Organizers of a rowing competition for the disabled in Italy apparently didn't take into consideration the possibility that the Israeli contender, Moran Samuel, would win the competition, and they forgot to bring the CD with the national anthem, "Hatikvah," to the awards ceremony. What did Moran do? She took the microphone from the master of ceremonies and began singing the national anthem on her own. Quite moving!
http://www.mideasttruth.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10911
Click here for the video clip
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
OBAMA ADMIN. SECRETLY RELEASING TALIBAN FIGHTERS
U.S. SECRETLY RELEASING TALIBAN FIGHTERS
by NEWS CORE May 8, 2012
KABUL - The US has been secretly releasing captured Taliban fighters from a detention center in Afghanistan in a bid to strengthen its hand in peace talks with the insurgent group, the Washington Post reported Monday.
The "strategic release" program of high-level detainees is designed to give the US a bargaining chip in some areas of Afghanistan where international forces struggle to exercise control, the report said.
Under the risky program, the hardened fighters must promise to give up violence and are threatened with further punishment, but there is nothing to stop them resuming attacks against Afghan and American troops.
"Everyone agrees they are guilty of what they have done and should remain in detention. Everyone agrees that these are bad guys. But the benefits outweigh the risks," a US official told the Post.
In a visit to Afghanistan last week, President Barack Obama confirmed that the US was pursuing peace talks with the Taliban.
"We have made it clear that they [the Taliban] can be a part of this future if they break with Al Qaeda, renounce violence, and abide by Afghan laws. Many members of the Taliban -- from foot soldiers to leaders -- have indicated an interest in reconciliation. A path to peace is now set before them," Obama said.
A stumbling block in the US-Taliban peace talks has been the US refusal to approve the transfer of five Taliban detainees from Guantanamo Bay to Qatar, which the Taliban says is necessary for negotiations to proceed.
Read more: Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/us-secretly-releasing-taliban-fighters?f=must_reads#ixzz1uI5NFZMc
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
محسن کدیور، بدون تفسیر Who is Mohsen Kadivar
محسن کدیور در این مصاحبه، روح الله خمینی را قهرمان مردم ایران، خدمتگزار کشور و رهبری میداند که به مردم ما اعتماد بنفس داد. از نظر کدیور، خمینی میتوانست در زمینه آزادیها بهتر عمل کند اما کارهای اشتباه دهه اول انقلاب تقصیر خمینی نیست زیرا گروههای تند رو شرائطی بوجود آوردند که آیت الله خمینی مجبور به خشونت شد
Open Letter to Swedish Institute of International Affairs
Hej!
Detta brev är ett protestbrev till varför utrikespolitiska institutet bjuder in lobbyister för den islamiska regimen. Vad är målet!?
Det är många aktiva iranier från olika grupperingar som kämpar för mänskliga rättigheter och ett sekulärt och demokratiskt system genom förändring av den islamiska regimen som står bakom detta brev.
Vi hoppas att detta brev kommer till rätta personer.
Detta brev skickas till
Anna Jardfelt (Utrikespolitiska institutet )
Sofia Arkelsten och Urban Ahlin (Riksdagens utrikes utskott)
Carl Bildt (Utrikesminister)
P 1
SVT
D.N
Svenska dagbladet
Aftonbladet
Expressen
Med vänliga hälsningar
Iranier för mänskliga rättigheter och ett sekulärt och demokratiskt system i Iran
Firouzeh Ghaffarpour
United Iranians For Regime Change in Iran, Free Election and Secular Democracy
__________________________________________________________________________
May 5, 2012
Ms. Anna Jardfelt
Director of the Swedish Institute of International Affairs
Direktör för Utrikespolitiska institutet
Utrikespolitiska Institutet
Drottning Kristinas Vägen 37
Stockholm
Dear Ms. Anna Jardfelt,
We, the undersigned, express grave concern regarding the Utrikespolitiska institutet 's hosting of Trita Parsi to speak on “ USA and Iran: Angerepp, Avskrächning eller avspänning?” scheduled for May 9th, 2012. While we appreciate the institute's efforts to promote greater understanding of world issues by organizing various events, the Iranian- American community, and the Iranian Swedish community considers Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) an intellectually dishonest regime apologist and lobbyist that serves as the mouth piece for the mullahs. Parsi contributes to the regime’s agenda and serves the interests of those in power in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
For over three decades, various governments have used dialogue and diplomacy with the regime in Iran to no avail, starting with the administration of President Jimmy Carter, who did everything possible to assure their new regime of American friendship and in the process failed miserably. Since that time, the more world governments have tried to engage the regime’s leaders, the more belligerent, emboldened and abusive the regime has become. This has not been limited to their communication with the outside world but extended to the repression of their own people, as documented by Amnesty International.
Much of what drives Iranian politics and decision-making is a hatred of the West. The Iranian regime demonizes the U.S. as the ‘Great Satan’ repeatedly and intentionally and arrogantly denies the Holocaust, pledges to wipe Israel off the map and threatens to overthrow or dominate America’s Persian Gulf allies. Moreover, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stated his belief that the mission of Iran is to prepare the way for the imminent return of the ‘Hidden Imam’, whose reemergence will be preceded by a period of chaos and war. Nuclear weapons would give Iran the ability to realize this radical vision.
The Islamic regime’s apologists such as NIAC deceptively portray the Islamic government in Iran as a pragmatic and rational entity. They suggest that dialogue and diplomacy are the best way to deal with Iran. They falsely claim that sanctions are not effective and hurt ordinary Iranian people. Recently, primarily due to opposition leaders Mousavi's and Karoubi’s arrests, these apologists are attempting to shift the focus from Iran’s weapons program to what they have decided is more acceptable human rights issues. They have blamed the regime’s blatant human rights violations, which have recently overtaken China's as the worst in the world, on U.S. pressure and ridiculously claimed that recognition of the IRI would improve the human rights violations in Iran.
Lobbyists such as Trita Parsi who use the pretext of easing the sanctions to help ordinary Iranians, are deceitful, and are meant to intentionally mislead the public, Iranians-Americans , Iranian Swedish , and government officials. NIAC’s recent strategy of advocating human rights is merely a cover to hide its true intention which is carried out behind the scenes to ease sanctions so that big corporations can sell nuclear technology, military gear, sophisticated surveillance technologies, electronic hardware and software applications to a criminal regime which uses them to spy on, arrest, torture, rape and kill its own citizens.
Everyday many Iranian citizens are being hanged in public squares in cities, hundreds and thousands political prisoners, labors representatives, women activists, teachers, students, university professors , lawyers, and scores of bloggers are under pressure, harassment and in danger of losing their lives. There in not one single social group who is safe under this brutal Regime. Trita Parsi is a Lobbyist for such Regime: a criminal regime with highest record of discrimination and persecution on basis of gender, ethnicity, religion and belief.
Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett describeParsi's recent book "A Single Roll of the Dice - Obama's Diplomacy with Iran" as "blending distorted treatments of key issues and episodes into a deeply misleading account."
Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, providing funding, training, arms, and political support to terrorist groups in the Middle East and worldwide such as Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban, and Al-Qaeda. Iranian-backed terrorist groups have killed U.S. and NATO troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The recently uncovered Iranian plot to kill the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. on American soil fits squarely into an overall pattern of warlike escalation on the part of Iran and proves that Iran will only become bolder as it becomes more powerful.
The Center for Security Policy cites NIAC as a lobby organization for the government of Iran. As a result of a lawsuit, numerous NIAC documents have surfaced that show NIAC lobbies for policies favorable to the regime in Iran. Law enforcement experts, who have reviewed some of NIAC’s emails, memos and board minutes, believe that NIAC has operated as an undeclared lobby and may be guilty of violating tax laws, the Foreign Agents Registration Act and lobbying disclosure laws.
Court documents paint a very disturbing picture of Trita Parsi. They range from defrauding the federal government, lying to members of Congress, arranging secret meetings between the US and a criminal regime, to recent revelation that Trita Parsi paid Anne Singleton to provide false testimony to U.S. Congress. NIAC has lied about its membership numbers. It claimed once that it had 33,000 members and now court documents reveal that it has less than 500 members and is not even willing to disclose them. We think the number to be even lower. As a 501c3 tax exempt organization, NIAC refuses to disclose its audit and tax reports. Many credible news organizations have expressed concern about NIAC's activities.
Trita Parsi is routinely shunned from the Iranian-American community and does not even answer questions raised by the Iranian-Americans, a constituency he purports to represent. Trita Parsi falsely purports to represent Iranian-American interests in the United States. With less than 500 members, Mr. Parsi shamelessly asserts that it represents the majority of the nearly one million Iranian-Americans in the USA. In our view, NIAC and Parsi will eventually be subjected to criminal prosecution and organizations and individuals that collaborate with NIAC will come to regret their affiliations with them. In addition, NIAC has received millions of dollars in grants-including, outrageously, from the Congressionally-funded National Endowment for Democracy, because of its false claims, which could actually have been allocated to further the interests of real Iranian-American human rights and other important causes in the U.S. and around the world. Instead this money has effectively been allocated to furthering the aims of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Currently, the Middle East is in crisis. Pro-democracy forces are springing up daily to demand basic human rights and better living conditions. It is about time that important organizations such as yours distance themselves from the regime lobbyists such as Trita Parsi and publicly align themselves with the democracy-seeking people who have suffered brutally at the hands of dictators and tyrants.
As Iranians we do not wish Trita Parsi to extend his lobbying and false claims to Sweden and start a new network in Europe to continue lobbying for Islamic Republic of Iran. The Institute should be aware of true nature of Trita Parsi as an advocate for the Islamic Republic and we, the undersigned demand an explanation as to why Trita Parsi has been invited by such a respectful institution such yours? Trita Parsi does not represent the majority views of the Iranian Swedish and American community and there are many Iranians experts, researchers and political leaders who can provide a less biased and more accurate assessment of current issues related to Iran and the West.
The real help to Iranians struggle for freedom, equality , human rights and a secular democracy is a real solidarity with people who challenge this dangerous regime for us, for you and for everyone.
We respectfully request that you cancel this speaking event and dis-invite Mr. Parsi, the Iranian mullahs’ apologist, from this speaking event and other similar events in the future and avoid potential embarrassment.
Sincerely,
United Iranians for Regime Change and Free Election for a Secular Democracy
Firouzeh Ghaffarpour- Human rights. Pro Democracy advocate, TV Host - firouchka@yahoo.com
Dr. Arash Irandoost, Founder Pro Democracy Movement of Iran- www.pdmi.org
Dr Gill Gillespie, Director, Iran Information Project, UK
Walton K Martin II , Director, Iran Information Project , USA
Cina Kianpour
Iraj Mesdeaghi ( Former political prisoner) political analyst and pro democracy advocate
Vahid Aban - pro democracy and human right advocate
Amir Sepehr - Webloggist, historian, righter
Eshrat Salimi - pro democracy activist
Poorang Soleiman- University student pro democracy and human right activist
Omid Dana - Former political prisoner during the 2009 green movement
Dr. Roya Araghi -( Represantative of Ayatollah Broojerdi who has been in prison for the past 8 years for fighting for Secularism)
Viktoria Azad- Human right and Women rights activist
Siavash Azari – TV Host, Political analyst
Shohreh Nazar – TV Host, Political analyst
Dr. Hassan Kianzad, Paniranist Party, pro secular democracy and human rights
Mahin Arjomand, pro secular democracy and human rights
Farahnaz Emadi - Women Rights Activist
Mahavash Alasoedi - (My two sons were executed ) women right and human right activist
Bijan Fathi- Human right activist (father of two sons who were executed by the IRI)
Maryam Moazen-Zadeh - Women right Activist
Lohrasb Zeinali - Shahsavan Tribe
Homayoun Naderifar - Azarbaijan Movement for Democracy and integrity of Iran
Nader Ghahremanloo- Afshar Tribe
Amir Hossein Doshoki – Balouchestan Tribe
Jonbesh Azarbayjan baraye Democracy va Yek Parchegi Iran United Iranian Women for Democracy United Pro Democracy Movement
Cyrus the Great Movement
Parchamdaran Enghelab Mashrootiat
Hamid Vahdati
Heidar Bidokht- pro Democracy activist
Reza Sheilsar- Pro Democracy activist
Kazem Afzali- Pro democracy activist
Shokouh Ershadi
Davod Ali Nouri
Ali Nouri
Linda Lundmark
Katya Nouri
Shiva Ershadi
Anita Moradi
Saghar Behnia
Rozita Moneyron
Sharareh shirvani
shahram behnia
Arezzo MacL’eod
Mojgan Choubdaran
Mehdi Azari
Amir Hossein
Mehdi Aryayee
Iraj Shahvelayati, Nahade Mardomi. Pro democracy and human rights
Amin Movahedi, Pro democracy and human rights
Abbas Khorsandi, Pro democracy and human rights
Siavash Abghari, Professor of Finance, Human rights and pro Democracy activist
Shahla Abghari, Professor of Microbiology, Human rights and pro Democracy activist
Dr. Shahla Momtaz,Women Rights, , Human rights and pro Democracy activist
Kurosh Kalhor, Human rights and pro Democracy activist
Mehran Maki, Web blogger , Pro democracy and Human rights advocate
Cina Dabestani, Pro Democracy advocate
Nasi Peyghambarian, Human Rights Activist
Amir Ghiri, Human rights and pro Democracy activist
Said Mir, Human rights and pro Democracy activist
Hami Raha, Human rights and pro Democracy activist
Monir Yousefzadeh , Human rights and pro Democracy activist
Faramarz Taheri, Human rights and pro Democracy activist
Kurosh Etemadi, Political analyst, writer, pro Democracy and human rights
Aida Raha
Mohammad Reza Hamedian
Shahram Motejaded
Mitra Kahrom
Ali Azari
Shirzad Safari
Ali Yousefi
Reza Somand
Samieh Ronaghi
Darioush Irani
Rahim Sandary
Rebwar Ebrahimzadian
Parvin Shaeri
Rasoul Sharifi
Bahareh Pourfard
Arezo Hasannejad
Niknam Porabolghasem
Ahmad Ali Aghaei
Sandra Mira
Said Mira
Hassan Yousefzadeh
Amir Shahrestani
Sirus Malakooti, Pro Democracy and Human Rights advocate
Hassan Bagheri, Student
Raheleh Hosseinpanah, Student
Rahim Bagherpor, Student
Nima Golestani, Student
Hoshang Habib
Hafez Mohamadi
Lida Hassanpour
Ramzan Hoseini
Ramin Jahanzadeh, Student
Ramin Hasibi, Political activist
Behrooz Mardani, Student
Negin Abbasi, Student
Dr. Houshang Motaghi, Teacher
Vida Hoshman, Student
Laleh Vidapor, Student
Homan Laheji, Student
Mahbobeh Najafi, Student
Fred Saberi
Hamid Ghazamfari
Hamid Ghazanfari, pro secular democracy and human rights
Morteza Moussavi, pro secular democracy and human rights
Hamid Rashmi, pro secular democracy and human rights
Seyed Ezatollah Rashmi, pro secular democracy and human rights
Saeid Shabani
Shohreh Parsinejad
Parastu Amiri
Afshiun Azizian
Max Rafii
Mobarez Nestooh
Vahik Baghomian
Poorang Rashvand
Azadeh Parsi Andre
Mehrdad Medianfar
Masoud Hosseinzadeh
Saeed Samiee
Ayyar Mansouri
Jahan Pakzad Libra freedom
Radmehr Malekpour
Sima Dini
Ramin S Ramin
Fleur Masoudy
Nader Aminian
Fereshteh Khoshal
Farhad Kohandani
Azita Ghobadi
Saied Shemirani, United Persian Organization- www.iranbozorg.com
Nazanin Aslani, Pro democracy Activist
Amir Khosrow Shiebany,Pro Democracy and Human Rights Advocate
Roxanne Gandji, Political Analyst, Prodemocracy advocate
And 1,478 signatures, due to the long list we keep the names in our records. http://www.causes.com/causes/632372-united-against-niac
May 5, 2012
Ms. Anna Jardfelt
Director of the Swedish Institute of International Affairs
Direktör för Utrikespolitiska institutet
Utrikespolitiska Institutet
Drottning Kristinas Vägen 37
Stockholm
Dear Ms. Anna Jardfelt,
We, the undersigned, express grave concern regarding the Utrikespolitiska institutet 's hosting of Trita Parsi to speak on “ USA and Iran: Angerepp, Avskrächning eller avspänning?” scheduled for May 9th, 2012. While we appreciate the institute's efforts to promote greater understanding of world issues by organizing various events, the Iranian- American community, and the Iranian Swedish community considers Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) an intellectually dishonest regime apologist and lobbyist that serves as the mouth piece for the mullahs. Parsi contributes to the regime’s agenda and serves the interests of those in power in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Much of what drives Iranian politics and decision-making is a hatred of the West. The Iranian regime demonizes the U.S. as the ‘Great Satan’ repeatedly and intentionally and arrogantly denies the Holocaust, pledges to wipe Israel off the map and threatens to overthrow or dominate America’s Persian Gulf allies. Moreover, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stated his belief that the mission of Iran is to prepare the way for the imminent return of the ‘Hidden Imam’, whose reemergence will be preceded by a period of chaos and war. Nuclear weapons would give Iran the ability to realize this radical vision.
The Islamic regime’s apologists such as NIAC deceptively portray the Islamic government in Iran as a pragmatic and rational entity. They suggest that dialogue and diplomacy are the best way to deal with Iran. They falsely claim that sanctions are not effective and hurt ordinary Iranian people. Recently, primarily due to opposition leaders Mousavi's and Karoubi’s arrests, these apologists are attempting to shift the focus from Iran’s weapons program to what they have decided is more acceptable human rights issues. They have blamed the regime’s blatant human rights violations, which have recently overtaken China's as the worst in the world, on U.S. pressure and ridiculously claimed that recognition of the IRI would improve the human rights violations in Iran.
Lobbyists such as Trita Parsi who use the pretext of easing the sanctions to help ordinary Iranians, are deceitful, and are meant to intentionally mislead the public, Iranians-Americans , Iranian Swedish , and government officials. NIAC’s recent strategy of advocating human rights is merely a cover to hide its true intention which is carried out behind the scenes to ease sanctions so that big corporations can sell nuclear technology, military gear, sophisticated surveillance technologies, electronic hardware and software applications to a criminal regime which uses them to spy on, arrest, torture, rape and kill its own citizens.
Everyday many Iranian citizens are being hanged in public squares in cities, hundreds and thousands political prisoners, labors representatives, women activists, teachers, students, university professors , lawyers, and scores of bloggers are under pressure, harassment and in danger of losing their lives. There in not one single social group who is safe under this brutal Regime. Trita Parsi is a Lobbyist for such Regime: a criminal regime with highest record of discrimination and persecution on basis of gender, ethnicity, religion and belief.
Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett describeParsi's recent book "A Single Roll of the Dice - Obama's Diplomacy with Iran" as "blending distorted treatments of key issues and episodes into a deeply misleading account."
Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, providing funding, training, arms, and political support to terrorist groups in the Middle East and worldwide such as Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban, and Al-Qaeda. Iranian-backed terrorist groups have killed U.S. and NATO troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The recently uncovered Iranian plot to kill the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. on American soil fits squarely into an overall pattern of warlike escalation on the part of Iran and proves that Iran will only become bolder as it becomes more powerful.
The Center for Security Policy cites NIAC as a lobby organization for the government of Iran. As a result of a lawsuit, numerous NIAC documents have surfaced that show NIAC lobbies for policies favorable to the regime in Iran. Law enforcement experts, who have reviewed some of NIAC’s emails, memos and board minutes, believe that NIAC has operated as an undeclared lobby and may be guilty of violating tax laws, the Foreign Agents Registration Act and lobbying disclosure laws.
Trita Parsi is routinely shunned from the Iranian-American community and does not even answer questions raised by the Iranian-Americans, a constituency he purports to represent. Trita Parsi falsely purports to represent Iranian-American interests in the United States. With less than 500 members, Mr. Parsi shamelessly asserts that it represents the majority of the nearly one million Iranian-Americans in the USA. In our view, NIAC and Parsi will eventually be subjected to criminal prosecution and organizations and individuals that collaborate with NIAC will come to regret their affiliations with them. In addition, NIAC has received millions of dollars in grants-including, outrageously, from the Congressionally-funded National Endowment for Democracy, because of its false claims, which could actually have been allocated to further the interests of real Iranian-American human rights and other important causes in the U.S. and around the world. Instead this money has effectively been allocated to furthering the aims of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Currently, the Middle East is in crisis. Pro-democracy forces are springing up daily to demand basic human rights and better living conditions. It is about time that important organizations such as yours distance themselves from the regime lobbyists such as Trita Parsi and publicly align themselves with the democracy-seeking people who have suffered brutally at the hands of dictators and tyrants.
As Iranians we do not wish Trita Parsi to extend his lobbying and false claims to Sweden and start a new network in Europe to continue lobbying for Islamic Republic of Iran. The Institute should be aware of true nature of Trita Parsi as an advocate for the Islamic Republic and we, the undersigned demand an explanation as to why Trita Parsi has been invited by such a respectful institution such yours? Trita Parsi does not represent the majority views of the Iranian Swedish and American community and there are many Iranians experts, researchers and political leaders who can provide a less biased and more accurate assessment of current issues related to Iran and the West.
The real help to Iranians struggle for freedom, equality , human rights and a secular democracy is a real solidarity with people who challenge this dangerous regime for us, for you and for everyone.
We respectfully request that you cancel this speaking event and dis-invite Mr. Parsi, the Iranian mullahs’ apologist, from this speaking event and other similar events in the future and avoid potential embarrassment.
Sincerely,
United Iranians for Regime Change and Free Election for a Secular Democracy
Firouzeh Ghaffarpour- Human rights. Pro Democracy advocate, TV Host - firouchka@yahoo.com
Dr. Arash Irandoost, Founder Pro Democracy Movement of Iran- www.pdmi.org
Dr Gill Gillespie, Director, Iran Information Project, UK
Walton K Martin II , Director, Iran Information Project , USA
Cina Kianpour
Iraj Mesdeaghi ( Former political prisoner) political analyst and pro democracy advocate
Vahid Aban - pro democracy and human right advocate
Amir Sepehr - Webloggist, historian, righter
Eshrat Salimi - pro democracy activist
Poorang Soleiman- University student pro democracy and human right activist
Omid Dana - Former political prisoner during the 2009 green movement
Dr. Roya Araghi -( Represantative of Ayatollah Broojerdi who has been in prison for the past 8 years for fighting for Secularism)
Viktoria Azad- Human right and Women rights activist
Siavash Azari – TV Host, Political analyst
Shohreh Nazar – TV Host, Political analyst
Dr. Hassan Kianzad, Paniranist Party, pro secular democracy and human rights
Mahin Arjomand, pro secular democracy and human rights
Farahnaz Emadi - Women Rights Activist
Mahavash Alasoedi - (My two sons were executed ) women right and human right activist
Bijan Fathi- Human right activist (father of two sons who were executed by the IRI)
Maryam Moazen-Zadeh - Women right Activist
Lohrasb Zeinali - Shahsavan Tribe
Homayoun Naderifar - Azarbaijan Movement for Democracy and integrity of Iran
Nader Ghahremanloo- Afshar Tribe
Amir Hossein Doshoki – Balouchestan Tribe
Jonbesh Azarbayjan baraye Democracy va Yek Parchegi Iran United Iranian Women for Democracy United Pro Democracy Movement
Cyrus the Great Movement
Parchamdaran Enghelab Mashrootiat
Hamid Vahdati
Heidar Bidokht- pro Democracy activist
Reza Sheilsar- Pro Democracy activist
Kazem Afzali- Pro democracy activist
Shokouh Ershadi
Davod Ali Nouri
Ali Nouri
Linda Lundmark
Katya Nouri
Shiva Ershadi
Anita Moradi
Saghar Behnia
Rozita Moneyron
Sharareh shirvani
shahram behnia
Arezzo MacL’eod
Mojgan Choubdaran
Mehdi Azari
Amir Hossein
Mehdi Aryayee
Iraj Shahvelayati, Nahade Mardomi. Pro democracy and human rights
Amin Movahedi, Pro democracy and human rights
Abbas Khorsandi, Pro democracy and human rights
Siavash Abghari, Professor of Finance, Human rights and pro Democracy activist
Shahla Abghari, Professor of Microbiology, Human rights and pro Democracy activist
Dr. Shahla Momtaz,Women Rights, , Human rights and pro Democracy activist
Kurosh Kalhor, Human rights and pro Democracy activist
Mehran Maki, Web blogger , Pro democracy and Human rights advocate
Cina Dabestani, Pro Democracy advocate
Nasi Peyghambarian, Human Rights Activist
Amir Ghiri, Human rights and pro Democracy activist
Said Mir, Human rights and pro Democracy activist
Hami Raha, Human rights and pro Democracy activist
Monir Yousefzadeh , Human rights and pro Democracy activist
Faramarz Taheri, Human rights and pro Democracy activist
Kurosh Etemadi, Political analyst, writer, pro Democracy and human rights
Aida Raha
Mohammad Reza Hamedian
Shahram Motejaded
Mitra Kahrom
Ali Azari
Shirzad Safari
Ali Yousefi
Reza Somand
Samieh Ronaghi
Darioush Irani
Rahim Sandary
Rebwar Ebrahimzadian
Parvin Shaeri
Rasoul Sharifi
Bahareh Pourfard
Arezo Hasannejad
Niknam Porabolghasem
Ahmad Ali Aghaei
Sandra Mira
Said Mira
Hassan Yousefzadeh
Amir Shahrestani
Sirus Malakooti, Pro Democracy and Human Rights advocate
Hassan Bagheri, Student
Raheleh Hosseinpanah, Student
Rahim Bagherpor, Student
Nima Golestani, Student
Hoshang Habib
Hafez Mohamadi
Lida Hassanpour
Ramzan Hoseini
Ramin Jahanzadeh, Student
Ramin Hasibi, Political activist
Behrooz Mardani, Student
Negin Abbasi, Student
Dr. Houshang Motaghi, Teacher
Vida Hoshman, Student
Laleh Vidapor, Student
Homan Laheji, Student
Mahbobeh Najafi, Student
Fred Saberi
Hamid Ghazamfari
Hamid Ghazanfari, pro secular democracy and human rights
Morteza Moussavi, pro secular democracy and human rights
Hamid Rashmi, pro secular democracy and human rights
Seyed Ezatollah Rashmi, pro secular democracy and human rights
Saeid Shabani
Shohreh Parsinejad
Parastu Amiri
Afshiun Azizian
Max Rafii
Mobarez Nestooh
Vahik Baghomian
Poorang Rashvand
Azadeh Parsi Andre
Mehrdad Medianfar
Masoud Hosseinzadeh
Saeed Samiee
Ayyar Mansouri
Jahan Pakzad Libra freedom
Radmehr Malekpour
Sima Dini
Ramin S Ramin
Fleur Masoudy
Nader Aminian
Fereshteh Khoshal
Farhad Kohandani
Azita Ghobadi
Saied Shemirani, United Persian Organization- www.iranbozorg.com
Nazanin Aslani, Pro democracy Activist
Amir Khosrow Shiebany,Pro Democracy and Human Rights Advocate
Roxanne Gandji, Political Analyst, Prodemocracy advocate
And 1,478 signatures, due to the long list we keep the names in our records. http://www.causes.com/causes/632372-united-against-niac
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Gohmert: Pakistani province’s independence would create ally in Mideast
Kimberly Willingham (202) 225-3035
Jonna Fitzgerald (903) 561-6349
Gohmert: Pakistani province’s independence would create ally in Mideast
February 22, 2012 The Longview News Journal, By Glenn Evans
Washington -
Independence for an obscure province in Pakistan would be one of the best things America could leave behind when it withdraws troops next year, the congressman from Northeast Texas said Tuesday.
U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Tyler, says an independent Balochistan would be the “enemy of our enemies,” on a piece of ground through which arms now flow to the Taliban in Afghanistan.
“These people are Muslims, but they are friends. They want to be America’s friends,” Gohmert said of the Baloch people of western Pakistan. “Before 1948, they were not part of Pakistan. (Baloch annexation) gave Pakistan some mineral-rich areas as well, and at the same time the Pakistani government has been abusive of the Baloch people.”
It also wouldn’t hurt America’s strategic interests in the region to have a grateful friend on Iran’s eastern border, he added.
Gohmert said he is not advocating a new war front. He said he merely wants discussions to begin about helping the province regain its self-determination.
“I’m for pulling out (of Afghanistan),” he added. “I just want to empower the enemy of the Taliban before we go. ... I want to help people who want to do right and want to be our friends and help us. And I don’t want to help those that want to hurt us — it’s just that simple.”
Gohmert is a co-signer on a House Resolution in support of self-determination for the province on Pakistan’s border with Iran. The resolution’s author, House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., is a Gohmert ally along with fellow co-sponsor, U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa.
The trio met in January with Baloch leaders in Germany, Gohmert said.
“They were well aware of the constant flow of the supplies and (improvised explosive devices) and arms coming to the Taliban through the Baloch area,” he said.
The three met separately with leaders of Afghanistan’s so-called Northern Alliance, the tribal chiefs who helped American forces sweep the Taliban from Afghan power in the initial part of the war immediately following 9/11.
Those leaders reported to the congressional delegation the Taliban is putting out word it will fully retake the country when Americans leave at the end of 2013. They said the Taliban demanded any groups “that have not been faithful” to them ask their forgiveness and beg for safety.
Gohmert also said the Baloch leaders disputed official American claims the Taliban is weakening in Afghanistan. As evidence, he pointed to the flow of weapons feeding the enemy through the Baloch province in Pakistan.
“So, let’s empower the enemy of our enemy,” Gohmert said the three lawmakers concluded. “That’s (the enemy) of the Northern Alliance and of the Taliban across the border in Balochistan. They are our friends. They want to be our friends.”
Gohmert said America first armed the Northern Alliance, then took the weapons away and turned support toward the centralized government that forced its will on the alliance tribes.
“There is one president (of Afghanistan) — he appoints the governors, he appoints the mayors, he appoints the police,” Gohmert said. “And the Northern Alliance leaders said, like two things to me: ‘You’re going to desert us, and the Taliban is going to be in charge and kill us. So, give us our arms back and let us elect our own leaders.’ ”
Rohrabacher produced his resolution supporting Baloch independence following a foreign relations subcommittee hearing two weeks ago regarding the province. Leaders of Baloch attended, he said.
“Man, it was packed,” Gohmert said, adding the provincial leaders praised his efforts. “They keep calling me, ‘The Hero of Baloch.’ I’m just an East Texas guy trying to think about the most effective way to not empower your enemy when you leave. They’d be great allies to have. They love America.”
U.S. Military Bows to Islam ... Again
U.S. Military Bows to Islam ... Again
by Clare M. Lopez
Radicalislam.org
May 2, 2012
http://lopez.pundicity.com/11637/us-military-bows-to-islam
The U.S. military is in a full-fledged retreat that is marked by such desperation that it qualifies as a rout. No, not the retreat from Afghanistan, where Afghans in uniform are attacking, killing, and wounding American and other coalition troops with increasing frequency as the grip of Islamic Law tightens like a noose around the country.
Not the one in Iraq, either, where an Iranian puppet regime now seems powerless to stop the wave of al-Qa'eda suicide bombings and sits waiting for the next civil war to explode anew. No, the most ignominious retreat that the U.S. military currently is involved in is the one which has top Pentagon officials ordering Defense Department schools to purge all training content that would actually inform military students about the enemy threat doctrine of Islamic jihad and its shariah origins. The stated objective of the dhimmified behavior is to ensure that American warriors never get the idea that the U.S. is at war with Islam—or apparently any realization that Islam is at war with the U.S. either.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin E. Dempsey, has ordered all Department of Defense (DoD) curricula to be reviewed for anything "disrespectful of the Islamic religion." Pentagon spokesman Captain John Kirby added helpfully (if not especially grammatically) that the U.S. is "at war with terrorism, specifically with Al Qaeda, who has a warped view of the Islamic faith."
The surrender statements followed complaints about "anti-Islam" themes which allegedly had been presented in a class called "Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism," taught at the Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk, VA.
In effect, the scrubbing of truthful -- if difficult -- material about what is really contained in Islamic doctrine, law and scripture that so motivates the forces of Islamic jihad will bring the U.S. military into compliance with Islamic law on slander. It also brings DoD into line with the capitulation-to-Islam campaigns already underway at the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice and State as well as throughout the Intelligence Community.
Under Islamic law (sharia), "slander" means "to mention anything concerning a person [a Muslim] that he would dislike." The sayings of the Muslim prophet Muhammad (the hadiths) also discuss slander:
"Do you know what slander is?" They answered, "Allah and His Messenger know best." He said, "It is to mention of your brother that which he would dislike." Someone asked, "What if he is as I say?" And he replied, "If he is as you say, you have slandered him, and if not, you have calumniated him." – Sunan Abu Dawud
Whether these top-ranking DoD officials realize it or not, their actions in purging military training courses of truthful material that a Muslim "would dislike" (because it reflects badly on Islam), is, in fact, tantamount to submission to Islamic law at a time when enemy forces these troops must confront on the field of battle fight precisely in the name of that law (sharia).
Not content to confine its capitulation campaign to the mid-level officer ranks, DoD also aims to set military mindsets straight about Islam early on. West Point cadets continue to participate in what apparently has become a staple of their academy experience: a visit to the Islamic Center of New Jersey, a mosque with a long list of questionable associations and statements by members of its congregation and leadership.
The April 2012 visit by some 23 West Point cadets in U.S. military uniforms to this mosque featured gender separation of the men and women students as well as photographing the women in head scarves, for prominent placement in leading American newspapers. The one-time Imam of this Islamic Center, Sayyid Askar, proclaimed in 2000 that "jihad is an absolute obligation upon those whose land has been occupied."
And finally, just to make sure that the ranks of the U.S. military better reflect the ethnic diversity not just of the USA, but of places where they may eventually serve, the U.S. Navy SEALs and SWCCs (Special Warfare Combatant-Craft Crewmen) are now recruiting at swim programs … in Dearborn, Michigan. That's right: The U.S. Navy SEALs are looking for young recruits in neighborhoods that are home to large concentrations of Arab-Americans, some of whom hail from family backgrounds in southern Lebanon.
Michael Mukasey: Obama and the bin Laden Bragging Rights
By MICHAEL B. MUKASEY
The first anniversary of the SEAL Team 6 operation that killed Osama bin Laden brings the news that President Obama plans during the coming campaign to exploit the bragging rights to the achievement. That plan invites scrutiny that is unlikely to benefit him.
Consider the events surrounding the operation. A recently disclosed memorandum from then-CIA Director Leon Panetta shows that the president's celebrated derring-do in authorizing the operation included a responsibility-escape clause: "The timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven's hands. The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the President. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the President for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden and if he is not there, to get out."
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Iran's Phantom Nuclear Option
Iran's Phantom Nuclear Option
by DR. AVIGDOR HASELKORN May 1, 2012
If one were to believe the leaks coming from Washington, the first round of the nuclear talks with Iran have gone so well that all that is left are essentially the sides' signatures on the dotted lines. For instance, David Ignatius, a frequent recipient of the Obama administration's information giveaways, wrote in his Washington Post column on April 19,"The mechanics of an eventual settlement are clear enough after [the] first session in Istanbul: Iran would agree to stop enriching uranium to the 20 percent level, and would halt work at [the Fordow] underground facility. built for higher enrichment. Iran would export its stockpile of highly enriched uranium for final processing to 20 percent, for use in medical isotopes."
Ignatius went so far as to claim that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "played his expected role in this [deal making] choreography," when he criticized the negotiators for agreeing to another round of talks on May 23 in Baghdad without getting concessions in return.
The leaks aim to bolster Mr. Obama's reelection chances by helping depress gas prices in the U.S. There, prices at the pump have been climbing ever since news broke out that Israel was ready to launch a preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear installations. In contrast, the rosy reports suggest that such action, if it were ever planned, is now further off given that Tehran is amenable to a nuclear deal. As well, the leaks intended to address Israel. The message is that there is no need to rush to a military solution since diplomacy is about to put the Iranian nuclear issue to rest. In short, Washington is acting to shore up confidence at home and ease nuclear tensions abroad so as to facilitate the American economy's burgeoning recovery crucial to Mr. Obama's victory in November.
However given the political motivations of the leaks it is naturally tempting to dismiss the bright predictions as "premature" if not "misleading." A decade of nuclear negotiations has demonstrated the mullahs were experts in prevarications, delays, and deception. Even when understandings were reached with Tehran, like in 2005 and again in October 2009, they soon collapsed apparently because of Iranian domestic politics.
Yet, more worrying perhaps is the possibility that the reports of an imminent deal with Tehran are true. Given Iran's track record it could be argued that the more eager it is to reach a deal the stronger the possibility the mullahs have satisfied themselves they can get the bomb irrespective.
First, in view of the long history of concealed Iranian nuclear undertakings including, in the words of the November 2011 IAEA report, "undisclosed.activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile," and, "efforts to develop undeclared pathways for the production of nuclear material", e.g., the Natanz and Fordow uranium enrichment plants-- the existence of hidden nuclear facilities in Iran is still a very real possibility.
Second, consideration must be given to North Korea's role as a silent partner in Iran's nuclear plans. The arms relationships between Iran and North Korea are almost thirty years old motivated primarily by the sides' common ideological hatred of America, suspicions of its intentions and the fact the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) would sell virtually anything for hard currency.
However, these relations seem to have undergone a qualitative transformation in recent years to the extent that the two countries' nuclear programs could now be viewed as mirror, if not twin, projects. The most intriguing feature of this transformation is the disclosure by Pyongyang in November 2010, following its two plutonium-based nuclear tests, of a vast new facility to enrich uranium a la Iran's pathway to the bomb. According to "American officials" cited by the New York Times on November 20, 2010, the facility "did not exist in April 2009, when the last Americans and international inspectors were thrown out of the country. The speed with which it was built strongly suggests that the impoverished, isolated country [i.e. North Korea].had foreign help." Moreover, like Iran, North Korea insists the enriched uranium is intended for a yet-to-be-built experimental reactor to make electricity.
It appears, however, that the Iran-DPRK nuclear web involved Syria as well. The Syrian nuclear reactor, which Israel destroyed in September 2007, was according to multiple accounts financed by Tehran and modeled after Pyongyang's Yongbyon reactor-the source of North Korea's weapons-grade plutonium and the basis for its current nuclear arsenal. (The Syrian al-Kybar reactor was the only reactor, except for Yongbyon, of its style built since 1973.) This suggests that in addition to a uranium-based weapon, Iran was seeking a plutonium route to nuclear weapons.
Yet the interrelated expansion of Iranian-DPRK nuclear facilities is only one aspect of the two countries growing nuclear collaboration. When Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert visited Japan in February 2008, Japanese press reports cited an aide to the Prime Minister as disclosing he would tell his hosts Israel has information that North Korea had shared data with Iran from its October 2006 nuclear test.
Similarly, following North Korea's second nuclear test of May 25, 2009, the Tokyo daily Sankei Shimbun's Washington correspondent cited "an intelligence source who specializes in the situation on the Korean peninsula" as indicating a seven-person Iranian delegation had observed the nuclear test and had high level meetings in Pyongyang. The delegation reportedly was made up of officials of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization.
Close North Korean-Iranian cooperation and coordination have also been evident with regard to the development of potential nuclear delivery systems. The two countries' missile partnership has been in place since at least the early 1990s. Iran's Shahab-2 missile was essentially a copy of an earlier North Korean Scud missile, the short-range Hwasong-6. When North Korea tested its medium-range Nodong missile in May 1993, Iranian experts reportedly attended the launch. The Iranian version--the Shahab-3-- with a range of 900 km (560 miles) and a nominal payload of 1,000 kg.-- began testing in 1998 with North Koreans officials said to be observing.
In July 2006, after North Korea fired a long-range Taepodong-2 as well as several Nodong and Hwasong missiles, Bush administration officials told U.S. lawmakers that Iranian officials had witnessed the tests.
Today Iran is believed to be further ahead than the DPRK in missile technology, employing both liquid and solid fuel boosters. Iran has also succeeded in placing three satellites in orbit while all such North Korean attempts have so far ended in failure. Not surprisingly, hardware observed in a televised military parade in Pyongyang in October 2011 showed that Iranian missile improvements were now starting to show up on North Korean weapons.
Since Iran's strategic delivery systems are not even on the table in the current negotiations, any advances in nuclear warhead design and configuration achieved by the DPRK (with the possible participation of Iranian engineers) could be directly relevant to Tehran's ability to field nuclear missiles on short notice.
At the same time, if Iran is also able to tap into the output of the DPRK's spinning centrifuges it could gain access to enough highly enriched uranium to make its core obligations under the putative nuclear deal meaningless. In point of fact, whenever North Korea conducts its uranium-based nuclear test it would be as if the Iranians themselves pressed the button. This would be the case whether or not Iranian money, know-how or material were, as is likely, involved in the blast.
In military parlance the Iranian scheme amounts to pre-positioning (of armaments by an allied country) in reverse, i.e., outside the theater. And in addition to the strategic and diplomatic advantages such a posture may confer, it would also uphold the country's Supreme Leader the Ayatollah Ali Khameini's fatwa which found possession of nuclear weapons to be un-Islamic.
The bottom line is that irrespective of any agreement now under consideration, Iran would be able to retrieve its foreign-based unconventional ordnance and marry it to its in-country delivery systems so as to deploy an operational nuclear force soon after a decision had been made. Further, as long as its partnership with the DPRK endures and Pyongyang remains outside of, or simply cheats on, any international agreement to control its nuclear activities, Iran's phantom nuclear option would stay viable.
Otherwise, if as some have argued Iran's quest for nuclear weapons is defensive in nature - i.e., aimed to deter a future like that of Iraq's Saddam Hussein or Libya's Mu'ammar Qaddafi whose downfall was supposedly due to their lack of a nuclear option - why would the mullahs suddenly forsake their last resort guarantee?
Contributing Editor Dr. Avigdor Haselkorn is the author of The Continuing Storm: Iraq, Poisonous Weapons and Deterrence (Yale University Press).
Read more: Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/irans-phantom-nuclear-option?f=must_reads#ixzz1tePwW6Bp
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
On the Ground in the Islamic Republic
On the Ground in the Islamic Republic
Laura Secor discusses her new ‘New Yorker’ dispatch from Iran
Revolution Square, Tehran, last Friday.(Atta Kenare/AFP/GettyImages)
Laura Secor, one of my favorite journalists (read this!) and in recent years one of the most important American journalists covering Iran (read this!), just published a dispatch from a recent trip to the Islamic Republic during its parliamentary elections this past winter. Carefully controlled, she nonetheless uncovered evidence of discontent, perhaps widespread, and of the allure of reformist currents under a stifling, oppressive, and deeply conservative regime. She was also briefly detained and accused of being a spy. (If you’re not a subscriber, track down a copy of this week’s New Yorker.) Currently, she is working on an intellectual history of reformist thinking in Iran. I spoke with her yesterday about Iranians’ thoughts about their government’s nuclear program and negotiations with the West, the future of the reformist movement, and more. The interview has been edited lightly for clarity.
Are you still rattled?
It certainly had me rattled for a few days. I think they were just trying to scare me. It’s an unpleasant and frustrating place to work. You’re always aware that you’re being controlled, and the people who are supposedly there to help you are there to report you. It’s always been like that. But I’d always assumed it wasn’t a dangerous place to work as a foreigner. I don’t want to take the Iranian regime lightly, because the way they treat their own citizens is appalling, particularly journalists and dual citizens. But someone like me, with an American passport and press visa and no Iranian parentage, is probably safe.
It certainly had me rattled for a few days. I think they were just trying to scare me. It’s an unpleasant and frustrating place to work. You’re always aware that you’re being controlled, and the people who are supposedly there to help you are there to report you. It’s always been like that. But I’d always assumed it wasn’t a dangerous place to work as a foreigner. I don’t want to take the Iranian regime lightly, because the way they treat their own citizens is appalling, particularly journalists and dual citizens. But someone like me, with an American passport and press visa and no Iranian parentage, is probably safe.
In 2007, before the Green Movement and fraudulent 2009 presidential election, you argued that, as “unsatisfying” as this might be, the United States should limit its material and rhetorical support for Iranian pro-democracy movements, because such support is almost sure to backfire—the reformers themselves say so. Have subsequent events and visits led you to change your mind?
We’re in a really dicey situation regarding the Iranian opposition. Particularly now, as detailed in this piece, the Iranian regime has tarred its entire opposition—even the reformists, who believe they can work within the system and who advocate incremental changes (out-and-out opposition has long been illegal). The Iranian reformists have now been dubbed “seditionists” and explicitly accused of cooperating with outside powers.
We’re in a really dicey situation regarding the Iranian opposition. Particularly now, as detailed in this piece, the Iranian regime has tarred its entire opposition—even the reformists, who believe they can work within the system and who advocate incremental changes (out-and-out opposition has long been illegal). The Iranian reformists have now been dubbed “seditionists” and explicitly accused of cooperating with outside powers.
[President] Obama really had to thread a needle at the time of the 2009 unrest, and I think there were a lot of people in Iran who were upset that he didn’t come out and make a specific political statement, but other people disagreed. He probably could’ve come out sooner and more forcefully on the issue of human rights. I think we have to make a distinction between human rights abuse and a political statement about forces on the scene. I don’t think we should be shy about making clear that human rights abuses are not tolerable. But in terms of saying, ‘We support this movement for democracy,’ I don’t see what the gain would be from that.
The counterargument, which I hear and respect, is they’re going to say the reformists are getting outside help no matter what. I don’t think we need to make it easier for them. And I think we should be following the lead of the opposition in Iran.
Though there isn’t much of this in your piece, one man says Israel should be wiped away. How representative was he?
That scene was an unusual scene. On this choreographed bus tour, I’m not purely convinced that anything around me wasn’t contrived. The other possibility is that the people who were ginned up to vote were accepting the government line that they were voting in order to show their support for the system and to show the U.S. that the Iranian people support their government. If you were voting in that election, you’re representative of that political tendency. [In the article, Secor reports that many reformists simply abstained.] I don’t take that guy as standing for lots of people. I can’t generalize. I can say that in five visits there, I haven’t found Iranians frothing at the mouth. They’re much more concerned about their own problems. A lot of people are angry at the government for putting so much emphasis on Israel and the conflict and not looking close at hand; spending money on Hezbollah instead of Iranian problems.
That scene was an unusual scene. On this choreographed bus tour, I’m not purely convinced that anything around me wasn’t contrived. The other possibility is that the people who were ginned up to vote were accepting the government line that they were voting in order to show their support for the system and to show the U.S. that the Iranian people support their government. If you were voting in that election, you’re representative of that political tendency. [In the article, Secor reports that many reformists simply abstained.] I don’t take that guy as standing for lots of people. I can’t generalize. I can say that in five visits there, I haven’t found Iranians frothing at the mouth. They’re much more concerned about their own problems. A lot of people are angry at the government for putting so much emphasis on Israel and the conflict and not looking close at hand; spending money on Hezbollah instead of Iranian problems.
You also mentioned that you visited a synagogue, as well as other houses of worship of minority faiths. Any juicy details?
Honestly? I didn’t want to talk to anyone at the synagogue. The last thing I wanted was a photo-op of the American reporter getting cozy with the local Jewish community. I stayed in the background. The situation of religious minorities in Iran is not a comfortable one.
Honestly? I didn’t want to talk to anyone at the synagogue. The last thing I wanted was a photo-op of the American reporter getting cozy with the local Jewish community. I stayed in the background. The situation of religious minorities in Iran is not a comfortable one.
What was your sense of the Iranian economy compared to last time?
The economy’s in bad shape. The big question is why, because it’s been in bad shape before. The last time I was there was in 2008 and that was also a bad moment, with inflation close to 30 percent—I think that’s where it is now. There was a period in between when things stabilized.
The economy’s in bad shape. The big question is why, because it’s been in bad shape before. The last time I was there was in 2008 and that was also a bad moment, with inflation close to 30 percent—I think that’s where it is now. There was a period in between when things stabilized.
Vegetables are up 146 percent over last year. Rice is also up.
There is some confusion because some subsidies were removed. An economist explained to me that when they removed the subsidies, some of the prices were just set at a higher price. In 2008 when I was there, it was one of the worst inflationary economies in the world, and I think they’re getting back toward that now.
The question that I came in with that wasn’t adequately answered for me is, to what extent does this have to do with the sanctions? The new sanctions regime is quite harsh and, as the White House explained to me, it’s not the kind of thing that was applied to Iraq, where Iraq could live with it for five years. This was supposed to be quite fast-acting and severe. I think the bulk of it hasn’t been fully enforced. And there’s a delay, because as one person explained to me Iranians have been importing goods for a long time and so there’s a lag. My suspicion is that although the economic situation was difficult and volatile while I was there, that was due to the usual panoply of problems.
They’re bracing to be hit. And I think that they’re really worried, and I think they’re caught in a bind over how to spin the situation. When I was there [in late February and early March], the policy was obfuscation. They hadn’t issued figures on household goods in over a year. About two weeks ago, the Central Bank started to release numbers. They seem to have made a decision. Is that to say, ‘We’re going to do something about it?’ Is it to blame the international community?
You often hear that even those who oppose the regime are in favor of the nuclear program. Is that true?
I feel like that is frequently cited and not well proven. We don’t have reliable opinion polling from Iran, and anyone who claims they do—it’s wishful thinking. I can name all the ways it’s impossible to do opinion polling in Iran. Plus the nuclear program is a red line—you know you’re in trouble if you say the wrong thing on that issue. That doesn’t mean people feel they don’t have a natural right to peaceful nuclear energy or any kind they want, but it doesn’t mean that they do.
I feel like that is frequently cited and not well proven. We don’t have reliable opinion polling from Iran, and anyone who claims they do—it’s wishful thinking. I can name all the ways it’s impossible to do opinion polling in Iran. Plus the nuclear program is a red line—you know you’re in trouble if you say the wrong thing on that issue. That doesn’t mean people feel they don’t have a natural right to peaceful nuclear energy or any kind they want, but it doesn’t mean that they do.
Would ordinary Iranians be willing to accept that their government made a deal with the West that compromised enrichment up to 20 percent? My sense is people would feel very happy to to come into the fold in exchange. My guess is the Iranian government has some wiggle room on this issue. A deal would probably be five percent enrichment, and I think there are ways for the Iranian regime to sell that at home (and ways for Washington to sell that here!).
What do the societal divisions you describe mean for the future?
In the long term, I have to be optimistic for Iran, because there is social momentum.
In the long term, I have to be optimistic for Iran, because there is social momentum.
A memory for a real society?
It’s not a memory. It’s still there. It’s an incredibly diverse, sophisticated, refined place. It has a poltical and intellectual culture that has produced some serious thinking about liberalism and religion and democracy.
It’s not a memory. It’s still there. It’s an incredibly diverse, sophisticated, refined place. It has a poltical and intellectual culture that has produced some serious thinking about liberalism and religion and democracy.
Mousavi [the 2009 presidential candidate who is a leading reformist] has started essentially a book club, which has potentially subtle messages. The first one was Notes from a Kidnapping, by Gabriel García Márquez, which is about Columbian drug gangs. The latest recommendation is Stefan Zweig’s The Right to Hersey: Castello Against Calvin.* These people are really serious. In the ‘90s, there was a revival of Popper, Hobbes, Habermas. There’s a really interesting intellectual movement in that country. Those people who were the reformists have a lot of really interesting ideas behind them bringing things together.
In terms of people who are actually left in power, there are no moderates. This is the rump of that political spectrum. That’s one of the reasons why this election was so depressing.
What about next year’s presidential elections?
Next year’s, who knows? There’s a movement to end the presidency altogether, but I don’t think that can happen in time. Who knows who will be permitted to run for president in 2013?
Next year’s, who knows? There’s a movement to end the presidency altogether, but I don’t think that can happen in time. Who knows who will be permitted to run for president in 2013?
I don’t want to be this person, but I am: I don’t think the fate of the reformist democracy movement in Iran lies in American hands, and I think we should disabuse ourselves of that idea. This is a project for Iranians, and a terribly important one, and right now the state of play is frankly tragic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)