention, unfair trials, and possible torture and ill-treatment of human rights activists, lawyers, journalists and opposition activists.”

The Iranian delegation to the HRC’s current session did not comment on the report.

Under Item 4 of the HRC mandate, representatives from different countries stated in a list human rights violations in Iran, including pressure on human rights lawyers through imprisonment as in the case of Nasrin Sotoudeh; house arrest of two reformist political leaders, Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi; pressure on religious minorities such as the Baha’is; and torture inside the Iranian prisons.

Responding to criticism by the Council member states, the Iranian delegation used the time allocated for its response to focus on the violation of human rights in the U.S., such as water boarding, police brutality and violation of the rights of Native Americans. Sweden was one of the states supporting the resolution against Iran. The Iranian delegation also accused Sweden of violating the rights of minorities.

While HRC member states are requesting a special monitoring mechanism, or appointment of Special Rapporteurs for Iran, the Iranian government is at pains to bloc the move, with indirect backing of a dozen pro-government NGOs, accompanying the official delegation, which strongly support the regime’s record.

Members of the Iranian delegation comprising a number of high-ranking officials from the Iranian Judiciary and the Foreign Ministry, claims that the NGOs are genuine representatives of Iran’s civil society.

But independent human rights activists, present at the session, told IPS that these NGOs should be considered no more than a team of GONGOs. (Governmental Organized NGOs)

“The plane carrying the Iranian NGOs lands with the Iranian delegation,” said a western diplomat jokingly. “Iran has no resolve for improving the human rights situation, does not act upon the resolutions, does not answer the UN special procedures inquiries, and in the end, wishes to deflect attention from the deteriorating conditions of human rights through a propaganda circus.”

“The human rights team at the HRC session is an entirely political team and is not very familiar with human rights topics,” said a member of the Iranian delegation on condition of anonymity. “All efforts are focused on attacking the U.S. If they had asked the experts accompanying the delegation, they could have drafted better statements. But they don’t trust anyone other than themselves.”

But not all pro-government NGOs seemed to be happy with their presence at the session. “We are shocked with the anti-Iran atmosphere at the session. The Iranians in attendance at the session call us spies, traitors, mercenaries. It’s a very heavy atmosphere. In fact many of us didn’t even vote for Ahmadinejad; we voted for Mousavi. But everyone sees us as a part of the government,” said a, NGO member of the Iranian delegation.

“The new human rights body started on a very weak footing without the U.S. leadership,” Dokhi Fassihian, the Director of Washington-based Democracy Coalition Project that oversees the implementation of multilateral human rights strategies through the United Nations, told IPS. But Obama administration’s initiative against Iran indicated that things would change, she added.

Excerpt:

By Omid Memarian
SAN FRANCISCO, U.S., Feb 22 2011 (IPS)

On Monday night, Iranian security agents raided the home of opposition leader Mehdi Karroubi, separating him from his wife, searching his house and arresting his son, Ali Karroubi, according to the local media outlet Saham News.

MPs chant for the execution of Iran's opposition leaders on Feb. 15. Credit: Courtesy of Mehr News Agency

Meanwhile, Iran’s other primary opposition leader, Mir Hossein Mousavi, has been cut off from the outside world under house arrest for at least the past two weeks, indications that the struggle between the Iranian government and its opponents is reaching new heights as popular uprisings sweep the region.

However, even putting their leaders under house arrest did not keep thousands of Iranian opposition supporters from turning out in city streets lined with police officers for two surprise gatherings on Feb. 14 and 20.

Two years ago, protesters were demanding nullification of the presidential election that returned Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to power. Today, their ire is largely aimed at Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei. They chant that “After Mubarak in Egypt and Bin Ali in Tunisia, it is now Seyed Ali’s (Khamenei) turn.”

An informed source and former Iranian government official told IPS that right after the Feb. 14 protests, Heydar Moslehi, Iran’s intelligence minister, attended a meeting with the supreme leader in which he asked for permission to arrest Karroubi and Mousavi. At the meeting, however, Khamenei criticised the Ministry of Information for its reports, asking why its analysis of popular participation in the gatherings had been so wrong.

“Iran’s supreme leader routinely receives independent reports about the current state of affairs from the IRGC [Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps] commander, minister of information, Armed Forces commander, head of the Basij [pro- government militia], and head of the Islamic Republic Broadcasting System,” the source said on condition of anonymity.

“It appears that the reports he has received have contradicted the intensity of the protests. Therefore, though several extremist members of the Parliament have demanded execution of the opposition leaders, official authorities’ rhetoric only attempts to express support for the regime, and no further demands for their arrests or execution seem to be uttered publicly,” the source said.

During his Feb. 18 Friday Prayer sermon, Ahmad Jannati, the head of Iran’s conservative Guardian Council, called for isolating the two opposition leaders.

“The doors to their homes must be shut. Their comings and goings must become limited. They must no longer be able to send and receive messages. Their telephones and Internet must be cut off and they must become prisoners inside their homes,” he said.

Thus far, Iranian authorities have stopped short of arresting Mousavi and Karroubi, afraid that such action would only galvanise the opposition further.

Officials in Tehran usually call the protesters “rioters” and state their numbers as “a few hundred”. Some sources reported that during Monday’s gatherings, they observed many boys who appeared 15 to 16 years old among the police lining major squares, clad in bullet-proof vests and holding clubs in their hands.

A student activist who was present at the last week’s protests told IPS that people are a lot angrier than before. “During last year’s gatherings, no matter how much the plainclothes, Basiji, and police forces beat up the people, they wouldn’t reciprocate. But during the recent two protests, people are determined to react in kind whenever the police engage in violence and beatings,” he said.

Opposition leaders and political groups generally encourage their supporters and protesters to refrain from acts of violence. But many now argue that reciprocal actions are self-defence.

Though Iran’s Interior Ministry routinely denies assembly permits for the protesters, over the past week dozens of pro-government forces have been gathering in front of Karroubi’s home and heckling and verbally abusing him.

While the head of the judiciary announced last week that arresting the opposition leaders is not in the best interests of the regime, it appears that Iran’s radical security forces are striving to incite the pro-government forces toward serious confrontation.

“[Even though it looked like] there was a military coup in progress, compared to before, it seemed like people were more motivated to show up. The cars honked their horns non- stop in order to show their support of the protesters. At night, people chant Allah-o-Akbar in the dark to express their protest; this used to be the symbol of people’s protests against the shah,” one young eyewitness to the protests told IPS.

“Returning home from the university, I saw hundreds of police officers inside the squares and intersections between Enghelab Square and Shahrak-e Gharb, who were armed with Kalashnikov rifles. Vehicles carrying Special Guards were going from one side of the city to another. People were very excited, but they were constantly fearful that the police might start shooting randomly and kill someone,” said another student activist who was present during Monday’s protests.

During the Feb. 14 demonstrations, Sane Jaleh and Mohammad Mokhtari, two young protesters, were killed and according to reports, hundreds of people were arrested. Some news sources report that one person was killed during the protests in Shiraz.

“According to the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, so long as they do not include carrying arms or contradict Islamic principles, demonstrations are allowed and do not require permits from any authorities or organisations,” Shirin Ebadi, the 2003 Nobel Peace Laureate and a prominent Iranian human rights lawyer, told IPS.

“The most important duty of the government is to safeguard its citizens’ security and therefore when citizens demonstrate completely peacefully, and have already announced the route the demonstration would take, if something should happen to them, the government is directly responsible for it,” she said. “The government is responsible for the bloodshed.”

Meanwhile, the government seems to be using ever more brutal and sophisticated methods to keep its opponents at home.

One of the demonstrators said that he observed that many of the people who attended the Feb. 14 protests suffered symptoms such as vomiting blood and severe pain in their hands and legs to the point of becoming unable to move.

The source said a physician who treated the ill believed that substances were added to the tear gas used against the protesters in order to distort the balance of potassium and magnesium in their blood, and this could have harmful long- term effects.

Excerpt:

By Omid Memarian
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Jan 17 2011 (IPS)

In “The Shah”, a prominent Iranian author and scholar at Stanford University in the United States offers new insights into Iran’s modern history, including the 1953 coup, the revolution a quarter century later, and the current repressive political situation.

Abbas Milani Credit: Courtesy of Abbas Milani

Drawing on more than 400 interviews and newly released documents by the U.S. and British embassies, “The Shah” traces the rise and fall of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, who died less than a year after his ouster.

He is remembered for efforts to modernise Iran’s culture and economy, including giving women the right to vote, but also for the lack of freedom of speech and assembly under his regime, and severe political repression.

Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: Why is learning about the Shah important three decades after the Islamic Revolution in Iran? A: For two reasons. One is historic in the sense that he is a very pivotal figure of the 20th century and I think there is room for an impartial biography of him based on documents that have only become available recently.

Second, because in my view the same dynamic both in terms of the coalition of forces and in terms of political demands that overthrew the shah in ’79 has been the cause of more or less incessant unrest and instability in the Islamic Republic in the last 30 years.

That coalition demanded democracy and was essentially aborted by the usurping clerical establishment.

Q: What can we learn from your book that has not been already revealed? A: [That] the Shah had a completely misguided understanding of who his foes and his enemies were. I found some remarkable statistics on the number of mosques, for example, that were built in the last decade of the Shah. When you compare that to Reza Shah [the Shah’s father] who literally cut to a third the number of mosques, and to about a third the number of talabes [students in seminaries], you see that you have a scorched earth policy against the left and against the centre and you allow the clergy to organise, mobilise, train, have their schools, collect their funds and when the system went into crisis, that force was the only force that could keep the country together.

And the Europeans and the Americans decided that they should make peace with [Ayatollah] Khomeini [the founder of the Islamic Republic], and again I have shown very clearly that Khomeini volunteered contacts with the Americans, he answered their questions, he advised his allies in Iran to negotiate with the American embassy. So in almost all of these phases the reality, at least as far as I have uncovered, is very, very different than what has been, so far, assumed about it.

Q: The royal family did not agree to be interviewed for the book. How would it have been different if they had decided to do so? A: Well, I think it would be a different book certainly. Particularly two members of the royal family that I was very interested in interviewing and I made repeated efforts to do it. One was the Shah’s twin sister, Ashraf, and the other one was the queen.

There are moments in the Shah’s life that only these people know the details of. I can find the documentary traces for them but the emotional context for those decisions could have only been provided by them.

Q: In your book you portray the disconnection of foreign intelligence services from Iranian society and politics, which led to a number of failures in reading Iran’s current political events. Is there any parallel between the revolutionary era and the current moment? A: The U.S. really has not had a strategy on Iran for 30 years. They’ve gone from one reaction to another. A kind of a strategic vision that is based on a concrete, realistic, intimate understanding of the situation has been wanting.

And one of the reasons it is lacking, and it’s difficult to make is, they have no embassy. And when you have no embassy, you have no diplomats telling you what is happening on the ground. When you don’t have an embassy, you become reliant on a phone bank in Istanbul calling 700 people inside Iran, 702 to be exact, and asking them what their opinions are on very sensitive issues.

And to think that you could possibly get a correct answer from a call from Turkey to an Iranian living under the current oppression in Iran is a level of desperation that is hard to fathom. It shows a desperate need for information.

Excerpt:

By Omid Memarian
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Dec 14 2010 (IPS)

While Iran gears up for a second round of nuclear talks with Western countries next month, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s abrupt dismissal of his foreign minister on Monday indicates a new power struggle with moderate conservatives that could alter the tone and face of Iran’s foreign policy machinery in the years to come.

Iran's then Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki addresses a press conference at the United Nations in October 2009. Credit: UN Photo/Paulo Filgueiras

Mottaki had held the portfolio since 2005.

In an order issued Monday evening, the president appointed Ali Akbar Salehi, head of the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran (AEOI), as acting foreign minister.

“Dismissing the Iranian foreign minister while he is abroad is an insult to Mottaki and his supporters inside the traditional conservative camp,” Ali Akbar Mousavi Khoeini, a former member of the Iranian Parliament, told IPS.

“By appointing forces loyal and obedient to critical positions, Ahmadinejad will challenge the international community more, and on the national front, his conflicts with his more moderate conservative critics will increase,” he predicted. “Iran’s foreign policy will become less experienced and more aggressive.”

“The supreme leader has the last word regarding Iran’s nuclear dossier, but Ahmadinejad will gain more influence by bringing his loyalists to the foreign ministry,” Khoeini added.

A few days before Mottaki’s dismissal, Ahmadinejad had dispatched chief of staff Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, one of his most stalwart deputies, to Jordan to deliver a message. Iranian media speculated that Mashaei’s mission might have drawn the foreign minister’s disapproval.

A few months ago, Ahmadinejad appointed special envoys within the Foreign Ministry, angering Mottaki, who believed such actions would weaken his authority.

Mottaki would likely have been dismissed at that time had it not been for the intervention of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Ahmadinejad ultimately had to downgrade the special envoys to “advisers” at Khamenei’s behest.

“Mr. Ahmadinejad wants to flex his muscles and eliminate his opponents within the regime,” Ali Qolizadeh, a political activist, told IPS from Tehran. “So long as he is supported by military and security organisations, as well as the main power base of the country – meaning the forces inside the Supreme Leader’s offices – he has no reason to worry about his opponents inside the Parliament and the traditional right.”

The dismissal was condemned by the radical conservative Kayhan newspaper, whose editor is appointed by Khamenei. In a sarcastic editorial, Hossein Shariatmadari questioned Ahmadinejad’s decision to fire his minister while he was abroad, and wrote that the president had clearly wanted to take the decision for a long time.

Ahmadinejad is known for dismissing cabinet members who oppose or criticise him, or forcing them to resign. He has effected profound changes in Iran’s largest ministries such as Intelligence and Interior, appointing forces loyal to him.

However, he had been unable to gain complete control over the Foreign Ministry. By dismissing Mottaki, Ahmadinejad can now continue his efforts to shape the bureaucracy, including at the level of deputies and ambassadors – changes that could put a new face on Iran’s foreign policy machinery.

Last month, the Iranian Parliament moved toward questioning Ahmadinejad for a long list of alleged violations. However, observers believe that it would be effectively impossible to impeach the president without the consent of the supreme leader – who has shown increasing support for Ahamdienajd in recent years.

“This incident showed that Ahmadinejad is not concerned about the developments forming against him in the Parliament,” Qolizadeh said. “Instead of handing out favours and making peace with his opponents inside his political faction, encouraging them to forfeit questioning the president, he insulted that group’s representative in his cabinet in his absence from the country, dismissing him without his knowledge.”

Iran and Western countries, along with Russia and China, resumed nuclear talks earlier this month, and the next round of talks is scheduled for Istanbul in January.

Analysts believe Ahmadinejad’s surprise move is very unlikely to affect the negotiations, as Mottaki had little say in the country’s major foreign policy positions over the past five years.

“Mottaki’s firing will have little substantive impact on Iranian foreign policy,” Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran analyst at the Carnegie Endowment in Washington, told IPS. “The Iranian foreign minister doesn’t formulate policy. It’s the equivalent of the State Department spokesperson being replaced.”

“Salehi is much smarter and smoother than Mottaki and may prove more effective at creating divisions in the international community,” Sadjadpour added. “The Iranian foreign minister’s job these days is akin to putting lipstick on a pig. It’s ugly no matter how you try and sell it.”

Excerpt:

By Omid Memarian
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Nov 10 2010 (IPS)

“The U.S. intentionally confuses al Qaeda with other groups around the world fighting for their independence or liberation, but it’s [just] a convenient way to whip up support and get people very afraid,” says author and journalist and Reese Erlich.

Reese Erlich Credit: Courtesy of Reese Erlich

Based on original research and firsthand interviews, Erlich’s new book “Conversations with Terrorists” draws fresh portraits of six controversial leaders: Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, Hamas top leader Khaled Meshal, Israeli politician Geula Cohen, Iranian Revolutionary Guard founder Mohsen Sazargara, Hezbollah spiritual advisor Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Fadlallah, and former Afghan Radio and Television Ministry head Malamo Nazamy.

“Some of them I had already interviewed prior to coming up with the book idea. For example, Bashar Al-Assad, Khaled Meshal,” says Erlich. “They are very widely accused of being either terrorists or state sponsors of terrorism in the United States.”

Critiquing these responses and synthesising a wide range of material, Erlich, the co-author of “Target Iraq” (2003) and “Iran Agenda” (2007), shows that “yesterday’s terrorist is today’s national leader, and that today’s freedom fighter may become tomorrow’s terrorist.”

Excerpts from the interview with IPS correspondent Omid Memarian follow.

Q: What can your readers learn from interviews with those who are being accused of being a terrorist or supporting them? A: The theme of the book is to get people to look at who is accused of being a terrorist or might be considered being a terrorist, and what do they really stand for and what’s really going on in their countries.

Q: In one of the chapters, you say that Ayatollah Mohammad Fadlallah is a “CIA victim”. What do you mean by that? A: Well, the U.S. was absolutely convinced that Fadlallah was the mastermind of the Marine Corps [barracks] bombing in Beirut [in 1983]. They hired a Saudi and Lebanese agent to kill him. And this is all revealed in Bob Woodward’s book called “Veil”.

We confirmed it with Fadlallah in the interview. It’s a very well-documented case that was reported at the time. In 1985, an agent working for the CIA blew up an apartment building where Ayatollah Fadlallah lived. It killed 80 civilians but he was out of the building at the time.

Ironically, later it was shown Fadlallah had nothing to do with the bombing actually. That was confirmed to me by Bob Baer [a former CIA operative in the Middle East], who was in Beirut at the time and who was investigating who was responsible. It’s a serious warning that every time you hear in the U.S. press that this militant or this terrorist has been killed, keep a sceptical attitude.

Q: In one chapter you interview Mohsen Sazegara, a former member of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards. What’s your take on this military organisation? A: There is no question that the Iranian government has engaged in terrorist tactics. For example, they assassinated some Kurdish leaders of KDP in Germany; that is a classic terrorist attack outside its borders.

I make a distinction between that and a legitimate group that is fighting for independence of their country or liberation of some form of occupation. If they are supporting groups inside Iraq or in Afghanistan that doesn’t automatically qualify for calling them terrorist, depending on what they are doing.

Q: How about Hamas and Hezbollah? A: I spent some time with both of those groups. Politically, I strongly disagree with them and make it clear that they’ve done some horrific things and if I were Lebanese or Palestinian I would not vote for them in the elections, I would vote for other people that want to see progressive political development in both countries.

But they are also legitimate political forces; they win significant numbers of seats. Hezbollah is a part of the ruling coalition in Lebanon today. Hamas actually won the Palestinian elections, free and fair. So to simply vilify them as terrorists doesn’t do any good. They have to be a part of the political negotiating process.

Q: If a legitimate political group gets involved in killing random people, does it qualify them to be named as a terrorist organisation? A: Both Hamas and Hezbollah have used terrorists’ tactics, no question about it. The Israeli government has used terrorist tactics against Lebanese and Palestinians; I think there is no doubt about that.

But Hamas and Hezbollah are very different than al Qaeda. [The latter] has a borderless campaign that they want to carry out and they are not part of any national liberation movement and they put terrorism at the core of their beliefs and tactics. That’s not the case for Hezbollah and Hamas. And the U.S. knows it, actually.

Q: What is your assessment of the Taliban in Afghanistan, where you interviewed the former Taliban leader, Malamo Nazamy? A: Nezamy saw the Taliban as a legitimate liberation group that was bringing stability, Islamic law and justice to Afghanistan. He certainly wouldn’t consider himself a terrorist. He was the head of Afghan radio and TV and he refused the demand of other Taliban leaders to destroy the country’s TV archives and he is very well known for that.

Today, he has many of the same views about Islam, the ruling government and attitudes towards women and so on. But he is willing to allow the U.S. and the U.S. troops for some time until negotiations can take place and that seems to be enough to make him currently an ally of [President Hamid] Karzai and the U.S.

Excerpt:

By Omid Memarian
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Sep 28 2010 (IPS)

A week after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told heads of state gathered for the U.N. General Assembly in New York that his government does not jail its citizens for expressing their opinions, Iran’s Revolutionary Court sentenced Hossein Derakhshan, an internationally known Iranian-Canadian blogger, to 19 and a half years in prison.

Friends and colleagues say they warned Derakhshan in 2008 that traveling to Iran could be dangerous for him. Credit: Courtesy of Hossein Derakhshan

Arrested in October 2008, Derakhshan had been charged with “cooperation with hostile states” and “propagating against the regime”, among other counts, the site said. In addition to the lengthy prison term, he was fined and banned from membership in political parties and work in the media for a period of five years.

“We are shocked,” one of Derakhshan’s relatives told IPS on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the case and fears of a backlash by security forces. “We never expected this to happen. Even according to Iranian laws, he has not done anything to deserve such a harsh sentence.”

Neither the family nor Derakhshan’s lawyer was aware of the sentence until it appeared on Mashreq’s website. His relative told IPS that Derakhshan did say that after two years in prison, “My state of uncertainty has finally ended,” referring to his long detention without any progress in his case.

Mohammad Ali Mahdavi, Derakhshan’s lawyer, told IPS that the verdict still has not been announced even to him. “I’m waiting for the official announcement to start working on the defence bill for the appeals court,” he said, adding, “I prefer to defend my client rather than bringing the case to the media as it might endanger the fate of the case at this phase.”

Judge Abolqasem Salavati is amongst three judges who are well-known for issuing long and harsh sentences for political prisoners, particularly the post-election detainees. His rulings have included the death sentence and numerous long-term prison sentences.

“I believe that first of all, the charges are totally unfounded, and the verdict demonstrates the injustice that many people have been talking about all these years,” Nikahang Kowsar, an award-winning Iranian cartoonist and blogger based in Toronto, where Derakhshan used to live, told IPS.

“Hossein wasn’t a very nice guy to many of us,” Kowsar said. “He criticised many journalists, bloggers and activists for being critical of the Iranian regime and ridiculing Iran’s leaders. He called us ‘agents of neo-liberalism’ or ‘enemies of Iran’ and tried to portray us as the ones willing to sell our nation to the West, but he was absolutely entitled to express his mind.”

Derakhshan, also known as Hoder, has been dubbed Iran’s “Blogfather” for his role in promoting blogging among Iranians via his popular website, hoder.com.

Immediately following the reform era in 1999, Derakhshan was a technology and internet columnist for one of the reformist newspapers in Tehran. In 2000, he moved to Canada and continued his work as a full-time blogger in Toronto.

In 2006, Derakhshan traveled to Israel as a Canadian citizen, a trip that caused a huge controversy in Iran and abroad, as Iranian law forbids Iranian citizens from traveling to Israel.

“We have a saying in Iran: ‘There is freedom of speech in Iran, but there is no freedom after speech in Iran’,” said Kowsar. “His captors are willing to make an example of him for others,” he added.

After years of criticising the Iranian government, a few years ago Derakhshan started supporting Ahmadinejad. He launched a fierce attack against the government’s critics, including human rights activists, politicians, and journalists.

A source close to Derakhshan told IPS that his friends and colleagues warned him that traveling to Iran could be dangerous for him. “But he was positive that his support for Ahmadinejad and his government would protect him from being arrested,” said the source.

According the source, Derakhshan received the green light from a ranking official within the Ahmadinejad administration that his November 2008 trip to Iran would be tolerated. But a few days after his arrival in Tehran, he was arrested and sent to jail.

“Hossein had had some conversations with Press TV about working in their Tehran office,” Derakhshan’s mother, Ozra Kiarashpour, told the Kamtarin website on why he decided to come to Iran.

“Before his return to Iran, the High Council of Iranian Affairs Abroad promised Hossein that his trip would be without problems,” she said. “He had cleared his trip with this Council, which is governmental and which is in contact with the intelligence service. That’s why even though Hossein knew that they would call him to be questioned, he did not expect to be arrested like this and hadn’t told us what to do in case he was arrested.”

“A representative from the Council told us that they pursued his case on behalf of the Council but that unfortunately they couldn’t do anything further. Why are there such splits in the country’s security apparatus?” she asked.

Some believe that Derakhshan is being used as a pawn by certain political and security factions to justify the post- election crackdown and attempt to incriminate opposition political figures.

Mohammad Mostafie, a human rights lawyer who recently fled to Norway under pressure from the Iranian judiciary, told IPS that, “Several judges have gathered in a place they call the Revolutionary Courts, where they issue unfair, illegal, and inhumane rulings based on orders from security and intelligence forces.”

“Some of these judges, like Judge Salavati, obey the intelligence forces rather than the law and issue whatever they want, whether it’s a longtime prison sentence or a death sentence,” he said.

Excerpt:

By Omid Memarian
NEW YORK, Sep 17 2010 (IPS)

Speaking at a press conference in New York Friday, Shirin Ebadi, a highly-regarded Iranian attorney and the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, warned that the human rights situation in Iran is deteriorating, particularly for the many journalists and civil society activists considered political prisoners.

Shirin Ebadi, centre, has endured hostile mobs outside her home and offices as a result of her work as a human rights lawyer in Iran. Credit: Solmaz Sharif/IPS

The event was organised by two New York-based rights groups, the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran and Human Rights Watch, as well as the Nobel Women’s Initiative.

In an interview with Dutch TV’s Kim Bildsoe in January, Ahmadinejad defended his government’s record. “Iran is very free. It is the highest conceivable degree of freedom…It is a free government, very close to the people.”

Activists say this statement is laughable. “What is the meaning of freedom that a lawyer is not to free to defend his or her client? The plights of the prisoners have gotten worse,” Ebadi said. “Whoever is bailed out from prison has to go to hospital directly, including Narges Mohammadi [a prominent human rights activist] who has become disabled after her release [a few months ago].”

“The most urgent issue regarding human rights in Iran is the release of political prisoners,” said Ebadi. “I want to ask the United Nations, international institutions and heads of states that are in negotiation with Iran to give priority to Iran’s human rights as much as Iran’s nuclear programme in their talks.”

She also criticised what she called United States’ “policy to support non-democratic states”, saying it fostered deep public hostility in the Middle East region “so that everybody who says ‘Down to USA’ [read: Ahmadinejad] becomes a champion.”

Iranian officials have repeatedly denied the allegations of arbitrary arrests of political activists, rape and torture inside prisons. Ebadi said that her colleague, Nasrin Sotodeh, a human rights lawyer, is in prison and under enormous pressure to confess her alleged “crimes”.

Human rights groups in the United States and Europe and U.N. officials have sought to send special rapporteurs on torture and arbitrary arrests to investigate the situation firsthand. At the Geneva-based Human Rights Council in June, Javad Larijani, the head of Iran’s delegation, said that the rapporteurs could travel to Tehran. But so far the Iranian authorities have refused to issue visas.

“Iran is a closed country,” said Faraz Sanei, the Iran researcher at Human Rights Watch. His group, “Amnesty International, and the other human rights organisations are not allowed to go to Iran and gathering information is very hard but still there is a very vibrant civil society in Iran which has been under attack and it’s very important to support the human rights activists and students who are in prison,” he said.

“Those who are at the forefront of the democracy movement in Iran are the first ones that are being targeted,” he added.

“It is essential that during the upcoming session of the General Assembly, a special mechanism to address Iran’s worsening human rights situation is put in place,” said Hadi Ghaemi, director of the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran. “We are at a very critical crossroads, between the nuclear stand-off, war-mongering, and a deepening rights crisis. Peace and stability of the region depend on the interplay of all these issues.”

Maziar Bahari, a prominent Iranian-Canadian journalist who spent more than 110 days inside Evin prison in Tehran after the contested 2009 presidential election, told IPS at the press conference that journalists should push Ahmadinejad to answer allegations of human rights abuses in his upcoming trip to New York.

“He is the president of Iran and it is important that he answers the questions about his country first,” he said. “If the people of Iran have elected him as president, it is to protect their interests and not the interests of the people of Gaza and Lebanon, and even though those are worthy causes, for now he has to tell the world what has he done to protect the human rights of Iranian citizens.”

Mohammad Mostafaie, a human rights lawyer who fled to Norway under pressure by the Iranian government, said it is impossible to defend political prisoners without the threat of prosecution.

“How could the Islamic Republic of Iran go after a nuclear programme when it does not respect its citizens’ basic rights,” he told IPS. “This is just contradictory.”

Mairead Maguire, the 1976 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, also criticised the use of what she called “barbaric” punishment.

“Stoning, this kind of punishment is quit barbaric. No matter who we are and wherever in the world we live, we say this is not acceptable,” she said. “We call on Iran to stop stoning and death penalty. And we call on the Iranian government to release political prisoners.”

Excerpt:

By Omid Memarian
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Aug 24 2010 (IPS)

Responding to pro-government critics, Iran’s defiant opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi has said several times in recent months that he would reveal “untold secrets” from his tenure.

Abolhassan Banisadr Credit: Courtesy of Abolhassan Banisadr

Abolhassan Banisadr, Iran’s first president after the Islamic Revolution, who now lives in France, told IPS that he believes Mousavi’s life is danger. “Many people who have had access to the regime’s secrets or who have tried to reveal them have been murdered,” he said.

Last month, Banisadr published what he says is Mousavi’s 1988 letter of resignation on his website, Enghelab-e Eslami. The letter was addressed to then-President Seyed Ali Khamenei, now Iran’s Supreme Leader. Neither Mousavi nor any of the Iranian government authorities, including the Office of the Supreme Leader, has reacted to the letter’s contents.

In the letter, Mousavi explicitly speaks of terrorist activities carried out abroad and about which he claims his cabinet was not aware. In a part of the letter, Mousavi explains his reason for resignation as his inability to carry out his responsibilities, saying:

“The operations abroad… take place without the cabinet’s knowledge or orders. You know better [than me] of their catastrophic and undesirable consequences for the country. We are informed only after an airplane is hijacked. We learn only after a machine gun opens fire on a Lebanon street and its sound can be heard all over. I am informed only after explosives are found on our pilgrims in Jeddah. Unfortunately, and against all the losses these actions have brought to the country, the likes of these operations could take place at any moment or any hour in the name of the cabinet,” Mousavi’s letter reads.

Many Iranian intellectuals and politicians have asked Mousavi to express his opinion about the 1988 mass executions of thousands of political prisoners and to explain his role in them.

Recently, on the occasion of Reporters’ Day in Iran, he addressed a group of newspaper editors, journalists, and families of arrested journalists. “We must view the 1988 events through their own historical vantage point and then ask whether the cabinet had any knowledge about these events or not? Did it play a role? Was it possible at all for it to interfere? Is there any mention of the cabinet in the documents and rulings?” said Mousavi.

Banisadr, who was elected Iran’s first president in 1980, fled to Paris after he was impeached by the Iranian Parliament in 1981. In an interview with IPS, he addressed the authenticity of the letter, the dangers facing Mousavi after he threatened to reveal secrets, and the importance of revelations of 1988’s mass political executions in Iran.

Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: How did you gain access to this letter? A: This letter was published in 1988. We asked our friends to research its authenticity. They told us that it was authentic. Mousavi has not refuted its authenticity during all these years, either.

Q: What was the aim of those who leaked the letter to you? A: We speculated at the time that the letter was leaked from Mr. [Ruhollah] Khomeini’s office [a leader of the 1979 Revolution]. Of course Mousavi himself could have leaked it. Or it could have been through Mr. Khamenei, in order to make Mousavi look bad to Khomeini for revealing the regime’s secrets.

Q: Several government officials have said amid political struggles that there are secrets they do not wish to reveal. How do you think the revelation of these secrets would impact Iran’s internal politics? A: Several people have been murdered in order to prevent the publication of certain secrets. For example, several people were murdered around the “October Surprise”, or the story of the secret dealings about the release of American hostages. Inside Iran, Mr. Mehdi Hashemi, Mr. Omid Najafabadi, and their colleagues were murdered because of the information they had and published about the “Irangate Affair” [also known as Iran-Contra].

Q: Why would Iranian authorities be concerned about what Mousavi might have to say? A: It would destroy their legitimacy on the national level as well as the regional level among Islamic nations.

Q: There is mounting pressure on Mousavi for speaking about the 1988 political executions. How might revelations regarding one of Iran’s darkest periods be costly for him? A: It is definitely dangerous. Mr. Mousavi’s importance to this regime is not more than Ahmad Khomeini’s importance [the late son of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini]. Ahmad Khomeini had a lot of information – his own son called him a treasure chest of the regime’s secrets. When he started to make noise, he was eliminated. I believe, just as I did myself, that instead of threatening to say or do things, he must spit out the information spontaneously. This might guarantee him his life, because if they want to touch him then, the people of Iran and the world would say that he was taken out because he revealed the secrets.

Q: Why has Mousavi’s letter’s authenticity not been denied by Iranian authorities? A: Because it is real and authentic. If they say they did them [the incidents described], it would prove that the world was right in calling them a terrorist government. If they want to say they didn’t do them, it would make the world laugh, because these actions did take place. The only thing they have said in the past is that renegade agents have done some things and the regime itself was not in the know. Now an individual who used to be the prime minister at that time is saying that the regime did know and the agents were carrying out orders.

Q: Why hasn’t anything happened to Mousavi yet, even though his nephew was shot dead during the post-election period last year? A: The most important reason is that Mr. Mousavi and Mr. [Mehdi] Karroubi were presidential candidates when that huge electoral fraud took place and the protest movement was formed to object to the election results. This movement was not only in Iran. It engaged the public opinion of the world.

Q: But a lot of people were killed and it was said that organisations such as the M.E.K. or the rioters killed them. A: Those people did not have the same clout as these two presidential candidates who persisted even after the elections. Arrests would not bring a lack of credibility – instead, they would bring credibility.

A text was recently published on behalf of Mr. Khamenei, saying that these two can be arrested anytime he wants, but that he is looking for a chance to convince people that these two [Mousavi and Karroubi] are not what they seem.

Q: What if a subject like the mass executions of 1988 could be comprehensively discussed in Iran? Considering the fact that Ayatollah Khomeini is not alive now… A: It would have an important impact. Mr. Khomeini’s handwritten note exists in which he says to execute the prisoners with a “yes” and “no” answer on a question. Three people are known to have been assigned to do the task. There were also people who encouraged Mr. Khomeini to do this, even though he did not need much encouragement, because he had the motivation. Who were they? Mr. Khamenei was the president, and Mr. Hashemi Rafsanjani was the speaker of the Parliament [Majlis].

So, it is obvious that these two did not make the slightest objection to that crime. Were they among the ones that encouraged this, and convinced Mr. Khomeini to commit such a crime? Clarifying this issue is very important. Why? Since now one of those people is the Leader, and another is the Head of Assembly of Experts and the head of the Expediency Council. Mr. Mousavi was the prime minister. Did he know or not? Was he in agreement or not?

Excerpt:

By Omid Memarian
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Jul 28 2010 (IPS)

A recent poll conducted by a credible Iranian university centre concerning the post-election events of 2009 has found that 56 percent of participants believe President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s popularity has declined over the past year, while just 22 percent believe it has increased.

President Ahmadinejad at the review conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in May 2010. Credit: UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe

Over the past two years, dozens of reformist publications have been shuttered, and journalists and political activists critical of the government’s policies have been arrested and imprisoned.

According to the poll, conducted in Tehran in June by the Iranian Student Polling Agency (ISPA), two-thirds of the 1,172 people surveyed believe that dissatisfaction with the government remains widespread, if largely covert.

“Ahmadinejad’s popularity has been in question since before the election last year, and the main reason for that is the perception that his administration has mismanaged the Iranian economy,” Jason Rezaian, a Tehran-based journalist, told IPS. “Given the deteriorating financial situation of most Iranians, it’s increasingly hard to argue otherwise.”

ISPA is related to Jahad Daneshgahi, an academic body that operates under the oversight of the High Council for Cultural Revolution, which is headed by President Ahmadinejad.

Jahad Daneshgahi is managed by a Board of Trustees whose members include the minister of science, research, and technology, a deputy president, the Supreme Leader’s representative at the universities, and the minister of health and medical education. The organisation is well known for the surveys it conducts for governmental and security agencies.

A few months before Ahmadinejad’s first term election in 2005, ISPA conducted a nationwide survey in which a majority said that the candidate who addresses people’s economic concerns had the best chance of winning the elections.

Eighteen percent of those who participated in the latest survey believe that the government was able to control the post-election protests. Evaluating the performance of Iran’s state-run radio and television, which played a pivotal role in broadcasting the government’s version of events, more than 75 percent of the survey participants said that the media’s performance was below average (50 percent said weak or very weak).

Eighty percent of the survey participants said that economic issues such as inflation, lack of affordable housing and unemployment were their main priorities. Lack of political and social freedoms was rated at just seven percent, international threats such as military attacks or economic sanctions related to the country’s nuclear proramme at four percent, and weakening Islamic values at six percent.

In recent months, the Iranian police have aggressively tried to enforce a strict Hijab on Iranian youth and women, following a conservative backlash against perceived loosening of the Islamic dress code. But the survey implies that the worsening economic situation has now overshadowed these kinds of social issues.

Since the disputed June 2009 presidential election in which President Ahmadinejad won a second term, the Iranian government has refused to grant permission for any public gathering in support of the two defiant rival candidates.

Over 5,000 protesters were arrested and a dozens killed on the streets during the post-election unrest. But despite the government’s ongoing crackdown and control over the media and judiciary, the survey suggests that the voice of the opposition has not been silenced.

Last week, when the Revolutionary Guards’ Chief Commander Mohammad Ali Jafari was asked by a reporter, “Why haven’t those IRGC members who supported the ‘sedition’ [the term used for post-election opposition groups] been confronted?”, he replied that, “They became convinced that it was a mistake.”

“This is far better than a physical confrontation and elimination,” he said.

Jafari’s statements were particularly notable in view of the fact that it was the first time a public official acknowledged the existence of a group of IRGC members who supported the protest movement and opposition leaders. However, Jafari did not provide any details about the numbers or level of support of those IRGC forces for the political opposition.

Pressure has increased among hardliners in recent months to conduct trials of the “sedition heads”, meaning the two 2009 presidential candidates Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi.

“A legal trial will take place in due time,” Jafari said, adding that, “They themselves have realised that they no longer have any popularity among the people and this is their biggest trial and punishment.”

Nima Naderi, a journalist in Tehran, told IPS that, “Both reformists and traditional conservatives are hoping to see Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s popularity reduced in view of next year’s parliamentary elections.”

“Ahmadinejad is attempting to increase his popularity among ordinary people who may not be following political issues closely,” Naderi said. “Actions such as agreeing to the return of some Los Angeles-based Iranian singers, or announcing that men wearing neckties is not a problem, are aimed to portray him as a supporter of social freedom.”

Details of the survey appeared last week on the Kalame website, which has ties to Mousavi. Since then, conservative websites like Rajanews have challenged the results as biased.

Foreign polling organisations are not allowed to operate inside Iran, even with the cooperation of local partners. In 2002, the Iranian security forces arrested Abbas Abadi, a prominent politician who ran a polling institute in Tehran that conducted a poll on behalf of Gallup.

Excerpt:

By Omid Memarian
WASHINGTON, Jul 8 2010 (IPS)

Although the United States and its allies insist that the latest round of U.N. sanctions against Iran targets high-level government officials rather than the general population, interviews with a number of analysts, activists and journalists in Tehran reveal a growing concern over the impact on the country’s middle class.

“The government will use the oil money to prevent pressure on the lower classes, but the main pressure will be on the middle class, the majority of whom are anti-government,” a former governmental official told IPS on the condition of anonymity.

“The sanctions are in fact going to punish the social group who carried the burden of confronting the government last year. It is the middle class who engages in trade and sanctions would destroy it [while] the government’s oil money would help it to remain in power,” the official said.

The Jun. 9 Security Council resolution, the fourth aimed at getting Iran to freeze its uranium enrichment programme since 2006, forbids U.N. members from transferring most conventional arms sales to Iran, calls for greater scrutiny of Iran’s overseas banking operations, adds more Iranian companies and individuals to a U.N. blacklist, and authorises countries to stop and inspect Iran-bound ships suspected of carrying cargo connected to Tehran’s nuclear programme.

However, the naval commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Crops – a specific target of new unilateral sanctions by the U.S. – has warned that if the United States and its allies try to inspect Iranian ships, they would encounter resistance.

According to IRNA, Admiral Ali Fadavi told reporters in Bandar Abbas on Jun. 24, “We have had indescribable growth in [trade in] the Persian Gulf and Hormuz Strait. Should they attempt anything stupid, according to their illegitimate and illegal resolution, we would act in most special and appropriate ways.”

Sohrab Razzaghi, an official in former President Mohammad Khatami’s cabinet, told IPS the sanctions could prove to be a “double-edged sword”.

“If the government can manage them well, it can mobilise the people, but if it can’t manage them, it could collapse,” he said.

“On several macro levels, aviation, people’s daily life will be affected and on a secondary level, it will affect the country’s industries and increase production costs,” he added.

Meanwhile, news coverage of the sanctions within Iran is apparently being suppressed.

“We are not allowed to speak about the sanctions and their destructive effects, because this could be construed as weakening the government,” a business journalist with a conservative publication in Tehran told IPS. “Our publication’s general policy is to say that the government is capable of skirting the sanctions.”

“Criticising the government is no longer possible, especially since last month when [Supreme Leader Ali] Khamenei said that criticising the government, even with well-meaning intentions, could cause division,” he said. “The pressure on the press is unimaginable.”

Another journalist with Hamshahri newspaper in Tehran, who asked not to be named, told IPS, “Some say we have paid a high price, so we must continue to the end, because if we don’t acquire the nuclear know-how now, in a few years we won’t have the oil revenue to pay for acquiring it.”

“Others say that the West won’t leave Iran alone until Iran has nuclear bombs,” he added.

With low oil prices adding to the economic squeeze, the government recently tried to raise taxes on businesses, but was forced to back down earlier this week when merchants at the main shopping bazaar in Tehran threatened to stage a general strike and shutter their shops.

“Many in the bazaar are furious with news about a tax hike,” said Mehran F., a merchant. “News about the discontinuation of subsidies over the next two months is a source of anxiety for many people, especially when they talk about removing subsidies from bread, water, electricity, and fuel.”

The prohibition on exporting petrol to Iran and the resulting increase in the price of gas are also a major source of public concern.

“Many believe there won’t be an attack [on nuclear sites], because the region is too unstable,” a political blogger in Tehran who asked to remain anonymous told IPS. “But most people I talked to believe that if foreign pressure mounts, national unity will increase and this helps the regime and Ahmadinejad, simply because they have a media monopoly, which helps them to garner public support.”

Former Iranian presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi recently criticised President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the IRGC and government officials for their handling the country’s controversial nuclear programme.

In a strongly worded letter published on the website ‘Kalame’, Mousavi blamed Ahmadinejad’s cabinet for the sanctions, arguing that they could have been averted.

Referring to Ahmadinejad’s characterisation of the resolution as “a used handkerchief”, Mousavi said such rhetoric “will not reduce the problems caused by populist and controversial policies”.

He warned that the sanctions would likely erode Iran’s GNP, worsen unemployment, and increase Tehran’s isolation, both with its neighbours in the Gulf region and internationally.

“Why should only a few people secretly make decisions about issues which affect the entire nation’s destiny?” he said, referring to the nuclear issue.

Excerpt:

By Omid Memarian
GENEVA, Jun 11 2010 (IPS)

The Iranian government rejected charges that it has violated human rights and freedom of speech and assembly before a session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva Thursday – the same day that the Iranian opposition’s request to hold a peaceful protest was denied by authorities.

Iranian officials denied reports that opposition prisoners had been tortured at the U.N. review in Geneva. Credit: Omid Memarian/IPS

“We would like see the Iranians actually follow through with concrete action on their commitment to allow special rapporteurs, as well as the [U.N.] high commissioner’s office, to enter Iran and do full investigations of the human rights situation,” Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe, the U.S. representative to the Council, told IPS.

“Claiming that they are open to it is one thing,” she said. “We want to see actual results that convey the sincerity of this statement, and today we see no actions that prove the truth of that intention.”

In its official reply, the Iranian delegation welcomed visits by the special rapporteurs in “due course”, without specifying any time frame.

At the Council’s periodic review, the United States, Britain and Norway explicitly criticised Iran, while strategic partners or neighbours – such as China, Kuwait, Pakistan, Venezuela and Cuba – defended Tehran’s human rights record.

One Western diplomat told IPS on the condition of anonymity that the Iranian government had made extensive effort to enlist allies to sign up for the 12 slots allocated to official government speakers, and this had been a serious struggle.

Addressing allegations of torture, particularly following last year’s post-election crackdown, the Iranian delegation asserted that, “Islam is against all forms of torture and the Iran’s constitution forbids it in the strongest terms. Torture is strongly prohibited by the Constitution and other laws of the Country. Torture is a punishable criminal offence and the perpetrator is severely punished.”

“Death sentences are only issued for the most serious crimes and none of the international instruments totally reject them and countries may choose to use capital punishment,” it said in response to charges that political dissidents had been executed after trials utterly lacking in basic protections of due process.

As at previous Council sessions, delegation members complained that criticisms were politically motivated.

“Many of the human rights criticisms directed at Iran are made and produced by Iran’s enemies,” Fatemeh Alia, a conservative member of the Iranian Parliament and a member of the Iranian delegation, told IPS. “If there are any cases, report them to us and we will follow up.”

Iran’s representative at the Council, Javad Larijani, at one point characterised Iran as one of the strongest democracies in the region – a statement that provoked laughter among some audience members.

In the middle of his speech, one member of the audience shouted, “Mr. Larijani, you are lying”, and was escorted outside by the police.

The delegation also defended the situation of “freedom of expression and assembly” and said that this is “guaranteed” in Iran. “Annually, numerous political and trade unions assemblies and meetings are being held,” Iran’s response said.

Ebrahim Mehrati, who was detained during the post-election unrest, severely abused and raped by a baton, was among those who challenged the Islamic Republic’s narrative at a side event in Geneva.

“My friends and I, who have experienced prison in the Islamic Republic and were present at the session yesterday or watched its live web cast, felt so much pain, sadness, and disgust at this inhumane cover-up of truth,” Mehtari told IPS on Friday. “Just search for words such as rape, torture, and repression on the Internet, the truth shines like daylight.”

Ten non-governmental organisations – seven of them critical and three in support of the government – also presented their cases. A member of the official Iranian delegation shook hands and thanked the Iranian NGO representatives after their presentation.

“The Iranian delegation’s performance and description of the situation in the country at the Human Rights Council on Thursday served to mislead the international community about the realities on the ground,” Dokhi Fassihian, executive director of the Democracy Coalition Project, told IPS. Her group was among those that addressed the Council.

“The fact that the Iranian government will not allow independent U.N. human rights monitors in the country – at the request of the international community – proves they have something to hide,” she said.

“Javad Larijani’s attempt to bypass discussion of Iran’s serious human rights crisis and particularly his claim that no one is tortured in Iran is contradicted by so many testimonies of victims,” Hadi Ghaemi, spokesperson for the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, told IPS.

“Just during the past few days, several more human rights defenders have been detained, including Narges Mohammadi, a close aide to [Nobel prize-winning attorney] Shirin Ebadi,” he said.

“Furthermore, coerced confessions, taken under duress, continue to be broadcast on Iranian TV on a daily basis,” Ghaemi added.

Excerpt:

By Omid Memarian
BERKELEY, California, Jun 7 2010 (IPS)

A week before the first anniversary of Iran’s contested presidential elections, the disruption of a speech by the grandson of Ayatollah Khomeini during a memorial service for the founder of the Islamic Republic on Jun. 4 has once more publicly exposed the rift within the top level of Iran’s leadership.

Hassan Khomeini (right) is greeted by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on Jun. 4 at the memorial event for his grandfather. Credit: Courtesy of Mehr News Agency

However, many believe the rallies were in fact intended to intimidate the opposition protesters expected to take to the streets on Jun. 12, a year after the polls in which President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was declared the winner and the government waged a bloody crackdown in which hundreds were arrested and jailed.

Though the militia’s presence must have been organised and approved beforehand, the unprecedented heckling of a well- known public figure seems to indicate that the divisions among various factions of the Islamic Republic’s rulers is intensifying.

According to the schedule, the Friday Prayers event was to feature three prominent speakers – President Ahmadinejad, followed by Hassan Khomeini, the Ayatollah’s grandson, followed by current Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. But Ahmadinejad took too long to finish his speech, and at the end he announced the next speaker to be the Supreme Leader, “omitting” Hassan Khomeini from the speakers list.

When Hassan Khomeini took the podium anyway, a group of radical pro-government men began to loudly heckle him, reportedly shouting “Death to Mousavi” – a reference to a leader of the so-called Green opposition movement and a candidate in the 2009 elections – forcing Khomeini to cut his speech short.

Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei then implicitly attacked Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi – the other major opposition candidate – at one point comparing the men, who publicly support the late Imam Khomeini, to two followers of the Prophet Mohammad who ended up opposing him during the rule of Imam Ali.

Mousavi quickly issued a statement explicitly criticising the Supreme Leader’s comments, and charging that the whole incident was orchestrated to purge Hassan Khomeini from Iran’s political scene.

“This behaviour demonstrates that radicals continue to have the last word inside the Iranian regime,” Alireza Eshraghi, editor of the Iran programme at the Institute for War and Peace Reporting, told IPS.

“Ayatollah Khamenei is sure about his control over the situation and… and he is unwilling to compromise even with the moderates, a reason why his approach is that ‘you are either with me or not’,” he said.

Three prominent and high-ranking clerical leaders, Ayatollah Sanei, Ayatollah Mousavi Ardabili, and Ayatollah Bayat Zanjani, all of whom have positions close to those of the reformists, also condemned the disruption and accused the government of being behind the incident.

Ayatollah Sanei said that authorities, particularly the president, have become “incapable of solving the country’s social, economic, political, and international problems, so they do these actions as a way to divert public attention.”

Ali Motahari, a conservative Member of Parliament, wrote in a piece published on the conservative website Bazab that Ahmadinejad had a pivotal role in what took place on Jun. 4. He also said that if Iran’s judiciary had charged and tried the “2009 sedition elements”, which according to him are Mousavi, Karroubi, and Ahmadinejad himself, the events of last Friday could have been avoided.

“Ahmadinejad is like a spoiled child who is rewarded for his constant abuse of others,” he said.

Motahari’s remarks drew an immediate backlash from conservatives in Parliament.

“Considering Ali Motahari’s positions, so far 50 MPs have asked in a letter to the Arbitration Council of the Fundamentalist Faction to expel him from the Faction,” said Mahmoud Ahmadi Bighash, a conservative MP, according to the Islamic Republic News Agency, IRNA.

On Sunday, Ali Larijani, speaker of the Iranian Parliament, threatened to report violations of the legislated budget by Ahmadinejad’s cabinet to the public and to other Parliamentary members.

A feud has been brewing between Larijani and Ahmadinejad since the president claimed that the Parliament had passed bills in violation of the country’s Sharia laws a few weeks ago.

“So far, the Parliament has passed more than 130 laws which are against the Sharia and against the Constitution,” Ahmadinejad said in a meeting with the Article 90 Commission of the Iranian Parliament.

Alireza Haghighi, a political analyst in Toronto, told IPS that over the past three decades, the Iranian government has cracked down with increasing severity against its opponents, with the result that it is now upsetting the Islamic Republic’s establishment.

“Ali Larijani’s critics represent the established clergy against Ahmadinejad and the pressure will increase this year,” he said.

Reports out of Tehran indicate that a heavy police presence is tangible in the city on the threshold of the election anniversary. Many young people have been questioned and even arrested for what police call “poor hijab”, the modest dress code mandated under Iranian law.

Several students also told IPS that over the past few days, access to Google and Gmail has been frequently blocked at their universities, and that internet speeds are severely reduced at certain times of day.

“The Iranian ruling authorities may be able to control the street protests through guns, but the rifts among the different sections of power structure have turned so severe, they will not be able to hide it anymore,” a Tehran University professor told IPS on the condition of anonymity.

“Ahmadinejad not only faces the widespread opposition of the elite academic class and the civil society, he is facing the ever-increasing opposition of the conservatives,” he said. “The combination of the two will either lead to a weakening of his power or a serious crackdown on the opposition, even the moderate conservatives – both options will bear a heavy cost for the stabilisation of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

Excerpt:

By Omid Memarian
BERKELEY, California, May 27 2010 (IPS)

It might be hard to imagine that a woman’s attendance at a university would be contingent upon the way she dresses.

A group of friends go shopping in Tehran. Credit: Saba Vasefi/IPS

“The university and students are both under your control and you can select the students based on this condition,” he told officials. “If not, let the Disciplinary Committee enter the action. A student needs his [sic] grade, he has no choice, he will do as you order him.”

Hijab – covering the whole body except the face with a scarf or veil – is mandatory for all Iranian women. But in a country in which almost 70 percent of the population is under 30 years old, and where women have outnumbered men in university attendance two-to-one over the past several years, more and more young women are adopting a sort of stylish Hijab that is coming under growing fire from conservatives.

During the summer, when temperatures rise to over 30 degrees C., the Hijab gets skimpier. The sleeves of the fashionable manteaus (women’s dress tunic) are cropped shorter, exposing wrists and forearms. Hems rise well above the knees and the more tailored designs accentuate the natural curves of the female form.

This, over tight jeans that may expose a bit of the ankles and a head scarf that may slide back a bit, or dance around the neck – well, you get the picture.

Ali Motahari, a conservative Member of Parliament, said earlier this month on Iran’s national television, “If there is no standard Hijab, they won’t know where to stop.”

“It would turn into Europe, rest assured it would be like Europe,” he said, “Especially because Iranian ladies have fertile grounds for this (not wearing Hijab) and there was an example of this during the Shah’s era.”

Before the 1979 Revolution, the Hijab was optional. Now after 30 years of Islamic dress codes, mainly invented by the Iranian authorities, many women are edging towards the pre-revolution lifestyle and attire.

It has not escaped the notice of religious hardliners, particularly with the one-year anniversary of Iran’s disputed Jun. 12, 2009 elections approaching. In a recent sermon, Kazem Sadighi, Imam of Tehran’s Friday Prayers, drew a connection between extramarital sex and natural disasters.

“[Attractive women] will cause young men to feel stirred and to rebel and follow their desires [and] then they would engage in illicit sex and fornication would increase in the society,” he said.

“According to our religious narratives, this is one of the reasons for some sudden calamities,” he said. “When fornication is on the rise, earthquakes abound.”

Efforts to enforce a strict Hijab go back to 2003, when the Women’s Cultural and Social Council of the Supreme Cultural Revolution Council approved the Development Plan for Hijab and Chastity. In 2005, it was disseminated to various government offices and organisations. But in 2009, the media announced that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had put the plan on hold – curiously right around the time of his re-election.

This year, authorities have finally begun to implement the plan, which defines specific duties for two dozen cultural and military organisations involved in enforcing the Hijab and a culture of chastity. For example, the police force is responsible for 21 tasks, the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) is responsible for 32 tasks, and so on.

However, many women, like 29-year-old activist Saba Vasefi, do not welcome government interference in their private lives.

“I believe Hijab is an invisible political tool for the stagnant, patriarchal politics… a view that gives priority to woman’s sexuality over her other human dimensions,” Vasefi told IPS in a telephone interview from Tehran.

“Undoubtedly, the totalitarian system’s patronising way of thinking encourages people to deny their bodies, wear unkempt clothes, and gravitate toward sadness, and it has no room for human health and development. This thinking cannot be effective in reducing abnormal behaviour in the society,” she said.

“The type of covering that the government promotes and is enforcing lacks harmony with the Iranian society’s common preferences,” a Tehran University professor told IPS on the condition of anonymity. “Even in the Quran, Hijab and clothing are addressed as relative issues and not absolute ones and nowhere in the Quran is there a mandate for a particular dress code.”

Ali Qolizadeh, a student activist, told IPS that the authorities have stepped up monitoring of people’s dress and that “for example, in most universities they have placed individuals at the entrance gates who issue notices to female students.”

“Other than the type of clothes, this problem could also be caused for male and female students who have had normal conversations throughout the campus,” he said. “In many cases, just for a simple conversation with a classmate from the opposite sex, the Disciplinary Committee would accuse students of illicit relations.”

A mandatory Islamic dress code is not what the grand Ayatollahs promised the Iranian people in the fist place. Right after the 1979 Revolution, one of Ayatollah Khomeini’s close allies, the influential cleric Ayatollah Mohammad Taleghani, said, “Hijab is not mandatory, even for Muslim women, let alone for religious minorities…We do not say women shouldn’t go to offices [to work], and nobody else is saying it either.”

“Islam and Quran and religious authorities wish to maintain a woman’s dignity…It is not mandatory either. How did our women live in villages since the emergence of Islam? Did they wear chadors?” he asked.

Excerpt:

By Omid Memarian
SAN FRANCISCO, California, U.S., Apr 22 2010 (IPS)

While the Iranian government has intensified its aggressive efforts to expand Internet filters, Austin Heap, a young programmer in the U.S., says he has developed software that would enable Iranians to evade their censors.

"It's always a cat-and-mouse game," says software designer Austin Heap. Credit: Courtesy of Andy Hall/Observer

Called Haystack, it uses a sophisticated mathematical formula to hide the user’s real Internet identity while allowing access to widely-used networking websites blocked by Iran’s government, such as YouTube, Facebook, Gmail, and Twitter.

“Now we can launch our efforts to help those in Iran access the Internet as if there were no Iranian government filters,” Austin Heap, CRC’s executive director, told IPS.

On Apr. 14, Heap learned that CRC had received U.S. government authorisation to export the anti-filter technology to Iran.

Five days later, Kayhan, an ultra-conservative daily in Tehran, called the new efforts by the U.S. government to support anti-censorship programmes a “CIA operation to intensify spying” against the Islamic Republic and an attempt to boost the political opposition.

Heap told IPS that he ran his first live test of the software in July 2009 and “it was a great success”. He explained that the main difference between Haystack and other anti-filtering programmes “is that the data generated by Haystack looks ‘normal’ – it looks like one is visiting innocuous sites like weather.com and downloading pictures.”

“Most traditional anti-filtering software is easy for an observer (like the government) to detect that a user is using it,” he said. “Haystack doesn’t do this. It cloaks all of the data.”

Exports of U.S. goods and services to Iran are prohibited unless authorised by Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). OFAC’s decision to approve the CRC’s license application comes in light of recent aggressive moves by the Barack Obama administration to make access to the Internet a U.S. cause all over the world.

“In the demonstrations that followed Iran’s presidential elections, grainy cell phone footage of a young woman’s bloody murder provided a digital indictment of the government’s brutality,” U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a major policy speech on internet freedom on Jan. 21.

“And their courage is redefining how technology is used to spread truth and expose injustice,” she added.

Analysts believe that the Iranian government has invested and deployed advanced filtering systems that block conventional anti-filtering systems. Heap said that Haystack is different.

“We’ve designed our network to work in a way that’s absurdly difficult for the government to block. If they wanted to block Haystack and all the other anti-filtering tools, they could just turn the Internet off,” he said.

Ali Akbar Mousavi Khoeini, a former member of Iran’s Parliament and former deputy chief to the communication committee, told IPS, “The slowdown of internet transmission speed and restricting people’s access to information… are both against the Iranian constitution and Iran’s development plan, as well as being in complete contradiction with Iran’s international commitments to organisations such as the ITU, International Telecommunication Union.”

“It is also a silly war against technology and the professional segment of the Iranian population,” he added.

Khoeini said he couldn’t wait to see how Haystack works in practice, a sentiment echoed by a 26-year-old online activist in Tehran.

“Haystack has gotten a lot of publicity outside of Iran, but still I’ve seen no one who has tested this software inside the country,” the activist told IPS on the condition of anonymity. “We have learned to be suspicious about things that make a lot of noise.”

“If it works inside Iran, that would be a great gift for those who live under information repression,” the source said.

Heap told IPS that his centre has done extensive testing for months now in Iran to make sure the software performs as expected.

“Haystack runs on Mac, Windows and Linux right now so it’s easy as downloading the software and double-clicking it. While we ramp up network capacity though, Haystack is invite only,” he explained.

Haystack is specifically designed for “low bandwidth environments” or places where dial-up is still the norm.

Haystack does two things. First, it encrypts all the data coming out of a computer – so even if it falls into the hands of a government monitor, there’s nothing useful in the data and it’s virtually impossible to crack.

Second, it hides this encrypted data in what appears to be normal Internet traffic, so to an onlooker it looks completely innocuous.

Asked what would be the most secure way for Iranians to use such software without the threat of being traced, Heap said that the easiest way to move any data is offline, move it by hand, burn it on a CD or share it with friends via a USB disk.

“The government in Iran can, in theory, monitor all unencrypted traffic moving over their network. For example, if you’re in Iran, going to haystacknetwork.com or torproject.org without being on an encrypted connection is completely traceable,” he cautioned.

“It’s always a cat-and-mouse game with Internet censorship,” said Heap. “As hard as we’re working to help protect people’s abilities to communicate and seek information, there’s a group in Iran working to make sure we’re not successful.”

Excerpt:

By Omid Memarian
NEW YORK, Apr 5 2010 (IPS)

When world leaders meet in Washington later this month for a summit on nuclear security that is expected to include discussion of sanctions on Iran, they should also address the country’s human rights situation, says Iranian-American journalist Roxana Saberi.

Roxana Saberi Credit: Courtesy of Roxana Saberi

A dual citizen of the U.S. and Iran, Saberi, 31, grew up in Fargo, North Dakota. Six years ago, she moved to Iran and began working as a freelancer for a variety of news agencies, including National Public Radio, BBC and Inter Press Service.

Saberi was arrested in January 2009 and initially accused of trying to buy wine, an illegal substance in Iran, and later for lacking valid press credentials. She was finally charged with espionage. In April 2009, she was sentenced to eight years, after spending more than three months in the notorious Evin Prison.

Following international pressure on the government, she was released on May 11, 2009.

Days after her book release, Saberi spoke with IPS correspondent Omid Memarian about her time in prison and Iran’s human rights situation.

Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: What’s the story about? A: The book has three parts. Part one is called “Trapped” – it talks about my arrest, what I was doing in Iran before my arrest, and the intense interrogations I went through during the early days of my captivity. I discuss the types of questions I was asked, and describe some of the methods they used to pressure me to make a false confession about spying for the U.S.

I later learned that the methods they used with me, including locking prisoners up in solitary confinement without any access to legal counsel or their families, as well as a combination of intimidation and manipulation, are called “white torture”, which does not leave a mark on the body but devastates the mind and conscience.

Part two is called “Angels in Evin”, and in it I talk about how I was transferred from solitary confinement to another cell, where I met other political prisoners. Part three is about my trial, getting sentenced to eight years, my appellate trial, and then my release.

Q: What parts of Iranian society are reflected in your book? A: I tried to describe many aspects of Iranian society, partly through the stories of my cellmates. I described the situation of minority religions (specifically the Baha’i faith) in Iran. Through my cellmate who was a university student, I described student activism in Iran and the potential costs that activists could face for their activities. And through another prisoner, I touched on the various views that many ordinary Iranians have toward religion and politicised religion.

Q: Has your experience in prison changed your mind or perceptions about Iran? A: Yes. Before I was imprisoned, I did not think much about justice, human rights or freedom. Although I had reported on or written about these issues, I had tried to do so as objectively as possible – in other words, I didn’t take sides. But when I was deprived of my freedom and faced with injustices I began to better understand what it means to have ones basic rights violated and what it feels like to be deprived of freedoms.

Q: Why did they arrest you after six years? A: I am still not certain about why they arrested me, although I believe they knew I was not a spy. They only pretended to think so, in order to pressure me into making a false confession about using my book as a cover to spy for America.

Q: Would it have made a difference if you were arrested prior to Ahmadinejad coming to power in 2005? A: I’m not sure I would have been arrested during Khatami’s period, although there were many political prisoners at that time too.

It seems that Iran’s hardliners have gained more power since [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad’s presidency and have intensified the regime’s “security approach” to society, which means they see very ordinary people – students, activists, humanitarian workers, scholars, journalists, dual-nationals, etc. – as threats to their security, threats that must be confronted through security measures such as harassment, intimidation, and imprisonment.

Q: How will your story help people learn more about Iran and Iranians? A: What happened to me in Evin Prison last year is a pattern for nearly every political prisoner or prisoners of conscience in Iran, from detention to trial.

The system is unjust and unfair: interrogations without a lawyer, being prohibited from telling your loved ones your whereabouts, being falsely accused of fabricated crimes, being pressured to make false statements and confessions, being barred from getting the lawyer of your choice, being tried in a closed trial in which you are prohibited from cross-examining the “witness” and studying the so-called evidence… the list goes on.

I hope that through my story and the story of my cellmates, people can see that so many innocent people are behind bars in Iran while the real criminals are in power.

Excerpt:

By Omid Memarian
GENEVA, Feb 18 2010 (IPS)

International human rights groups and Iranian activists say Iran’s decision to reject major recommendations made by the 47-member U.N. Human Rights Council on Wednesday is disappointing and signals that Tehran has no intention of easing the crackdown on dissent in the country.

Mohammad Javad Larijani, secretary-general of Iran's High Council for Human Rights, at the Human Rights Council in Geneva. Credit: Ehsan Norouzi

But Iranian officials backtracked on this pledge Wednesday in their formal response to the recommendations of Council members.

During the session Monday, a number of countries criticised the government’s use of excessive force following the disputed June 2009 elections, calling for the release of political prisoners, respect for women’s rights, and an end to the harassment of journalists, bloggers, and religious and ethnic minorities.

Larijani characterised these critics as an “organised clique” and said they were “very dangerous to the atmosphere” of the Human Rights Council.

Iran’s top representative at the Council, he is the brother of Sadeq Larijani, the head of Iran’s judiciary. His other brother, Ali Larijani, is speaker of the parliament.

“I want to say that we would take the suggestions under advisement,” said Larijani on Monday during the Council session. “I hope this positive cooperation and the spirit of the dialogue will be continued. We should pay attention to cultural and historical values and the roles these cultures play in human rights.”

“We mustn’t think that all people live in Washington, Paris and London. Let’s imagine that there may be other ways of life. This is the slogan we have in Iran,” he stated.

A member of the government-sponsored NGOs that accompanied the Iranian delegation told IPS on the condition of anonymity that Iranian authorities believe that the criticism by the Western countries is politically motivated and related to their pressure to disband Iran’s nuclear programme.

“Those countries like the United States that have an embarrassing human rights record [of their own] are not in a position to advise Iran on human rights issues,” one said.

The Iranian delegation accepted 123 recommendations, mainly on broad issues like access to education. It reserved response on 20 others, and rejected 45 recommendations, mainly those related to the country’s major human rights challenges over the past three decades and particularly since the Jun. 12 presidential elections, officially won by incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, Middle East and North Africa deputy director at Amnesty International, told IPS that the Iranian response was often contradictory.

“On the one hand, the delegation accepted a recommendation to respect the human rights of prisoners and detainees and to investigate and stop immediately any alleged abuse, and on the other hand, rejected a recommendation on fair trial guarantees and right to a lawyer,” she said.

“In this review, we have witnessed Iran’s denial of human rights violations and negation of international law,” Hadj Sahraoui added.

Ending the execution of juvenile offenders, upholding fair trial guarantees, investigating allegations of torture, including rape, and releasing people detained for peacefully exercising their human rights are among the recommendations that were rejected by the Iranian delegation.

It also rejected a recommendation that the new penal code more clearly define or remove offences open to political manipulation, such as so-called “offences against national and international security,” currently used to curtail freedom of expression, assembly, and association.

An invitation to allow the U.N.’s Special Rapporteur on Torture to visit the country’s detention facilities was also denied, as was a request “to repeal or amend all discriminatory provisions against women and girls in national legislation” and “to sign and ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).”

Citing the examples of the U.S.-run detention facilities at Abu Ghraib, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, Larijani asked, “Were they closed down with the same speed? We don’t claim there are no shortcomings. There are shortcomings everywhere.”

“There is violence against women in the U.S. There are violations everywhere. But the question is which country’s policies are used as the basis for measuring the violations? I must say that our legal system confronts any kind of corruption in our police force and in other areas,” he told the Council.

He also asserted that no human rights defenders were imprisoned in Iran, and that those who some claim are activists are either spies or are facing terrorism-related charges.

Hadi Ghaemi, director of the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, a New York-based human rights group, told IPS that during the Monday session in Geneva, the Iranian delegation not only denied the current realities in Iran, but attempted to undermine international human rights standards by resorting to cultural relativism.

“The session was a success in the sense that for the first time the Iranian government was put on the spot regarding recent atrocities. Its denials did not fool anyone,” Ghaemi said.

Karim Sadjadpour, a leading Iran analyst at the U.S.-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told IPS, “Though Larijani tried to paint Iran as a human rights utopia, in practical terms, the Iranian delegation refused to condemn the use of torture, execution of minors, imprisonment of journalists, and discriminatory laws against women and religious minorities.”

Last month, Iran executed two political activists, Arash Rahmaniour and Mohamad Alizamani. Authorities have confirmed that nine other activists are currently on death row.

“Either Iranian officials are profoundly lacking in self-awareness or they simply have contempt for international public opinion,” Sadjadpour said. “It doesn’t seem to occur to them, however, that when they declare Iran a bastion of free speech, justice, and democracy, they above all insult the intelligence of their own people.”

“I think years from now, historians will look back at Larijani’s performance as an example of the hubris and arrogance that ultimately expedited the regime’s demise,” he added.

On Monday, hundreds of Iranians living in Europe and North America protested the worsening human rights situation in Iran just a few blocks away from the United Nations building in Geneva where the meeting was ongoing.

Iran’s rejection of the Council’s report was met with disappointment. “This shows that there is no intention for any change in the foreseeable future,” an Iranian woman activist told IPS in Geneva.

On Wednesday, Iranian authorities vowed to strengthen cooperation with human rights organisations, yet they failed to respond to repeated requests by Amnesty International, the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran and other groups to meet with members of the Iranian delegation.

The delegation was accompanied by a number of NGOs from Iran which, according to Iranian activists following the session in Geneva, were government organised groups.

“The major human rights activists and NGOs in Iran are either silenced by extensive pressure or reside inside Evin prison in Tehran,” one observer told IPS on the condition of anonymity.

“According to my conversation with a few NGO members during the session, the authorities have told them not to talk or meet with international human rights organisations and independent Iranian activists who were participating in this conference,” she added.

Excerpt:

By Omid Memarian
SAN FRANCISCO, Feb 3 2010 (IPS)

Six months after Iranian authorities arrested three U.S. citizens who mistakenly crossed the unmarked border between Iran and Iraq, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that Iran could be willing to exchange them for Iranians imprisoned in the United States.

Shane Bauer, Sarah Shourd and Josh Fattal (left to right). Credit: http://freethehikers.org

He did not specify any Iranian prisoners by name. But he added that the United States has “abducted” Iranian citizens from other countries and even “pressured other countries to arrest many of our citizens.”

The U.S. State Department quickly dismissed the overture.

“We’re not interested in a swap per se,” State Department spokesman Philip Crowley told reporters Wednesday. “We are interested in resolving the cases of our citizens.”

On Jul. 31, 2009, Shane Bauer, Sarah Shourd and Josh Fattal were hiking near the Ahmed Awa waterfall in Iraqi Kurdistan when news reports say they mistakenly crossed the unmarked border into Iran. They have been detained since, and have had no contact with their families.

In November last year, five British citizens, whose yacht had drifted into Iranian waters, were detained but released after a week. Three young Belgians who were on vacation in Iran were also detained for three months, then released on bail into the care of the Belgian embassy and allowed to leave Iran in late December.

But the three U.S. citizens have been in detention for six months without access to their families or their Iranian lawyer, Masoud Shafie, who accepted the case on behalf of their families in December.

Ahmadinejad’s remarks regarding a possible exchange did not come as a particular surprise.

On Jan. 7, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, the head of Iran’s Parliamentary Commission on National Security and Foreign Policy, implied that the continued detention of the hikers was retaliation for the arrests of five Iranian diplomats by U.S. forces in 2007 in a raid of Iran’s consulate in Arbil, northern Iraq.

“The U.S. violated the Vienna Conventions and international regulations by arresting Iranian diplomats and keeping them in prison for a long time,” Mehr news agency quoted Boroujerdi as saying.

“So the U.S. should not rush for the release of the three hikers,” Boroujerdi said.

Massoud Shafie, the attorney for the three U.S. citizens, told IPS that his efforts to gain access to his clients have failed and nobody in authority appears willing to do anything for the case.

“My clients have been disconnected from the outside world for more than six months. They should be able to call their parents and lawyers,” Shafie said in a telephone interview from Tehran.

“The judiciary should hold a trial immediately and if the investigation is not over yet, the authorities should release them on bail and let them stay at the Swiss embassy – the United States’ interests section in Tehran,” he told IPS.

Shafie said that the authorities have told him that the investigation is not over and hence he would not be able to see his clients. Over the past two months, judiciary officials announced, multiple times, that the hikers would be tried soon, but they have not set any date.

Last month, Tehran’s prosecutor granted Shafie permission to visit his clients in prison. Yet, Shafie says he has not been able to exercise this permission due to the judiciary’s bureaucracy and lack of political will.

“I have permission from the prosecutor but the employees at his office postpone this visit over and over again. They act rudely and have not allowed me to read the cases and understand the charges against them, which is necessary in order for me to be able to write my defence bill,” said Shafie. “These individuals’ families are seriously concerned about them and they have no idea what is happening to them in prison.”

Ahamdinejad’s offer indicates that the Iranian government is using the three U.S. citizens as bargaining chips in its hostile relations with the United States.

“Mr. Ahmadinejad’s remarks are disappointing as they show the executive branch is interfering in the judiciary’s business. If they are innocent, they should be released, and if their investigation shows otherwise, they should be tried in a fair and free trial,” Shafie said.

Meanwhile, the families of the three detainees feel caught up in a political struggle they have little to do with.

“I’m in shock that we have not even received one single phone call. My brother and his friends are now into their seventh month of detention and the total amount of time they have had contact with the outside world is about an hour,” Alex Fattal, the brother of Josh Fattal, told IPS.

“The psychological pressure is really inhumane. We have heard that this is in the hands of the judiciary and a trial is coming for many months now, but still nothing. They have not been allowed to see their lawyer. Who knows what psychological state they will be in if they are put on trial?” he said.

Human rights groups have repeatedly asked the Iranian government to provide more information on the case, to no avail.

“The three hikers are innocent victims who have been caught in Iran’s turmoil,” Hadi Ghaemi, coordinator of the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, told IPS.

“There has been no concrete information about the exact charges against them and they have been deprived all contact with their family or lawyer. They are hostages in the hands of the Iranian government, which refuses to be transparent about these cases,” he said.

Last Christmas, the families of the trio tried to reach out to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, with a recorded video message requesting the release of their children on humanitarian grounds. The Iranian authorities failed to respond.

Six months after the arrests, relatives of the detainees say their frustration is overwhelming.

“I feel devastated and helpless about the detainment of my son Shane and his companions, Sarah and Josh,” Cindy Hickey, the mother of Shane Bauer, told IPS. “We have heard over and over again that this will be handled quickly by the judiciary and follow the rule of law, but still we wait with no movement in the case.”

“They have had no counselor access through the Swiss for more then three months and no access to their lawyer and we have no proof that our children are okay,” added Hickey.

“I hope our case is not being confused with world issues and that it is being treated as a separate humanitarian matter and I hope that the Iranian authorities will take this wall down for us and allow our children to come home so we can continue our lives together,” she said.

Excerpt:

By Omid Memarian
BERKELEY, California, Jan 8 2010 (IPS)

Hussein Karrubi, the son of Iranian opposition figure Mehdi Karrubi, whose car was struck by two bullets on Thursday in Qazvin, a city near Tehran, tells IPS the Islamic Republic is trying to silence and intimidate his father.

Mehdi Karrubi Credit: Arash Ashoorinia (www.kosoof.com)

Hadi Ghaemi, a spokesperson for the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, said, “Opposition figures are in danger of being eliminated by the Revolutionary Guard and Basij militias, acting undercover, to make the assassinations look like crimes by zealous citizens.”

Karrubi told IPS that, “The popular protest movement has penetrated different layers of society and it makes the government very angry that after seven months, people have not only not been intimidated, but they have grown bolder and more courageous.”

The interview was conducted a few hours after the assassination attempt against his father, Mehdi Karrubi.

“They use violence to intimidate both the leaders and the people, so that they can stop the movement,” he said.

Citing an increase in violence by pro-government forces such as the Revolutionary Guards and the Basij, Karrubi said that an extremist element within the Iranian government believes in confronting the protesters and even putting the reformist leaders on trial, but that there are disagreements within the conservatives.

“The more moderate individuals within this group don’t believe in violent solutions,” he said.

Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: What was the purpose of the trip Mr. Karroubi took to Qazvin? A: He was invited to go to Qazvin by Mr. [Naser] Ghavami, the former head of the Iranian Parliament’s Judiciary Commission, as well as the head of the Karroubi election campaign, in order to participate in a mourning ceremony for Muharram [the Shia holy month].

We received word that starting at noon on Thursday, the IRGC [Revolutionary Guard Corps] and Basij were asking all their members to check in. When he arrived in Qazvin, the forces were transferred to Mr. Karroubi’s residence in buses. They started cursing and chanting slogans in support of the Supreme Leader, Mr. [Ali] Khamenei. They also threw bricks and stones toward Mr. Karroubi’s residence, breaking the windows.

The residence was surrounded for four hours before Qazvin Police’s Special Forces arrived and asked Mr. Karroubi to leave the house in his car. When he tried to leave the house in his car with help from Qazvin Police Special Forces, there were about 500 people in the parking lot, many of whom are known IRGC and Basij commanders, people who are known as senior IRGC commanders in the province.

Q: When were the shots fired? A: When the car left the parking lot, two shots were fired, one aiming for the rear window, which smashed one of the bullet-proof layers, causing the glass to crumble, and another through the front windshield window which only caused a crack in the bulletproof glass.

Q: How is Mr. Karroubi’s health? A: I went to meet him at his home. His morale is the same as it has been over the past seven months, no change. I can even say that he is stronger.

Q: What is your analysis of this attack? A: Extremist forces wish to intimidate my father into a self-imposed house arrest. They don’t want to pay the political price of a government-imposed house arrest, and wish to put him in a position where he would choose to stay in the house because of such serious threats.

Q: Currently your father’s newspaper and his political party have been banned. His daily activities must be completely interrupted, too. What do you think is the source of concern for IRGC and pro-government forces to the point of attempting an assassination on him? A: They are angry because Mr. Karroubi participates in public gatherings. They observe that wherever he goes, large crowds gather to greet him and to show their support. Mr. Karroubi is concerned that such threats are targeting his contact with the public.

Q: Why don’t they arrest your father like the other reformist leaders who have been arrested after the elections? A: I think the political costs of arresting Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karrubi are a lot higher than the other reformist arrests. If they decide to take such an action in the future, I will have to say that the regime has entered an era of complete lack of wisdom.

Q: Do you think the assassination attempt was serious? A: Yes. At the November rally to commemorate the occupation of the American Embassy, police sprayed tear gas at Mr. Karroubi. They intended to harm him, but it hit his bodyguard’s face a few inches away from Mr. Karroubi’s face. They mean to harm him, to intimidate him.

Q: How safe is Mr. Karroubi? A: He has bodyguards who help his security to a degree, but they can’t do much. I think they just serve a symbolic purpose. When four to five hundred people have surrounded him and are shooting at him, what can the bodyguards do, really?

Q: Do you believe this assassination attempt was planned in advance? A: Fars News Agency, which is affiliated with IRGC, transmitted the news within 10 minutes. There is no doubt that this was a coordinated effort between Qazvin IRGC and Basij and Fars News Agency.

Q: The other presidential candidate, Mir Hossein Mousavi, recently wrote a letter to the Iranian government proposing steps for solving the existing crisis. Do you think there can be a dialogue between the regime and the protesters? A: We must wait and see what happens over the coming days. By writing a letter and offering recommendations for resolving the existing crisis, Mr. Mousavi has put the ball in the regime’s court. Now they have to decide how to address the protest movement.

Q: What are Mr. Karroubi’s daily activities now? TV: He has his daily meetings and conducts his daily affairs. He follows the news through TV and news websites.

Q: How do the people perceive your father’s continued efforts? A: People have high morale. They are waiting for occasions and events to participate in protests. The people who are talking to him only tell him one thing and that is “Please persist, Mr. Karroubi.” People tell him to defend their rights firmly. My take is that he is keeping his promise to people to demand their rights.

Excerpt:

By Omid Memarian
BERKELEY, California, Dec 31 2009 (IPS)

The Iranian government has intensified its pressure on political and human rights activists since the harsh crackdown on protesters on the holy day of Ashura, arresting major political figures and even their family members, including Noushin Ebadi, the sister of Noble Peace Laureate Shirin Ebadi.

Shirin Ebadi Credit: Omid Memarian/IPS

On Monday, authorities arrested dozens of ranking political figures, including Ebrahim Yazdi, Iran’s first foreign minister after the revolution, Alireza Beheshti, Mousavi’s close advisor, Emad Baghi, a prominent human rights activist, and Mashallah Shamsolvaezin, a well-known political analyst.

Agents from the Ministry of Intelligence also arrested family members of political leaders and human rights activists, including the sister of Shirin Ebadi, and the daughter of Ezzat Sahabi, a very prominent critic of the government.

On Monday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the demonstrations a “Zionist and American-ordered show”.

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said that, “if Britain does not stop its prattling, it will get [a hit] in the mouth.”

The United States, Britain, France, Germany and the European Union condemned the use of violence against peaceful protesters and the arrests on Sunday and Monday.

In an interview with IPS, Shirin Ebadi, who is currently outside of Iran, said that the authorities have taken her sister hostage.

“My sister is an academic and has no involvement in politics. She has been threatened to cut her ties with me, her sister, otherwise she would be arrested,” Ebadi said. “My sister, my brother and my husband all are under huge pressure to force me to stop defending against human rights violations in Iran.”

She also discussed her current situation, and the recent crackdown on the Iranian opposition, which led to the arrests of 1,500 people and the deaths of at least eight on Sunday.

Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: A few days before your sister’s arrest, you published an article on the death of the prominent and popular dissident Ayatollah Montazeri, calling him “the father of human rights in Iran”. Considering the sensitivity the Iranian government had toward this serious religious critic, is it possible that your sister’s arrest had something to do with this? A: My sister’s arrest was directly related to my activities in furthering human rights in Iran. Some of these activities are defending political prisoners, serving as head of the Human Rights Defenders Centre, writing a letter in memory of Mr. Montazeri, and other things.

All of these are toward defending human rights, and I repeat, all of it is in keeping with the laws of Islamic Republic of Iran. I think some of these activities were not appreciated by certain authorities within the Ministry of Information, leading to my sister’s arrest. They had threatened before that if I continue my work, she would be arrested.

Q: What do they want from you? A: What they have told my brother and sister is that my activities in defence of human rights are against [the interests of] the Islamic Republic of Iran and I must stop them. The fact is that whatever I do is based on the laws of Islamic Republic of Iran and it is to fulfill my duties to defend human rights.

Q: What events do you think contributed to your sister’s arrest? A: I call her once or twice a month to see how she is. The Ministry of Information had told my sister that even this is too much and she should not be in touch with me at all. My sister asked them, how do you expect me to tell my sister that she cannot talk to me when she calls me? They had said that this disobedience would lead to her arrest.

Q: What about your husband, who is currently in Iran and has been forbidden to leave the country? A: The Ministry of Information had previously suspended my bank accounts and even my retirement income, but I continued my work. They suspended my husband’s bank accounts, but I continued my work. Now they have taken my sister as a hostage, hoping that I would stop my work.

As all my activities for the defence of human rights are based on the laws of Islamic Republic of Iran, I see no reason to reduce or abandon my activities. Ministry of Information authorities must understand that at this critical time, laws and lawful behaviour are the only things that can restore peace in the country.

Q: What did the Ministry of Information state to her or your family as reasons for her arrest? A: They didn’t give any information at all. Her husband and her two sons were home. They told her, ‘We will take you in for a few questions.’ Her husband said he wanted to go along, but they told him that there was no room in the car and that he should follow them, but while he goes to start the car, they leave with her.

Q: What is your main concern about your sister? A: Like many other people who have been arrested since Sunday, my sister is innocent. My concern for her is the same concern I have for all the innocent [detainees]. She is not a political person and there was no reason for her arrest. She hadn’t participated in any gatherings and her full-time academic career doesn’t leave her any time for such activities.

Q: What do you think about the extensive arrests after Ashura? A: I am sorry that Ashura led to such incidents. Violence does nothing but exacerbate the situation and create crisis. The violence displayed by the regime’s officers on Ashura is unacceptable. Published photographs and video clips show that people were severely abused.

Q: Could this arrest or similar arrests be heralding a process to pressure families of political activists in order to stop their activities? A: Unfortunately, there is immense pressure on the families of political activists. One example is the way the mother of Sohrab Arabi [who was shot during the post Jun. 12 elections protests] was treated, and the arrests of a few women who are mothers of those who were killed by Iranian forces after the elections. Whenever someone asks for their rights, both the individual and his/her family are put under pressure.

Q: What is your request from the Iranian government? A: It is for them to be committed to laws they have passed themselves. They should be aware that abiding by law is the first step for bringing peace to a society.

Q: What does the Iranian regime gain by arresting relatives of human rights activists, knowing very well that it negatively reflects on the government? A: This shows that there are people who see themselves as above the law; those who believe they can implement their ideas through pressure. If commitment to law increases in society, much of the crisis in the society will be resolved. Note that I am talking about laws that the Islamic Republic itself has created. If a law is written and approved, we cannot only expect the officers to implement it for others; they must also participate in its full compliance.

Excerpt:

By Omid Memarian
BERKELEY, California, Dec 29 2009 (IPS)

News that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps is withdrawing a billion dollars from the country’s Foreign Reserve Fund in order to complete Phases 15 and 16 of the gigantic South Pars gas project has generated concern among Iranian analysts, who believe the move reveals the military organisation’s excessive power over Iran’s economy.

In view of looming sanctions from the United States and the United Nations Security Council over Iran’s nuclear programme, the IRGC’s control over the country’s sensitive oil, and gas and nuclear industries could provoke a serious crisis, they warn.

Last week, Rostam Ghassemi, the commander of Khatam-ol-Anbia Construction Complex, which is the contractor for the two South Pars fields, told Mehr News Agency that in order to remedy the “financial difficulties” facing these phases, the IRGC is planning to withdraw a billion dollars from Iran’s Foreign Reserve Fund.

“Progress problems for Phases 15 and 16 were caused by the National Iranian Oil Company’s tardy provision of financial resources needed by the project,” he said. “The Economic Council [headed by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] has approved the withdrawal and the administrative process for it is currently underway at the Central Bank.”

The IRGC’s Khatam-ol-Anbia Construction Base, considered the most important financial unit of the Guards and currently the largest contractor of government projects in Iran, was established in 1990 with the agreement of Iran’s Supreme Leader. Over the past four years, the entity has been the contractor for 1,500 of the country’s most important government projects.

A branch of the Iranian military, the IRGC has built up a sprawling business empire since the 1979 Revolution, with annual revenues estimated at some 12 billion dollars and investments in sectors ranging from oil, gas and petrochemicals to cars, bridges and roads. It also controls the paramilitary Basij militia.

“The ruling political class, the IRGC, needs to control and monitor Iran’s financial resources in order to continue its political hold,” Mashallah Shamsolvaezin, a prominent Iranian journalist, told IPS in a telephone interview from Tehran.

“Ahmadinejad sees absolutely no need to obtain permission from anyone, but such interference in the economy will work against him,” he added.

In 2006, the Khatam-ol-Anbia Construction Base took on the National Gas Company’s 90-kilometre Asalouyeh-Iranshahr pipeline project in Iran’s Sistan and Baluchistan provinces, a contract worth 1.3 billion dollars.

Another large project the Oil Ministry awarded to IRGC is the South Pars Gas Field Development Project’s Phases 15 and 16. At 2.97 billion dollars, the contracts were awarded to Khatam-ol-Anbia Base two years ago, bypassing the tender process. However, the IRGC firm was unable to finish the project in time.

Jamshid Asadi, an economics professor at the American University in Paris, said that the latest action by IRGC culminates its aggressive efforts to monopolise key state projects over the last six years.

“Unfortunately, this is not the beginning. IRGC’s strong presence in Iran’s economy, its efforts to replace the private sector, and its lack of supervision by the Parliament or other oversight units is in fact completing the political coup d’etat which began with Ahmadinejad’s election [in 2005],” he said.

In early 2005, towards the end of President Mohammad Khatami’s second term, through a military takeover at the airport, the IRGC revoked the Imam Khomeini International Airport’s tender, which had been partially awarded to a consortium of Turkish and Austrian companies.

In another case, when Turkcell won the international tender for a cell phone network operation license, the Parliament and the cabinet were put under pressure to revoke the tender.

“A billion-dollar withdrawal which could not be granted without Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s influence and direct order has been seen as the IRGC’s technical incompetence to fulfill its obligations and reliance on the government’s support,” a former member of parliament told IPS on the condition of anonymity.

The Khatam-ol-Anbia Construction Base has also been linked to Iran’s nuclear activities and is currently under sanctions by the European Union and the United States.

“The economic dominance of the IRGC over gigantic gas and oil projects has made Iran’s economy extremely vulnerable towards new round of sanctions on the country’s financial institutions and oil industry,” the source said.

Assadi told IPS, “This process is illegal. The Economics Council was one of the economic units which were stripped of their powers during Mr. Ahmadinejad’s term and even under its previous power, it had no autonomy over whether or not funds were withdrawn against the Foreign Reserve Fund.”

“It falls within the Parliament’s authorities to approve the government’s proposed budget and if the Economics Council approves such a thing, it has overstepped its authorities and duties,” he added.

Dr. Sadegh Zibakalam, a political analyst in Tehran, told IPS, “In response to objections that Ahmadinejad has repeatedly withdrawn funds from the Forex Reserve Fund, he has said that he has not taken even one dollar without the Parliament’s approval.”

“IRGC’s withdrawal from the Forex Reserve Fund contradicts Ahmadinejad’s statements,” he noted. “Iran’s Foreign Reserve Fund’s Board of Trustees were removed from office by Ahmadinejad himself and it seems that he is solely responsible for the Fund.”

“Considering that IRGC’s companies and their related companies are mentioned in the sanctions [against Iran adopted by the U.N. Security Council], there is a danger that the IRGC’s presence in Iran’s large national oil projects might cause other oil and gas companies from Malaysia to China and Western countries to be pressured not to cooperate with Iran; this could face the Iranian oil and gas industries with serious threats,” added Zibakalam.

During the period of relative press freedom in Iran between 1998 and 2005, the IRGC’s companies were repeatedly accused by independent Iranian media of sidestepping customs rules and regulations, and importing goods and equipment through unofficial entry points. During the Khatami era, reformist newspapers exposed the existence of 60 illegal ports in southern Iran.

Other reports by Iranian officials suggested that nearly one-third of the country’s imports are made through illegal markets, the underground economy, and illegal ports.

According to a report the IRGC provided to Iranian Parliament’s Budget Committee, Khatam-ol-Anbia Base owns 812 registered companies inside and outside Iran.

Excerpt:

By Omid Memarian
SAN FRANCISCO, Jun 13 2009 (IPS)

Just a few months after a right-wing government gained power in Israel, Iran’s hardliner president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was declared the winner in Friday’s election, although his main rival has not accepted defeat and reformist supporters were skirmishing with security forces in the capital Tehran Saturday.

Protests by opposition supporters raged in the streets of Tehran Saturday. Credit: Shahram Sharif

The weekend before the elections, Moussavi and Mehdi Karroubi, a moderate cleric who also ran in the polls, sent a letter to Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, chair of the country’s powerful Guardian Council, citing large discrepancies in the number of printed ballots, among other issues.

Mohsen Makhmalbaf, a well-known Iranian film director currently living in Paris, told the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran that security forces had attacked and shut down the press offices of Moussavi’s campaign in Gheitarieh Friday, and that he was asked to act as the spokesperson for the campaign abroad.

“Last night, Interior Ministry officials told Moussavi and his staff that he has won the elections but they should not make it public yet. Moussavi’s campaign, accordingly, began preparations for a public celebration on Sunday,” Makhmalbaf said, according to activists at the campaign, a New York-based NGO.

At around 1 p.m. Saturday Tehran time, Moussavi, a former prime minister, issued a statement to the Iranian people.

“The officially announced results of the tenth presidential elections are shocking. People who waited in long lines and witnessed the voting process, and know who they voted for, are watching in complete disbelief the unfolding of magic tricks by election officials and the state radio and television,” he said.

“I register my strongest protest to the present process and to the obvious and widespread irregularities on election day. I warn that I will not surrender to this dangerous stagecraft. I recommend to the authorities to immediately put an end to this process before it is too late,” he continued.

The New York Times reported on Saturday that thousands of riot police had been deployed in the capital and were” charging straight into the biggest concentrations of protesters”.

Gholam-Hussein Karbaschi, Karrubi’s campaign manager, asked supporters via the social networking site Twitter to remain calm, saying that, “We should wait. We are trying to contact the Supreme Leader’s office”.

After casting his vote, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned on Friday morning that there might be unrest.

“Some ill wishers might wish to create tension in polling stations; all tension will work against the voting process,” he said, asking Iranians to show “patience and grace”.

Khamenei praised the candidates’ supporters for avoiding confrontations on the streets over the previous nights.

“The shutdown of the reformist websites, limitations imposed on text messaging, ballot shortages in many polling stations, and obstacles for extending the time on voting (contrary to prior elections) are some of the issues these three candidates have identified,” he said. “The three candidates are currently in negotiations with authorities to solve these issues and to avoid violence.”

However, not every politician and cleric agreed with this stance.

“If people see that [the government] has cheated, they should protest in the streets,” said Effat Marashi, the wife of Hashemi Rafsanjani, Iran’s former president and the head of Assembly of Experts, which officially monitors the Supreme Leader’s performance.

“The way the results have been announced shows that the people’s votes have been managed and engineered in their [Ahmadinejad’s] favour,” wrote Ataollah Mohajerani, a Karrubi supporter and minister of culture in Khatami’s cabinet, on his blog.

Under Iranian election law, every candidate is entitled to a representative at each polling station. According to the two reformist candidates, Moussavi and Karrubi, only a small number of their representatives were permitted to supervise the process.

“Supporters of reform candidates were stunned by the announcement that President Ahmadinejad is winning by roughly two-thirds of the votes,” Reese Erlich, a freelance journalist and author of “The Iran Agenda: The Real Story of U.S. Policy and the Middle East Crisis” (Polipoint Press) told IPS in a telephone interview from Tehran.

“Many suspect vote manipulation, but so far specific details are lacking,” he said.

Twenty-four hours before Election Day, the communications ministry cut off the SMS system, barring text messaging throughout the country. Many young Iranians had relied on cell phones to coordinate and send campaign messages.

Additionally, security forces closed down websites belonging to reformist supporters, including Moussavi and Karroubi, on the day of the polls.

Reformists’ representatives stationed at various polling places were simultaneously totaling the results along with the formal official counts conducted by the Ministry of Interior (MOI).

They were to send these results via SMS to cross-check the official results. The MOI, for the first time, announced the final count of all votes without having received the figures from each polling place, making it impossible for accurate totals to be confirmed.

“As a result of this election, we should say goodbye to democracy and human rights,” Asieh Amini, a human rights activist in Tehran, told IPS.

“I don’t believe a president is strong enough to stop Iran’s vibrant civil society and women’s rights movement, but I’m sure that the situation will be harder for us,” she added.

Experts here say that the concrete policy impact of the elections may not be particularly great from a U.S. perspective. Both leading candidates support a civilian nuclear programme, and the president’s influence on foreign policy in general – although a matter of some debate – is relatively small compared to that of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

Nevertheless, the overall tone of the U.S.-Iran relationship is likely to be affected by the reelection of Ahmadinejad, whose confrontational style has helped stoke tensions and made him a favourite target for hawks in the U.S.

Mehrdad, a university student in Tehran who asked that only his first name be used, told IPS, “When I went to cast my vote, it was apparent that the ballot was problematic in nature.”

“Each of the four candidates was listed numerically along with a specific numeric code next to their name. Voters were subsequently instructed to handwrite in the name of their chosen candidate on their blank ballots and to also write the corresponding candidate-code number next to the candidate’s name.”

“The code for Ahmadinejad was 44, yet he was listed as number one. Moussavi was listed as number four. Thus, the possibility and probability of the number four ending up in the code box on the ballots could have easily, in the haste of counting ballots, been misconstrued as a vote cast for candidate-coded as 44 (Ahmadinejad) and double as a happy accident for the now president re-elect Ahmadinajad.”

Ayatollah Montazeri, a former deputy to Ayatollah Khomeini who was removed from his position 20 years ago and had not participated in elections since, reportedly voted Friday. Abdollah Nouri, a former interior minister in the reformist cabinet of Mohammad Khatami, known as a serious critic of the regime, cast his vote after 10 years.

Excerpt:

By Omid Memarian
SAN FRANCISCO, U.S., Jun 9 2009 (IPS)

Fears that the state apparatus controlled by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is laying the groundwork for possible fraud in Friday’s presidential election appear to be growing among his two reformist challengers and their supporters.

A child waves a poster of Mir Hossein Mousavi, the reformist candidate who is President Ahmadinejad's strongest challenger. Credit: Leila Partia, Tehran

The poll is being closely watched around the world, since the results could have a major impact on Iran’s relations both with its neighbours and the West, where Ahmadinejad’s more provocative statements, notably his repeated questioning of the Nazi Holocaust, have made him an easy target for rallying public opinion against Iran.

On Sunday, a group of employees in the Interior Ministry, which oversees the polls, and top officials from the campaigns of the two reformist candidates, Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, sent a letter to Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, chair of the country’s powerful Guardian Council, citing discrepancies in the run-up to the election.

According to the letter, the actual number of ballots printed for the first round of voting is 59.6 million, but the Interior Ministry officially says the number is 56 million.

Ali Akbar Mohtashami Pour and Morteza Alviri, of the Mousavi and Karroubi campaigns’ committees on poll supervision, also said that the number of electoral stamps circulating is “twice the number of polling sites plus 10 percent”.

“The stamps have been dispatched without any written procedures and this is a most dangerous and worrisome event,” they said in the letter.

“If organised fraud is to take place, this will not happen at polling branches, nor on site, and not at the ballot casting or counting, but through use of extra ballots and stamps and through use of additional boxes and mobile ballot boxes, especially as we have been informed that soldiers’ birth certificates have been collected at military bases,” it said.

Saeed Razavi Faghih, a spokesperson for the Karroubi campaign, told IPS, “Inviting the [pro-Ahmadinejad] Revolutionary Guard Corps to supervise ballot box security instead of the police has raised serious doubts for us.”

The reformist campaigns also charge that a contract has been signed between the Ministry of Information and Ministry of Telecommunications to send out four million confidential text messages on Friday.

“What top-secret orders are to be issued on Election Day and to whom? Why can’t people know about this [contract]?” the letter asks.

It also refers to a recent closed-door meeting at the Interior Ministry allegedly attended by provincial governors from all over the country, at which the agenda is unknown.

The latest informal polling has suggested a major surge by Mousavi, an architect by profession, which could carry him to victory. One recent government-funded poll cited by Newsweek Monday suggested that Mousavi could win in a landslide if, as expected, a run-off is held Jun. 19.

“The regime can clearly see the excitement and joy people are displaying on the streets of Tehran for the reformist candidates. If a different result is announced, it will be disastrous,” Mahmoud Shamsolvaezin, a political analyst in the capital, told IPS by telephone.

“I believe that the Mousavi posters in the hands of young people will be replaced with stones if results against the people’s will are announced,” he added.

Shamsolvaezin predicted “a probability of some vote manipulation to the tune of two to three million.”

But, he added, “I believe the silent majority’s participation in the elections will overpower these efforts and the end result will be in favour of reformists.”

The letter also complains that Mousavi’s campaign representatives have been barred from attending polling places set up for expatriates outside Iran.

“Over 300 ballot boxes have been planned for polling posts abroad, [but] Mir Hussein Mousavi’s campaign headquarters has been unable to introduce its representatives to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs despite earnest and longstanding efforts,” it said, adding that this was “a clear violation of the law”.

For the first time since the Islamic Revolution, the security of one third of the ballots has been removed from the police and assigned to the Revolutionary Guard Corps. According to Iran’s constitution, the military is supposed to be banned from involvement in politics.

The Revolutionary Gurad, which strongly supports Ahmadinejad, has mobilised thousands of people to show up at Tehran’s Mossalla center to participate in a rally organised by the president’s campaign office.

Earlier this week, supporters of Mousavi turned up in the thousands, all wearing the candidate’s chosen colour, and created a “green chain” that blocked traffic from north to south through the streets of Tehran.

Many people say the atmosphere in the last days before the election is very similar to Iran’s 1997 elections when Mohammad Khatami, a reformist candidate, beat a conservative candidate, Nateghe Noori, by 20 million votes to 7 million.

Excerpt:

By Omid Memarian
BERKELEY, California, Jun 4 2009 (IPS)

As Iran’s conservative president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fights for his political future against two reformist challengers in the June elections, Arash Sobhani, a lead figure in the country’s underground music scene, says it’s a very tough time to be an artist in Iran.

Arash Sobhani Credit: Shoja Lak/IPS

Sobhani is the lead singer and songwriter of Kiosk, a band that is widely popular among Iranians inside and outside of the country. With its Mark Knopfler musical style and politically sharp and ironic lyrics, Kiosk is considered one of the most influential underground rock bands to emerge since the 1979 Iranian Revolution.

“We grew up listening to [Bob] Dylan, [Leonard] Cohen, Dire Straits and Pink Floyd, and you can see how our music is influenced by these guys,” explained Sobhani. “Our roots are blues and rock but there has been a growing influence on our music from the gypsy tradition.”

Kiosk is one of the few Iranian underground bands to tour North America, Europe and Australia. Most of its members left Iran within three months after Ahmadinejad’s 2005 election.

“We were tired of trying to work with authorities who would cancel our concerts or refuse to give us permits to produce an album, and on the eve of the election, when Ahmadinejad came to power I knew that things were changing for worse,” Sobhani said.

In an interview with IPS, Arash Sobhani talked about Iran’s underground music scene, how it’s been received in the western media, and the obstacles and challenges for young musicians in Iran.

Excerpts from the interview follow.

IPS: Why your music is considered underground? AS: I think what we call today “Iranian underground music”, like many other aspects of Iranian life, was forced to go “underground” in the early eighties. As the radicals started taking control over the country and imposing their values on the society, music and a lot of other cultural activities were regarded as “in contrast with Islamic morals”.

In those days, even carrying a guitar in the streets required a lot of courage. Obviously it was very difficult for the musicians to be able to get together and jam and create new music.

The Islamic Republic would reward its opposition with such brutality that thinking of a protest song, in those days, was even impossible so most of the underground bands then either did instrumental music or cover songs from favorites like Pink Floyd and the Eagles. No one dared to create music with new, original lyrics.

IPS: What are the major challenges of Iranian underground music? AS: First is the fact that most of this music is made using western instruments, and is therefore in “form” very western and that creates a problem when the musicians try to integrate Farsi lyrics. Farsi, as a language, has its own music that may not quite fit on a 12 bar blues. So, essentially, like everything else that has come from the west, Iranian bands are still working on “Iranianising” this form of music.

The second challenge is the problem of getting exposure; there are no independent TV or radio stations to promote these bands. Therefore their music is produced, recorded and distributed underground, with no revenues and nowhere to perform and therefore most of these bands disappear after one or two albums. A few lucky ones have made their way outside Iran and of those few only two or three bands have been able to continue their work.

IPS: How many people are drawn to this music or support it? What are the major genres? AS: There seems to be around 2,000 bands inside Iran, which is a great number for a country where the government thinks of these bands as Satanists! These bands come from variety of genres. Heavy metal, grunge, funk etc. But hip-hop is becoming more and more popular I think due to the fact that it’s cheaper to make music not using real musicians and just programming all the instruments.

IPS: Is there any research or documentaries about this music? AS: There are a few documentaries, unfortunately none of them look at the underground music of Iran from the historical/analytical perspective, and none talk about the content or the lyrics. Like all the other cultural activities in Iran covered by the western media they have the attitude of the surprised westerner who is shocked to find out that there are people in the Middle East that play the guitar! Or make movies or publish newspapers.

On the other hand, the documentaries that have been made by the Iranians follow the same pattern, they try to capture what they think is amusing for Westerners and has a good “market”.

IPS: Recently, Bahman Ghobadi, the prominent Iranian director, released a film on Iran’s underground music titled “Nobody Knows About the Persian Cats” at the Cannes Film Festival. To what extent does this movie represent the diversity, message and depth of this music? AS: I think “underground music” of Iran has become an interesting phenomenon for both the western media and the government of Iran.

The government is creating its own version of “underground music” like it did with the opposition parties or the cinema. Whenever they see there is an interest in something from the public they try to create a “controlled” version of it, they even pay the opposition media or create fake ones to have control over any movement, now they are doing the same thing with the music.

Having said that I think we will witness even more films that will cover this issue in the future. Will they really show the nature of the underground music in Iran? I really doubt it.

IPS: Why doesn’t the Iranian government tolerate hip-hop, rock and hard rock musicians and singers? Is it a matter of form or content? AS: The Iranian government’s attitude towards social demands follows a pattern. They will eventually give in and I am sure we will see rock concerts in Iran. But they will make the process as slow as possible and with watered-down, harmless lyrics. Unlike what a lot of people think, they are not very persistent on their cultural agenda, they can tolerate anything, as long as they don’t lose their political power, but because of their rigid nature they make the process as painful and as slow as possible.

IPS: Has anybody gotten in trouble for following this path? As a musician or a fan? AS: A lot of musicians have been ordered to stop playing music. A lot of bands were taken in and had to sign a piece of paper indicating that they will never play again. And in the past, a lot of people have had problems for listening to western music.

Kiosk was formed in Iran as a side project to my other band. Then, because of the restrictions imposed by the government on the lyrics, we decided not to even bother asking for permits and approvals needed for releasing an album. We recorded the entire album without any hope of ever publishing it.

Excerpt: