Elham Esmaeili
Mohammad Atrianfar sits on the central council of the Servants of Construction ["Kargozaran-e Sazandegi"] party. He discussed with Rooz recent death threats made against Abdullah Nouri by certain members of the hardline Ansar Hezbollah militia and the judiciary's reluctance to investigate this matter. Atrianfar believes that powerful political institutions are backing such threats. Below is the text of the interview.
Rooz (R): Why did the reformists fail to respond appropriately to the death threats made against Abdullah Nouri by the radical right?
Mohammad Atrianfar (MA): Such extreme and radical reactions, which are clearly criminal acts, could be legally pursued and lead to heavy convictions depending on the kind of judgment and performance exhibited by the judiciary. However, before we talk and take a stance over the necessity of reacting or not reaction to such actions, it is appropriate to delve into their roots. I believe that these reactions, more than being threats against an individual, are political threats, pointed at the well-rooted and persevering reform movement in Iran. Because it is not possible to directly threaten a political movement like the reform movement, radicals and fear-mongers attack the reform movement's prominent and central characters, and it is natural that a figure like Mr. Abdullah Nouri, who is well-received and revered by the Iranian people, and is recently named as a serious and prominent contender in the upcoming presidential election, is threatened to assassination and physical elimination.
R: What are the repercussions of such threats for the reform movement?
MA: Our analysis is that these actions must not, under any circumstances, be regarded as rogue actions by certain individuals; rather, we must point our minds to the main centers of producing this violence, meaning powerful institutions that, in some ways, support violence on the political scene. Only then will we be able to aim at solving such problems in a reasonable manner.
R: Let's return to our initial question. Why did the reformists fail to respond appropriately to such threats?
MA: This silence can be based on several reasons. First, they think that the harsh message and threatening language that was used is backed by powerful political actors on the highest levels [of government], and if they point their criticism, disagreement or protest to those who voiced such threats they would take the focus away from the "source" of the event. Secondly, reformists seriously believe that due to the resonance and penetration of social and political development among the people, the logic of violence is losing its social impact day by day. In addition, reformists know that a figure such as Mr. Nouri, who is a very influential and prominent national figure, never admits of any fear in face of such threats.
R: What is the role of legal institutions, such as the judiciary and interior ministry in responding to such threats and why did these institutions fail to take an appropriate stance in responding to this threat?
MA: Our hope is that relevant authorities and those in charge of national security consider the dangerous consequences of preaching violence and accept that, if they fail to respond to or confront such logic, serious harm would be done to our national security. Unfortunately, we have not in the past witnessed the judiciary's fair handling of violent groups backed by powerful circles. We dream for a day in which relevant authorities make it a priority to address the logic of violence as a criminal act that must be confronted and controlled even in the absence complaints by individuals.
