Celebrating the international women’s day on March 8 has never been a strong tradition in Iran, in the previous regime or the Islamic republic of Iran.  In the Shah’s period, another day was selected to commemorate women which was the day the veil was forcefully banned from being worn by women, while in the Islamic republic, the birthday of Prophet Mohammad’s daughter was chosen for the same. Still, among the intellectuals of the country there were those who celebrated March 8 as women’s day and through this highlighted one peculiarity of Iranian society: the conflict between tradition and modernity.

During the Shah’s period and under the Islamic republic Iranian women have been prevented from joining the modern world because this is what the despotic governments wanted. And while the façade of the modern world existed or exists, during both periods, the regimes negate the foundations of the modern world, i.e. respect for individual freedoms.

But by cultivating the ideas of freedom and change - manifested in the form of revolutions and movements for change - the Iranian people have shown their desire and demand to join the modern world and to have a government that is based on democratic values and principles. Because of understandable conditions, men had been leading this movement until recently. Today, women have closed the gender gap in a rather short time such that today they are in fact at the forefront of the struggle for freedom in Iran.

This is why the replacement of March 8 for government or religious days takes on significance. The commemoration of this day in Iran and its celebration through non government channels by the women of Iran demonstrates a struggle at whose one end stand the old forces of society while on the other its modern elements. One can say with certainty today that never in Iran’s contemporary history has the army of modernists and freedom lovers been as large and aware as it is today.

It was within this struggle for freedom that Iranian women turned to new and modern ways in their battle the last and most meaningful of which is the Campaign for One Million Signatures for Change. This is a movement that clearly contains all the elements of a peaceful civil movement and is based on spreading awareness, using modern means, etc along with respect for the cultural dimensions and values of Iranian society.

The methods employed by this civil movement contain the following features:

-Face to face interactions, organizing workshops, creating website, publishing research and field studies, discussions with the elite, presenting ideas to the masses through volunteers, etc.

It is because of this that I believe the Campaign was in fact the exercise and training ground for the green movement. Today, the green movement plays in a field which has been lined and outlined by members of the Campaign.

Let’s look at the similarities of the two movements:
1-Absense of a centralized leadership
2-Growth and formation through objective and current needs of society
3-Individual demands (I want my rights, I want my vote counted), and the chants of modern slogans
4-Refrainment from violence and engagement in discussions
5-Modern communications (an array of website and webblogs)
6-The courage to engage in self-critic and the critique of others
7-Realism and refrain from idealism
8-Readiness to discuss (issues with officials of the Islamic republic)
9-Affinity and relations with the outside world and enlisting sympathizers and co-thinkers
10-Accepting all ideologies under its umbrella
11-Objective discussions and refrain from theoretic talks (ideologue women see their demands in the Campaign and so do ideologue men affiliated with the ruling establishment who also associate themselves with the goals of the green movement)
12-The Campaign and the green movement are both unique in their sense of aesthetics
13-Readiness to pay for what they want short of suicide
14-Non-violent literature
15-Age composition (the majority of the movement is with the youth who have also included older people)

The Current Situation

Neither the Campaign nor the green movement have yet become populist and are influential only in the middle classes, while they have the potential to grow among the masses because they are structured on the objectives demands of society. (The establishment’s drive to allow men to take a second wife without the consent of the first has brought ideologue and traditional women into the Campaign. Similarly, the economic and managerial crises in the country has brought more groups into the green movement.)

Conclusion

The Campaign and the green movement are the loudest voices of the modern world inside the traditional society which conquer a small part of the male chauvinist and dictatorial world every day. The battle is between the old and the new. Today, the capacity and influence of the modern is far grater in Iran than it has ever been in the contemporary history of this country and it has overtaken those of the old and as history and social growth attest, will be the winner in this race.

While a number of journalists and political prisoners were released yesterday, speaking to a group of families of political prisoners Tehran’s prosecutor general warned that he would not release individuals whose families had spoken about the matter to media networks.  

At the same time, the Tehran revolutionary and general courts’ public relations office announced yesterday that the sentences of 86 detainees of recent events had been confirmed.

According to the public relations office’s announcement, the detainees were prosecuted on charges of gathering and conspiracy to disrupt national security, propaganda against the regime, membership in anti-revolutionary groups, participation in illegal gatherings and disrupting public order, among others.

Abdolreza Ghanbari Sentenced to Death

Judge Salavati confirmed the death sentence for Abdolreza Ghanbari, who was sentenced to death by one of the post-Ashoura Day courts.  

The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran announced that Abdolreza Ghanbari’s trial was unjust, as he lacked access to a lawyer and did not have an opportunity to defend himself.  Ghanbari is 42-years old and a resident of the poor neighborhood of Ghiam Dasht in Varamin.  He is a teacher and it is said that his only crime is his participation in the Ashoura Day gatherings and chanting slogans against he Islamic Republic supreme leader.

He was held at Ward 2 of the Islamic Passdaran Revolutionary Guards Corps’ detention facility following his arrest.  On 10 Bahman, without having notified his family or spoken to his lawyer, his appeared at a trial presided over by Judge Salavati and admitted to partipcating in the Ashoura Day protests and other acts.  A person close to his case said that his admissions were extracted under torture.  He has recently been transferred to the general ward of the prison.  

Meanwhile, Mohsen Mirdamadi, Akbar Montajebi, Keyvan Samimi, Rasoulov, Tara Sepehrifar, Sheikh-Attar, Farzaneh Ghasemi and Saeed Jalalifar were released.  Rasoulov was arrested along with prominent Iranian filmmaker Jafar Panahi and Akbar Montajebi on 19 Bahman.  Jafar Panahi continues to remain behind bars and no information is available about his fate.  

Mohsen Mirdamadi, secretary general of the Mosharekat (Participation) Party was also released after posting a 450-million Toman bail.  Mohsen Mirdamadi was arrested one day after the June 12 election coup.  

Hossein Sheikh-Attar was released after 75 days behind bars.  Sheikh-Attar was an executive at the state radio and television broadcasting corporation during Mohammad Hashemi’s tenure at the organization.  

Kayvan Samimi is a journalist and member of the Association for Defense of Press Rights.  Saeed Jalalifar is a member of the Committee of Human Rights Reporters.  

Despite the Revolutionary Court’s approval and the posting of bail eighty days ago, Tehran’s prosecutor general Abbas Jafari-Dolatabadi refuses to order the release of writer and human rights activist Emadeddin Baghi.  Baghi was arrested for conducting an interview with ayatollah Montazeri and has spent about 50 days in solitary conferment before being transferred to the 3-person cells in Evin Prison’s Ward 240.

As the head of Iran’s Expediency Council called on the Islamic republic to address the issue of Western suspicions of its nuclear and missile programs, the head of the country’s nuclear energy agency once again announced the country’s readiness to trade uranium with the 5 + 1 Group.

Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani yesterday requested that the Islamic Republic act in a manner that addressed the “suspicion” of the 5 + 1 Group about Iran’s nuclear program.  In his seven-point proposals issued to celebrate the new Persian year that begin on March 21st, the head of the Expediency Council on Leadership that in theory supervises the work of the country supreme leader, wrote, “If there is mistrust they must act to establish trust.  We must also act within the framework of international relations in such manner that eliminates their suspicion.”  

According to ILNA, the head of the Council implicitly condemned the policies of Western nations and their “inappropriate actions.”  He also referred to the Islamic Republic’s nuclear and missile policies: “These countries generally did not display a positive behavior towards us after the revolution and took actions that were inappropriate.  Now new issues have come up, such as the nuclear or missile issue or other issues, where they are reinforcing their enmity.”  

Referring to the rights of the Islamic Republic and the West, ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani said, “I think if they are happy with their rights Iran would be happy with its rights too.”

Trading 1200 Kilograms of Uranium
Meanwhile, in an interview with Javan daily – affiliated with the Islamic Passdaran Revolutionary Guards Corps – the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Commission Ali Akbar Salehi announced the Islamic Republic’s willingness to hand over 1200 kilograms of uranium on the condition that the West simultaneously provided the Islamic republic with an equivalent amount of nuclear fuel.  He said, “We are willing to turn over the entire fuel at once, on the condition that the fuel trade takes place simultaneously and inside Iran.  What is important to us is for the trade to take place simultaneously and inside Iran, so that there is a guarantee that we will receive the fuel.”

Commenting on Russia’s cold diplomatic support for the Islamic republic, Ali Akbar Salehi said, “Russia is after all a large country, with its own interests, and must in any case have relations with today’s world.  We are a strategic neighbor for Russia, but America or Western Europe’s technological and economic help are also very important to it.  One of Russia’s important trade partners is Western Europe; it exports its gas to Europe and receives most of its imports from there.

Soon after talks with the 5+1 last year, Iran rejected the swap proposal by which Iran’s 3.5% enriched uranium would be sent outside for further enrichment. Iran argued that it wanted to relinguish it uranium in batches, which was rejected by the IAEA, the US and the EU. Following that, Ahmadinejad asked Iran’s IAEA to enrich its uranium to 20%, which resulted in further deterioration of relations with the West so that even Russia which had been till then promoting talks rather than sanctions expressly spoke of sanctions against Iran.

Salehi said that the reason Iran did not want to sent its uranium outside the country for further enrichment was the “wall of distrust” that existed regarding the West, adding, “Germany received money from us for fuel but did not deliver, and so we were forced to sell our fuel inside Germany to another company. In France too we had 86 tons of fuel but it agreed to only 32 tons arguing that there were accounting differences, and in any case had not delivered the remaining 50 tons. All this relates to 31 years ago. If we assume that we have been doing nuclear work only during the last eight years, why did they not return our fuel 30 years ago, when we had no nuclear activities.”

1.    The Iranian people’s green movement needs tolerance, durability and stubbornness.  These three old friends bring victory, and leaders, managers, university students and the middle class must keep them at the top of their agenda.

2.    The Iranian green movement seeks three elements in which women and men, Iranian ethnicities and groups are all counted in and enjoy equal rights.

3.    The Iranian green movement does not seek to eliminate any Iranian class, force, figure or individual.  It regards everyone to have rights and therefore wants every person and every thing and every force and individual to be placed in its proper position.  

4.    The green movement needs to continue on its path peacefully and with perseverance until its legitimacy is recognized.  That will happen, but when those in power accept it, the movement must still defend the rights of all Iranians within the citizenship rights framework.  Every Iranian has rights, regardless of whether leftist or right-winger, whether insider or outsider, whether religious or secular, whether Persian or Turk, whether Kurd or Lor.  

5.    The green movement abides by and defends the law, but it wants law for the Iranian, not Iran for the law.  Therefore laws are not absolute, but the means for their change must be legal.

6.    The movement must be present massively, diversely, and legally wherever possible because there is a limit to oppress and control and imprison people.  Time is not on the oppressor’s side, we must continue; but slowly, with joy and a smile.  This green movement is smiling, not frowning, because it is not after a revolution.

7.    The green movement is widespread, but not universal.  It wants change, not a revolution.  It wants to work with the rulers to attain its citizenship rights in accordance with the constitution.  Therefore, it needs numbers and a peaceful presence.

8.    The green movement must demand televised debates between its leaders, managers, intellectuals and university students and the opposing camp.  Television can more effectively reveal the green movement’s virtue.

9.    The movement must be patient.  The movement needs peacefulness, stubbornness and vitality to achieve.  Reforms are like cooking a stew, but revolution is like cooking an egg.  Patience and victory are ancient friends.

As a method to overthrow a regime, a revolution does not achieve democracy.  It is a coercive overthrow. Only what comes by force requires force to stay or survive. This is the experience we have from the Constitutional Revolution and the 1979 Islamic Revolution.  

Repeating the past is bitter and difficult.  Nations that lack collective history repeat the past and end up regretting their rash decision.  

Opposing revolution as a means is not equal to opposing fundamental change.  Any change can be achieved with persistence and participation of millions, but the means of change are important.  Easing into change is different from imposing change.  Revolution is imposing change accompanied by propaganda and coercion.  But easing into change is necessary for a society to undergo change without coercion and reactionary emotions.

With more flare than prior years, the Iranian people celebrated Chaharshanbeh Suri (pre-Islamic annual festival where people jump over fire to rid themselves of their impurities) amidst a heavy security presence by making bonfires, partying and dancing in groups.  In some areas, the celebration turned violent after agents on motorcycles and police officers tried to break up the celebrations.  

During the past week, several clerics and religious speakers denounced the Chaharshanbeh Suri tradition and disseminated ayatollah Motahari’s remarks to pressure the public into not participating in the celebration.  Finally, the state radio and television broadcasting corporation announced that the Islamic Republic supreme leader, ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had denounced Chaharshanbeh Suri for lacking religious basis and for promoting corruption.  It therefore seemed that the people who had decided to participate in the celebration, despite all the pressure and threats, were bent on showing the supreme leader and other clerics that they are determined to celebrate their ancient traditions.  According to reports, people who participated in the festivities said that Chaharshanbeh Suri was a national celebration dating back to 1700 B.C., adding, “We have come into the streets to say this is neither superstition nor corrupt, but an ancient Iranian tradition that we hold dear.”

According to reports from Rooz correspondents in Iran, although turnout this year was lower than prior years because of the government’s heavy-handed crackdown during the past 9 months, the participants were had prepared themselves and were more determined than ever to engage with government agents, while the agents seemed to have been ordered to remain as tolerant as possible too.  Despite the harsh threats and warnings of the recent days, as the city turned dark and the cries of fire jumpers began to rise from every corner of the city, police officers remained largely on the sidelines.  

Reports indicate that despite the pressure and threats, Chaharshanbeh Suri was celebrated in many parts of Tehran.  In some areas, violent reactions by Basiji members led to clashes and celebrators chanted “Death to the dictator.”

According to video clips posted on youTube, people at Sadeghiyeh square chanted, “Don’t be afraid, we’re together” while residents of Ekbatan and Towhid squares chanted “Allah Akbar” and “Death to the dictator.”  

“Death to the dictator” was the common chant of people whose Chaharshanbeh Suri celebrations turned violent by state agents.  One video clip, whose subject location is hard to identify, shows people jumping over bonfires and chanting the traditional chants. But these changed when Basiji vigilantes on motorcycles used force to disperse them and “Death to the dictator” became the only chant that could be heard.

Some video clips also showed people burning posters of ayatollah Khamenei.

In an announcement, Tehran’s fire department reported 164 instances throughout Tehran on the Chaharshanbeh Suri night.  

Fortunately for everyone, no fatalities were reported in Tehran.

Rooz spoke with prominent thinker Dr. Abdolkarim Soroush about the separation of church and state, disagreements between seculars and religious reformists and the green movement’s future.  Noting that, “With political, trans-religious secularism, a person who is pious is assured that his religion and faith will remain safe, and the state will not interfere with his beliefs and acts,” Dr. Soroush says, “Democracy is not extractable from Islam.”  He adds, “The pious must know that in the present era, the administration of justice, which is required by religious law, is achievable only through a democratic process, not through individualistic preferences, i.e. the supreme leader’s way.”  Read on for the details.

Rooz: Dr. Soroush. You said you are politically secular.  The main issue seems to be about the separation of church and state anyway.  So what is the disagreement among our intellectuals about?

Abdolkarim Soroush (Soroush):  In reality there is no disagreement.  Perhaps some want to create one.  I introduced the concept of “political and philosophical secularism” for this very reason, to resolve any apparent disagreement and to demonstrate in what sense we are secular, and in agreement with others, and in what sense we are not secular.  But the issue that has emerged, especially outside the country, is that a lot of people who claim to be seculars, are secular in belief too; meaning they have no belief in religion or faith.  Of course, they are free to have such beliefs, but when only those people become the defenders of secularism, secularism takes on a dangerous meaning for the Iranian society.  There is the impression that secularism means denouncing religion and faith.  This delusion and error must be corrected.

Rooz: You want to correct this delusion?

Soroush: Yes, I have done that.  I said we have two kinds of secularism: political secularism and belief-based secularism.  We are not against belief-based secularism, although we disagree with it.  People are free to have their own beliefs, but what we can agree on is political secularism, or in my words, “trans-religious governance.”  

Rooz: Why is this assurance necessary?  Do democratic systems have such a distinction in law?  In those countries church and state are separate and the beliefs of believers have remained safe.

Soroush:  The assurance is given because our religious people may be fearful of democracy and secularism because they wrongly believe that the later deny religion.  Therefore, it must be explained to them that the establishment of a political secularism and religious democracy does not damage anyone’s beliefs.  This is, in my opinion, an extremely important and necessary message.  In effect, I sent messages to two camps with this distinction.  On the one hand, I assured the pious that their religion and religious beliefs would be safe in a democratic, politically secular regime.  On the other hand, I assured the non-religious community that your political system would be safe under the rule of pious democrats.  

Rooz:  Where do these assurances come from: Religion or general democratic norms?

Soroush: I have repeatedly stated in my writings that democracy is not extractable from Islam….  Look, democracy is a method of governance aiming to “reduce management error” based on the principle of “popular sovereignty.”   Now you ask where these principles come from.  We say that they are not extractable from principles of religion, although they are not inconsistent with it either.

Rooz: What is the source of democracy in the French constitution?

Soroush: France is not a good example because its secularism has become combative, which is not appealing. Furthermore when someone told me some years ago that my religious government was not much different from other systems in other countries, I  agreed and said that we are not much different from others and that we must learn from them. Lastly there is figh (i.e. Islamic law). In figh there is a body of laws that we Muslims must follow, until they are in contradiction with human rights which is what Iqbal [a Muslim thinker and poet] said. Figh has been the protector of Muslim identity. What we have in figh regarding business issues etc also exists in French laws, British laws, etc but in their own ways. But we are under no compulsion to copy from the French or the British so long as these laws do not contradict or negate human rights or are detrimental to the public. But there is a series of laws that do contradict human rights and this is where ijtihad must be used to make these rules compatible. Islam is not just figh alone; it also has philosophy, ethics, and these must be used as well.

Rooz: Why are we raising issues that provide uncertainty and skepticism?

Soroush: There is no uncertainty. My whole point is that there must be a democratic process in place. This does not mean that with that there will be no problems.

Rooz: And you believe that all the issues can be foreseen and included in law?

Soroush: All of them cannot be foreseen but what I mean is that democracy is complex by itself and that when it is instituted, then issues can be dealt with and negotiated based on the sensitivities of society and its people. Religious people should know that today, justice, which is the goal of religious, can only be achieved through democracy and not individual force, and not through a religious leader.

Rooz: Should not society move towards a system where all thoughts are present and represented?

Soroush: Absolutely. We must distinguish between political leaders and thinkers. In our society the two have become mixed so that Velayat Faghih is now a jumble of the two. In the Velayat Faghih theory, the leader becomes the political head, not its thinker. A society must be guided by  thinkers and cultural people.

Rooz: Does someone like Mr. Khamenei know that there is no freedom in Iran and so lies about its existence, or does he really believe that there is?

Soroush: That is difficult to say, but his comments about the social issues are from his ignorance. But regarding political issues, he does not believe in freedom. He believes that the freedoms that people want are in fact inhuman and that an Islamic society cannot and should not give those kinds of freedoms to them.

Rooz: So Mr. Khamenei is against freedom?

Soroush: Yes, he is against freedom. He is really against freedom. He believes that freedom equates to chaos, sexual mayhem, Westernization, etc. So he sees himself righteous to oppose and fight it and anyone who believes otherwise.

It is a feature of dictatorial regimes to encircle themselves with people who only tell them what they want to hear. I wrote an article during president Khatami’s days and told the leader to let freedom reign so that he would remain aware of what was going on. People will tell him what they want in many ways. Then it won’t be necessary to have spies in society to gather information and tell him. So if he is misinformed, it is because of the system that he himself has created.

Rooz: If the leaders of this regime expect obedience, like Mr. Khamenei has said, then why is the green movement after it?

Soroush: The foundations are not negotiable. But the leaders of the green movement must first resolve some practical issues. They must resolve the issue of elections, prisoners, the judiciary. I think the green movement must now pursue an independent judiciary.

Rooz: But Mr. Khamenei’s power rests on these very institutions.

Soroush: Everything depends on the power of the green movement. Politics is the act of negotiations between authority and power. If the green movement gains more power - which I think it will - then it can pursue talks through its force.

Rooz: So they will be forced to come and talk with the greens?

Soroush: Absolutely. I have said before that this is the only way. We do not want bloodshed. So things must move in the direction that they end up in talks.

In this interview, published by the Panjere magazine, the interviewee is introduced as a person who has been involved in the interrogation and political prosecution of many prominent and lesser known detainees since Iran’s contested presidential election 9 months ago.  

Here are the key excerpts of the interview:

Q. How were the individuals to be arrested selected and what was the arrest process?
* All the people who were arrested were influential in creating the turbulent atmosphere of the tenth presidential election because of their history of activism.  In effect, all the people who were arrested initially had a leadership role, either by making speeches, giving interviews, publishing articles, etc.  Also, the country’s intelligence and security apparatus had information that some people were planning to use the election process as an excuse to create chaos and disturbance under the name of soft or color revolution, similar to what took place in several other countries.

* In general, one can say that prevention is a normal and ordinary process in all governments, for example we have prevention in the ministry of health, and prevention is also a serious issue in national security areas.  

* There is a difference between those who were arrested in the first round and those that were detained subsequently. Those arrested in the first round had the role of provocation and guidance while the latter were merely the field activists. We believed that if we caught the first group, which was the planning and guide group, then the color revolution would not succeed in its goals. And this perception was correct to a certain point.  We aimed at preventing focus and organization of the opposition.

* One characteristic of color revolutions is the presence of revolutionary agents inside the government…. It is rare for a group to be both part of the government and oppose it by belonging to the outside opposition.  In our case, these inside agents of the revolution were previously in the government and became the opposition after their exit.  They had an additional goal, which was to say authoritarianism and dictatorship exists.  Policy papers of the Iran Participation Front say that parts of the ruling establishment must be come democratic. This is criticism, not reform. In reality this is media charlatanism that is portrayed through lies.

* The confessions of detainees were not extracted under pressure.  They use beautiful reasoning, and their confession that there was no fraud benefits the people and the regime.  

* In either case, such people are either liked or hated by the public.  If he is hated, whether he confesses or not becomes irrelevant, and in that case it is in the regime’s interest to arrest him.  But if he is liked, then when he comes and says fraud was the basis of the operation, then this is in the regime’s interest, because these issues are very important for the grey layers of society because the most popular web blog in Iran belongs to him.

* Behzad Nabavi’s claim that the arrest warrants were issued on June 9 is a lie.  The June 9 warrant was a general warrant issued by the judiciary to the security apparatus.  

* I regard most of the arrests to have been right, because the detainees were somehow involved in the soft revolution through their speeches, accusations of dictatorship, etc.  The Iranian judiciary was weak.  Everyone who raises such issues must be prosecuted. If he can’t prove what he claims, then he must be punished according to law.  Some other people should have been arrested too, but were not. So there must have been some prioritization about arrests based on their involvement in the soft revolution process. Members of Mosharekat [Participation] Party are an example who were involved in an attempt to secularize the regime.

* The release of many people after February 11 is a wise decision as the events showed the world that the regime is in control of events. We also have Islamic mercy and thus give some leaves, and others may be pardoned, while still others must spend time behind bars.

Mohammad Hosseini, Ahmadinejad cabinet’s minister of culture and Islamic guidance, defended his press undersecretary’s massive crackdown on independent and critical publications for the second time in a week two days ago.  Noting the reasons behind banning independent and reformist publications, he claimed, “The ministry of culture doesn’t want a unitary voice in the country”!

The culture minister’s claim was made while, in its latest measure the Press Oversight Committee issued 16 warnings to journals as well as “Bahar” daily; two days after the warnings, the culture minister and his press undersecretary, Mohammad Ali Ramin, defended each other’s actions in a meeting with members of the minority reformists faction in the Majlis.

Minister Opposes Single Voice!

According to Kalame website, Hosseini, who was speaking to some members of the Hormozgan province’s arts and culture community, defended his ministry’s decision to issue repeated warnings and widespread bans.  He said, “There is a big difference between humor and mockery.  A newspaper that has received 35 or 36 warnings, and mocks everything on a daily basis in a column under the name of humor, will certainly face the consequences.”  

According to Kalame, he nevertheless insisted that the culture minister does not want there to be a unitary voice in the country, adding, “There must be an atmosphere for criticism in society, and officials must also have tolerance.  No one is opposed to the battle of thoughts and ideas; we are opposed to libel, slander and fabrication.”  

Executor of Law, Not Legal Scholar

Yesterday was not the first time in which the culture minister defended his ministry and the performance of his press undersecretary.  Four days before the culture minister’s remarks, Mohammad Hosseini and Mohammad Ali Ramin defended their press policy in a meeting with members of the minority reformist faction in the Majlis.  According to the website Parleman News, their responses to questions posed by the minority faction members were not satisfactory, and the meeting ended without an agreement; the minority faction had threatened to impeach the culture minister if the meeting was not satisfactory.  

At the meeting, noting that the culture ministry has had a hopeful performance in areas such as cinema, members of the minority faction chastised Ramin’s suppression of the press as illegal and insisted that Ramin’s actions against the reformist press were hypocritical and absolutely illegal.  

Responding to criticisms and complaints from reformist lawmakers, the culture minister defended Ramin’s actions and declared that the ministry’s actions against the press have all been legal.  In a similar remark earlier, reasoning that he is “not a legal scholar, but the executor of the law,” Mohamad Ali Ramin had branded his actions against the press as legal.  

Despite protests against the undermining of Iran’s Bar Association’s independence and the candidate vetting process, 18 lawyers were elected to board positions in elections held on Thursday with the participation of 4,000 lawyers.

The elected lawyers were Najafi-Tavana, Jondoghi-Kermanipour, Behrouz Haghmaie, Mahmoud Mostafavi-Kashani, Hossein Mohammad-Nabi, Hamid Jannati, Hamid Jalilzadeh, Mehdi Shahla, Jalil Maleki, Ali Hamed-Tavassoli, seyyed Ebrahim Sabetghadam, Ali Kaka-Afshar, Jafar Kousha, Batoul Kayhani, Hossein Asgarirad, Mohammad Reza Paseban, Reza Tamaddon and Ahmad Javidtash.  Twelve of these lawyers will serve as permanent and 6 others as alternate board members.  

But this year’s elections of board members to the Iranian Bar Association – which is one of Iran’s largest trade groups and most influential civil society organizations with 8,000 members – were different because of the events of the past year, which began with the passage of the Bar Association Independence guidelines, proposed by the former judiciary chief, unleashing massive criticism from Iranian lawyers.  

Mina Jafari, and Iranian lawyer, tells Rooz, “These guidelines were proposed without the participation of and input from the Bar Associations during the turbulent political atmosphere immediately after the election.”  

She adds, “According to the independence bill of 1333 (1953), proposed by the late Dr. Mossadegh, the justice minister must prepare the guidelines – which were prepared in 1334 – and any changes to it must be ratified by the Bar Association.  But the Bar Association was no involved in the new guidelines.”  

Another experienced lawyer, who prefers not to be identified, tells Rooz, “In important parts of the guidelines, the judiciary chief has imposed numerous limitations for lawyers, for example, that the judiciary deputy chief must sign the bar admission documents, not the Bar Association President; and this violates the Bar Association’s relative independence after the revolution.”

He adds, “In these elections, half of the candidates were disqualified from the administrative court.  Following that decision, a group of lawyers released a statement and prepared a scroll containing the signatures of dissatisfied lawyers, which was on display during the elections proceedings.”  According to this lawyer, the administrative court lacks jurisdiction to disqualify lawyers, and the right belongs to the Bar Association members.  

During the Bar Association election proceedings, the family of Mohammad Oliyayeefar, a lawyer who was transferred to the Evin Prison a few days ago to serve a one-year prison term, carried signs requesting help for their father’s release.    

The first day of the trial over the Kahrizak detention facility lawsuit was held yesterday behind closed doors while the real perpetrators of the crimes at the facility continue to hold their posts in the government, military and the judiciary.  Meanwhile family members of Ramin Pourandarjani, a resident doctor at the detention facility who had examined some of the murdered detainees there and was himself murdered mysteriously, told Rooz that they demand their son’s murderer to be identified and prosecuted.  

Trial for Nothing!

The public relations office of the judiciary’s military tribunal announced yesterday that the trial of individuals accused of crimes related to the Kahrizak detention facility was being held behind closed doors, without revealing further details or the names of the defendants.  

In its statement, the public relations office announced, “The indictments for all defendants in the case, numbered at 12, were read and their charges and accusations were explained to them by the judge.

Based on the military tribunal’s announcement, Saeed Mortazavi, who was identified by the Majlis special investigative committee as the main accused pepetrator in the Kahrizak case is not among the defendants.  

Police commanders Radan and Ahmadi-Moghaddam are the other officials who the public views to be the real perpetrators of the crimes committed at the facility.  Some of the individuals who have been released from the horrific detention site have testified that Radan was present at the detention facility during several torture sessions and played a direct role in the horrific crimes at the facility.  The two commanders continue to occupy their posts in the Islamic Republic and are not among the defendants in the case.

Ambiguity in the Coroner’s Report

Meanwhile, the Kahrizak case does not include the complaint from the family of Ramin Pourandarjani, a doctor who died mysteriously while serving at Kahrizak.  Officials had first announced the cause of death to be a heart attack and then a suicide.  The coroner’s office finally announced that the young doctor had been poisoned to death.  

Ramin Pourandarjani’s father, Reza Gholi Pourandarjani, told Rooz that the latest response he received was the coroner’s report, which the Pourandarjani family view as unclear.

He explained, “We filed a complaint and demand that the murderer be identified and prosecuted, and we will follow up on our complaint.”

Ramin Pourandarjani’s father clarified, “The coroner’s office has said that Ramin was poisoned to death, but the coroner’s report is very ambiguous and we cannot accept this theory.  They must explain how he was poisoned and who poisoned him?”

Yesterday ended with a Majlis no vote to the administration’s request to spend 40 billion Toman (40 million USD) of funds derived from the subsidy reform plan, but analysts noted last night that this was just perhaps the beginning of the story.  It all began yesterday at the supreme leader’s office.  Majlis Speaker Ali Larijani had been summoned to the supreme leaders office, because the president had requested the supreme leader’s help in confronting the Majlis the day before.  As such, in violation of Majlis rules, lawmakers accepted the president’s request to be present during the Majlis proceedings.  Ahmadinejad spoke to lawmakers and said, “I don’t believe in inflation, and inflation will decrease next year.”  But the Majlis did not accept his explanations and handed him a negative vote denying his request.

I Don’t Accept Inflation

Previously, Mohammad Reza Tabesh, head of the minority reformist faction, had said in an interview with ILNA that Majlis speaker Larijani had met with the Islamic Republic supreme leader on Tuesday to discuss the subsidy reform plan.  The meeting took place after Ahmadinejad wrote a letter about the bill to ayatollah Khamenei.  

Although the contents of Ahmadinejad’s letter to the leader have not been revealed, ayatollah Khamenei on Tuesday referred to the administration’s rationale as “strong” in a meeting he had with Larijani and asked lawmakers to “Provide an opportunity for the president to present his rationale and remarks about the subsidy reform plan.”

The president’s presence on the Majlis floor prompted reporters to conclude that the administration had once again won the day by dragging the supreme leader into the conflict.  

Negative Vote and Majlis’s Delayed Announcement

Majlis speaker announced the number of lawmakers present at 8:20 pm following the evening prayers: 234 lawmakers.  Prominent Principalist figures who are aware of the supreme leader’s opinions refrained from making public comments.  The atmosphere was pro-administration.  The president moved between the aisles to secure his votes.  At stake was 20 billion Toman (20 million USD) more for the administration.  The voting began and, amazingly, the vote count came out negative: 111 in favor and 105 against.  After a delay speaker Larijani announced the results.  Happy among the lawmakers was Kavakebian, who engaged in a memorable debate with Shariatmadari. Speaking in Tehran’s Baharestan square, where more than half a century ago nationalist leader Mohammad Mossadegh had delivered his fiery speeches, he loudly and proudly proclaimed that “The Majlis was really a Majlis.”

Ahmad Jalali Farahani, Yashar Darolshafai and Keyvan Farzin were released from prison this week, while journalist and researcher Ali Moazami was arrested and put behind bars.

Keyvan Farzin who is a musician critic and member of Farhang va Ahang (Culture and Music) magazine was arrested in the magazine’s offices following the religious Ashoora events, along with Behrang Tonkaboni, the chief editor of this monthly. His bail was set at 70 thousand USD, a very high amount by Iranian standards, although quiet common nowadays in Iran. Tonkaboni had been released last week, along with Arvin Sedaghat-Kish, another editorial member of the magazine.

Farahani, a journalist who worked for semi official Mehr news agency was arrested the day after he was fired from the news agency, on February 6th, and was released this week from Evin prison in Tehran.

Darolshafai is one of seven family members arrested who was released on a 70 thousand USD bail. Now only Abolhassan Darolshafai remains behind bars from this family.

Ali Moazami Arrested

Moazami walked into an office of the ministry of intelligence in Tehran last Sunday, where he was immediately arrested for undisclosed reasons. His family enquired about the arrest from the office but was not given any answer. Moazami is a veteran journalist who had worked for Shargh newspaper. Prior to his arrest he was working on his PhD dissertation in philosophy with the prestigious Anjomane Hekmat va Falsafe Iran (The Society of Knowledge and Philosophy of Iran).

Ahmad Ghabel in Chains

Ghabel is a religious scholar who contacted his family last week and informed them that he had been taken to a revolutionary court in chains. According to Kalameh website, Ghabel told his interrogators and prison officials, “You want to humiliate me, but I do not see anything other than beauty.” Ghabel told officials that he had already had other suits against him, in special clerical courts in Tehran and Mashhad. He was told that the court in Mashhad did not recognize his religious qualifications and ranking (i.e. that he was a cleric). His passport and house had been confiscated by the clerical court. Ghabel had been transferred to the quarantine section of Mashhad’s Vakilabad prison after spending 70 days under arrest.

No News on Farzaneh Ghasemi

A month after the arrest of Farzaneh Ghasemi, her case is still in limbo. Ms Ghasemi was arrested in her own house on February 10 by security agents and some of her personal belongings such as her computer were confiscated upon her arrest. According to Nedaye Sabz Azadi, Ghasemi scored the fourth highest rank in the national university entrance examinations in which millions participate every year. She had been a student of architecture at Vancouver’s British Columbia University and has been an active participant in educational and social projects. When a strong earthquake hit the town of Bam in Iran in 2003, she went to Iran and spent months helping with the relief and reconstruction efforts.

In a gathering to mark the International Women’s Day, Iranian women’s rights activists called for the “eradication of discrimination against women in all laws, the adoption of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination, equal opportunities in politics and management, release of political and ideological prisoners and freedom of peaceful action for women.”  They announced, “We will stand by the people and green movement activists while continuing the struggle for the achievement of our independent rights and demands.  We will not stop until their full achievement because we are countless.” 

According to Rooz reporters, the gathering to mark the International Women’s Day was held despite the extreme amounts of pressure and intimidation imposed by the government, at Mir-Hossein Mousavi’s office.  Zahra Rahnavard and many women’s rights activists attended the gathering, as many others have been arrested or forced to leave Iran since the June 12 election coup.

In previous years also similar gatherings on the International Women’s Day were either prevented or turned violent because of police interference.  In 1385 (2007), plain-clothes and special unit forces engaged in violent clashes with the women, dispersing them from the Baharestan square and arresting several activists.  In 1382 (2004) the gathering ended before it began as plain-clothes agents surrendered the Laleh park, where the gathering was scheduled to be held, and beat the participants with batons. 

Yesterday’s gathering was held while Simin Behbahani, who was scheduled to fly to Paris on an invitation from the Paris city government, was barred by security agents from leaving the country. 

The feminism school website quoted Simin Behbahani, “I was invited by the Paris city government for March 8, and I had prepared a text on feminism and a poem about women to read at the event and planned to return on Wednesday.  Because of my old age and health issues I repeatedly thought about not going, but decided to participate in the event with my poem and text on feminism because of the kindness and persistence of inviters and my love and dedication for my country’s women and respect for this important day.  After I passed through the customs gate and received the exit stamp on my passport, two agents called me, confiscated my passport and interrogated me until 5 am with a series of why and how questions, and then gave me a piece of paper asking me to go to the Revolutionary Court to get my passport back.” 

As such, Simin Behbahani joined the growing group of female civil society activists who have been barred from exiting the country throughout the past four years.  Among them are Nasrin Sotoudeh, Mansoureh Shojaie, Narges Mohammadi, Talat Taghinia and  Badrossadat Mofidi.

Yahya Rahim-Safavi, the former commander of the Islamic Passdaran Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and current advisor to ayatollah Khamenei said in remarks published yesterday that he is worried about the lack of enough forces beholden to the supreme leader in universities, adding, “The universities aren’t in good shape today, missing from them are revolutionary forces and experts who are beholden to the Imam, the supreme leader and the Constitution.”

Emphasizing the supreme leader’s areas of concern, Rahim Safavi, who was speaking at a conference organized for the so-called cultural experts of the IRGC, said, “The supreme leader have identified soft war, and because the IRGC must combat both soft war as well as semi-hard was and hard war, it must have the tools for each kind of war.  

The former IRGC chief noted that the “goal of soft war is to change the culture, values and beliefs of the youth,” adding, “Our weakness is in this very issue of culture, which our enemies have identified before we did.  Therefore we must battle against and overcome the attacking culture with our soft and cultural power.”

Noting that “Our population was 36 million during the revolution and72 million now, therefore 50 percent of our country’s population are youth under the age of 30,” ayatollah Khamenei’s advisor noted his concerns with the “huge cultural war against Islam and the Islamic Revolution.”

Rahim-Safavi’s statements contradict last week’s remarks by Kamran Daneshjoo, Ahmadinejad’s science minister, who said, “The majority of the country’s university community are aligned with the revolution, and whoever cannot move in that direction must leave the community without pleasantries.”

Kamran Daneshjoo also made an implicit reference to the university professors who have been fired or dismissed, noting, “We have enough caring individuals in the science ministry to afford removing misaligned individuals from the community and aren’t ashamed of doing that.  

Following the June 12 presidential election, a large number of professors from various universities across the nation have been arrested, dismissed or forced into retirement.  At least 5 students from various universities have been killed by police or paramilitary forces during popular protests and many others are under arrest or have been barred from continuing their education.  

Following criticisms by ayatollah Khamenei in recent months that the “non-Islamic character of universities” and his insistence on “undertaking fundamental reform of the country’s educational system,” the supreme leader’s deputy in educational affairs has set up “supreme leader’s demands” post in universities, launching the overhaul of the country’s educational system towards a more Islamic approach.  

Iran’s nuclear issue has created a crisis for the international community and persists as time goes on. Those who believed that Iran’s nuclear issue was the result of George Bush’s aggressive and unilateral policies hoped that with Barrack Obama in the White House, the issue would be resolved through negotiations. Just a week after Obama came to office, he told Al Arabia television, “…as I said during my inauguration speech, if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.”

In the same interview president Obama also said, “My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect,” and with these words tried create the groundwork for a conciliation with the leaders of fundamentalist groups in Islamic countries, including those in Iran. And in another unprecedented step, he sent a Nowruz message to the people of Iran and addressed the leaders of the Islamic republic to show that regardless of what was going on in Iran, he recognized the leaders of the Islamic republic and the Islamic republic itself. Another green light that was sent was the decision by the US to cut off funds for pro democracy groups that had in the past gone to Iran. One recipient of such funds was the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center whose funds were cut off by USAID in 2009. These funds were cut off during the height of the civil protests in Iran following the deeply contested June 2009 presidential elections. What is more, the same funds were transferred to another pro-democracy program for the Near East. Many analysts believe that this measure was to please the Iranian government. On the other hand the non appointment of Dennis Ross as the special representative on Iran was another measure to win Iran over. Particularly as this was followed by the appointment of John Limbert as the Assistant Secretary for Iran in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the State Department. Limbert who speaks fluent Farsi is known in political circles as someone who advocates a softer approach to Iran and stresses talks. To this must be added the softer tone of the US Vice President on Iran.

Obama’s victory in foreign affairs, is a backlash against the neo conservatism that prevailed before him. So one can clearly say that Obama’s administration extended a hand of friendship to Iran with unprecedented good intentions.

At the same time, one must also mention the proposals raised by the US through the 5+1 group, all of which were rejected by Iran. But while the US extended its hand of friendship to Iran, Iran did not renege on its nuclear policies, and in fact expanded its nuclear policy to go for 20 percent enrichment of uranium. On top of this, one should note the recent report of the IAEA that Iran has been working on building warheads for ballistic missiles with the capability to carry nuclear weapons.

These issues beg the question that what must be done with Iran. Sanctions against Iran are the most immediate response. But are these sanctions defensible? This is not an easy question and it requires a detailed look at the issues. This article will try to look at them.

1-Will sanctions against Iran force the Islamic republic to stop its nuclear activities? The answer in a single phrase is no. To understand this and under what conditions will the Islamic republic stop its nuclear activities, one must first understand what is the goal of the Islamic republic in pursuing this policy. I believe that today after years into this crisis, it is clear that the goal of the Islamic republic was more than just access to nuclear energy. There is no economic justification for the pursuit of nuclear power generation. If it had been, regardless of crises that Iran has been in for so many years because of its nuclear policies, today under the current conditions, huge economic damage has come to the country because of the program, so it would have been only logical to end it. The rationale for the nuclear program among most Iranian authorities, which includes that of the supreme leader, is a security rationale. In other words the Islamic republic views the possession of nuclear weapons, or the technical and industrial know how to acquire them, a guarantee for its security against foreign threats. The Iranian regime has shown over the years that it knows how to play the game at the international level. By acquiring nuclear weapons, the Islamic republic strives to completely shield itself against any foreign aggression, and at the same time increase its regional influence. It also strives to limit what it calls Western interference in its internal affairs by using the nuclear stick. There is strong evidence that the nuclear policy has an ideological rationale among a small minority of Iranians. This is the very same group that calls for the destruction of Israel, creating the conditions for the appearance of the hidden Imam, etc. Those who live outside this logic of Mahdi and Islam find these arguments and logic hard to understand and even unbelievable. But one must not forget that those who believe in the Armageddon have their own logic which is different from the pragmatists. The experience of extensive sanctions against Saddam and North Korea demonstrate that under normal circumstances this policy does not threaten the existence of the regimes. So in view of its ultimate goal, the Islamic republic will not be threatened by more economic sanctions. If the security rationale is what drives the Iranian nuclear program, this activity will stop only when the regime feels that there is a serious security threat to its security. The Islamic republic believes that because of its current entanglements in Iraq and Afghanistan, including its war against Islamic terrorism in the Middle East, it does not have the capability to get involved in another war. In the incident when Iranians boarded a British navy ship and detained its sailors for a number of days, the Iranians were in fact testing the resolve of the coalition forces against a direct assault against them. At the same time, Iran regularly bombs its border regions with Iraq, to which must be added its role in arming the groups that are fighting the coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The response of Western governments has till now not convinced Iran that they are capable of confronting Iran. If Iran’s nuclear program is to be stopped through the military threat, then Iranian leaders have to be shown that Western leaders have the will and capability to engage it through other means as well. The minority that promotes its nuclear policy on its ideological beliefs has the potential to engage in very dangerous adventurism. This group has remained a minority in Iran, and since the death of ayatollah Khomeini it has been small. But events of recent years, and particularly those after the June 2009 elections which resulted in shifts in the hard power in the country, raise the question of whether this groups is still a minority or that these recent events have increased its power, particularly for those around ayatollah Khamenei.

2-Should the ineffectiveness of the economic sanctions means that the international community must abandon sanctions against Iran? If one looks at the issue of Iran from a global perspective, then Iran is a rogue state that has ignored repeated UN Security Council resolutions, continues its suspicious nuclear program and mocks at the international community. From the international perspective, ignoring Iran means giving the green light to other countries that may have similar aspirations as Iran. The strong international response to North Korea’s nuclear program and the destruction of its economic infra-structure, the greater part of which was the result of economic sanctions against the North Korean regime, has been an important deterrent for other countries with similar situations. Regardless of the outcome of any economic sanctions, leaving Iran to continue its nuclear program and refraining from imposing sanctions against it, sends the wrong message to other countries. So from the international perspective, sanctions against Iran are inevitable in the near future.

3-Will there be an international consensus for sanctions against Iran? Since a year ago, the groundwork for a consensus to impose sanctions against Iran has been building. President Obama since coming to office has acted in concord with China and Russia over Iran. Since coming to power, he has taken a different approach towards Russia and has given it some concessions to it over Georgia and Ukraine and also regarding the missile defense program in Europe. It appears that this policy has recently borne fruit regarding Russia’s policies towards Iran. As Russia’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov recently said, “We are very alarmed and we cannot accept this, that Iran is refusing to cooperate with the IAEA.” Moe recently, it has shown a positive posture towards sanctions against Iran. It appears that the only remaining obstacle is China. The large trade between the US and China indicates that sooner or later, China too would support sanctions against Iran after China gets what it wants from the US in other areas. In fact just recently, China has on two occasions remained silent over greater pressure on Iran. The first instance relates to a recent IAEA report on Iran, while the second is over blacklisting Iran as a country that engages in international laundering.

4-Will crippling economic sanctions against Iran harm the pro-democracy movement in Iran, or will they help it? It is now said that Iran’s green movement needs to get into the national strike mode to get the upper hand so that it can cripple the country, and thus force down Ahmadinejad’s administration. Perhaps, as the green movement gets active, crippling economic sanctions can help speed up the victory of the green movement. While nationalism plays an important role in Iran in its dreams of grandeur and the return of the Achaemenian empire, and Ahmadinejad’s government has used this card in recent years to win support for his adventurist and aggressive policies in the region, but as this hype dwindles and particularly after the post-election events, crippling sanctions will be viewed by people as the consequences of Ahmadinejad’s bad policies. And if the green movement continues its activities and remains active, the massive protests because of economic sanctions along with the crippling of the administration, will engulf the regime in a serious crisis.

Should the green movement be suppressed and incapacitated, economic sanctions can act like a double edged sword where on one hand while they will produce massive disenchantment with the administration but they can also weaken the middle class that is now striving for democracy and push it into poverty. I believe that if the atomic cloth in Iran moves faster than the democracy clock, and the international community remains uncertain about accepting a nuclear Iran or fighting Iran, a war in the Middle East is inevitable because Israel views Iran as an existential threat. And regardless of who the winner of the war will be  - although one may say it is clear who that will be when considering that Iran will be fighting Israel and its global allies - in view of the role that air superiority will play in such a battle, the Iran that will emerge from this conflict will be one in which its infrastructure will be completely destroyed but the situation will not be such that its middle class could slip into poverty. So while this is a tough decision to make, one may argue that if sanctions can speed up the pro-democracy movement faster than the pro-nuclear forces in Iran, then one can say economic sanctions may be the better choice because the alternative is the complete destruction of Iran’s century old achievements in modernization.

Other questions of course may be raised. For example, can sanctions be implemented in an effective way? Can smart sanctions be imposed? Are political sanctions effective, etc. But if the question today is what can Western governments do to help themselves and the Iranian people, then one can put the finger on one issue. The most important and effective step that they can take is to provide the infrastructure and hardware for the dissemination of uncensored information to the people of Iran. The creation and financial support of radio and television networks with Farsi programs, the provision of the means to break the Internet censorship that exists in Iran today, the extension of financial resources to expose Iran’s human rights abuses, and the extension of basic education and awareness of democracy and human rights to the Iranian people are the best assistance that Western governments can provide to speed up the pro-democracy movement in Iran. This will be to the benefit of the Iranian people and also to the benefit of Western governments and the international community.

The head of the Majlis Research Center announced the passage of a bill to limit available funds from cutting subsidies, according to which Ahmadinejad’s administration will be given the power to set prices for gasoline and related energy products next year.

Speaking to Jame Jam newspaper, Ahmad Tavakkoli said, “In the 1388 (2010) budget bill, the administration had predicted revenues of 34 thousand billion Tomans (about 34 billion USD) from reforming subsides for energy products, mainly gasoline and diesel fuel.  However, studies conducted by the Research Center, economic experts as well as discussions in the budget committee revealed that the expenditure of this revenue would result in an extreme increase in the price of such products and, consequently, uncontrollable inflation.” 

He added, “The administration’s recommendation set the price of gasoline at 400 Tomans diesel fuel at 350 Tomans (35 cents), white oil at 350 Tomans, unrefined oil at 200 Tomans (20 cents), gas at 130 Tomans (13 cents) and electricity at 100 Tomans (10 cent).”

According to Ahmad Tavakoli’s announcement, the price of diesel fuel was thus set to increase about 2000 percent, gasoline about 300 percent, natural gas about 980 percent, and electricity about 500 percent.  He noted, “In order to reduce the inflationary pressure of the subsidies reform plan, the budget committee decided to limit the government’s revenues from the plan to effectively lead the government towards a gradual and step-by-step removal of subsides and limit price increases to a less steep curve.” 

Oil Minister Shuns Responsibility

Although the administration claimed that it would strictly adhere to the budget’s gasoline import quota at the beginning of the year, in reality it did not implement the budget bill.  According to last year’s Majlis bill, gasoline quotas for privately-owned vehicles were set at about an average of 65 liters per month and capped at 780 liters per year.  Each privately-owned vehicle was to be provided 100 liters per month quota for the first three months, followed by 50 liters per month for the remaining nine months.  Ahmadinejad’provision of a 300-liter quota for spring was essentially part of his campaign financing, provided to consumers in furtherance of Ahmadinejad’s populist policies.

The budget bill required that the quota be reduced to 50 liters per month for the final nine months of the year.  The post-election unrest, however, coupled with the Qods Day events and the crisis resulting from the reopening of universities prompted the government to once again depart from the budget bill by increasing the 50-liter quota to 100 liters per month in order to prevent further unrest.

In this connection, it is heard that the oil minister has absolved himself of responsibility regarding the rationing schedule, noting that the Supreme National Security Council and the president’s direct representatives ruled on such issues, and that the oil ministry has no involvement in devising the rationing schedules.

Rooz has discussed the green movement’s situation since the February 11 rallies (the anniversary of the Islamic revolution in 1979) with Dr. Habibollah Peyman, leader of the Jonbesh Mosalmanan Mobarez [“Movement of Combatant Muslims”].  

Read on for the details.

Rooz: Mr. Peyman, observers continue to analyze the events of February 11th.  In your opinion, what was the impact of what took place that day on the green movement and the government?

Habibollah Peyman (Peyman): On February 11the, after security and police forces filled the areas and rally location were filled with secure people, only two options remained: one was for some [green movement] forces to come forward and engage in clashes, which is essentially against its philosophy and strategy.  The second option was pretty much what actually took place. People who participated were not able to express their presence with green symbols.  Despite what is advertised however, February 11 was neither a defeat for the green movement nor a victory for the hardliners.  

Rooz: So therefore nothing was accomplished?

Peyman: There were accomplishments!  I actually wanted to say that events of February 11 had considerable accomplishments which must be examined as the green movement devises its future course.  One important achievement was the understanding that a civil opposition movement should not remain limited to a few tactics.  Many thought that the movement’s resilience and demands could be sustained through street protests alone.  They have now realized that that tactic could be successfully blocked, and that they must find other tactics.  Secondly, the opposition movement’s growth had created the impression among many that it could accomplish its demands in the short term because the movement was backed by millions of people and it had opted to remain within the confines of the Constitution.  Most people have now realized that the transition from a society grappling with various forms of dictatorship to a free, healthy and democratic body is a long-term and gradual transformation.

Rooz: How can this gradual transformation take place with tactics other than street protests?

Peyman: I have to clarify that what happened on February 11 doesn’t negate street protests. This method should be used whenever permissible. But the green movement must undertake two fundamental tasks.  One is to devise a strategy to reach out to social groups belonging to the lower social strata which are still disconnected from the movement, by addressing and promoting their social and economic concerns and demands.  Members of this group which include laborers, teachers and farmers are the under-privileged and suffer the most from the government’s social and economic policies.  The relationship between their problems and the government’s wrong economic policies must be brought to light for them.

Rooz: Let’s imagine that the green movement succeeds in this and takes this notion to these social strata too and even won their support, but how do you translate this discontent and protest into a movement?

Peyman: Our country is full of mediocre and poor foreign products. It has always been said that foreign sure is hoarded in the country, while the government has not done anything about it, and sugar produced by Khuzestan Sugar Company is wasted in silos. The green movement can invite the public not to buy or use sugar for a week, as a measure of solidarity to the workers of the sugar plant.

Our sugar producers are always loosing money while the market is full of imported sugar. The same is true for farmers that grow apples or oranges. The movement can call on the public not to buy foreign rice and not eat it. Such civil disobedience campaigns can be launched. This is what the green movement should do and through it the social groups and forces will strengthen their ties to it. Showing solidarity with deprived and hurting groups in society are not battles with the core of the regime, but civil battles with wrong policies of the government and at the same time exercises in civil disobedience and social solidarity.

Rooz: But importers too are part of the national economy and their loss will hurt the national economy as well.

Peyman: No. Importers are a very small minority of dealers who use government subsidies and because of the relations they have established go around paying their custom taxes and in fact inflict damage to all small domestic producers and sellers, and consequently to the whole national economy.

Rooz: You said there were two tasks. What is the other one?

Peyman: The other task, which is as important as the first, is to change the existing view of democratic change and transformation, and deemphasize the idea that democratization occurs only through regime change.  A new type of hermeneutics must take shape which must take place in social awareness, among regular people and intellectuals. This type of thought is unfortunately alien in our society because of many years of suppression and despotism.

Rooz: But with the limitations that the green movement has, how does it plan to take these efforts to the people?

Peyman: By building social solidarity, the very thing that Mr. Mousavi has mentioned. What I can add is that this network should not be used just to organize street protests or the user of the Internet. Its most important role is to use it to engage in social debates on common social, cultural, etc issues based on democratic values and principles. This should be based on solidarity with the struggles and needs of people, both in the material and spiritual spheres. Through such debates and the establishment of such relations inside the groups, small groups with democratic, free and human relations will be established as models. This way, we shall prevent the repetition of failures of the constitutional movement, the nationalist movement and the 1979 revolution.

Rooz: But if the regime embarks on a widespread crackdown won’t that demoralize the public regarding its peaceful struggle, thus pushing some outside peaceful activism?

Peyman: If crackdowns were to demoralize the public, then nothing is going to take place. If this takes place, then only one way will be left, i.e. to meet violence with violence, and we know the results of such a course of action. So society must accept that this is a long-term battle. Europe too took hundreds of years to go through it and when it arrived at democratic life, the independent, reasonable and rationale man was born through the long process. The same must take place in our society, and this is the best opportunity for it. Forces of the green movement have this potential.

Rooz: In his talk this week, Mr. Mousavi again stressed the pursuit of demands within the confines of law and said that the demands can still be provided by the regime. Do you think the regime has this capacity?

Peyman: Yes, definitely. Any force that pursues its goals peacefully and gradually and is founded on social forces creates a negotiations bridge with those in power and authority. The communications between the two may be direct or indirect. IN all similar social movements, because of this type of relationship (peaceful and gradual), many inside the ruling establishment change their views and course of action in favor of people and even join the calls of the public. So the green movement too must keep the door of critical negotiations open. Furthermore, the ruling establishment attacks when it sees its existence or core in danger and is not willing to give any concessions. This is because of the fear that any concession may be interpreted as a weakness. But when the threats are not against its core or existence, it usually accepts to talk, remove some of the problems and even launch reforms.

Rooz: What examples do you have?

Peyman: The constitutional movement. When that movement took form and was organized, the king was prepared to talk and agreed to the Majlis. In those days too some of the ruling establishment changed positions and supported the calls for a national assembly, which all led to the decree agreeing to a constitutional monarchy. The same thing happened in the oil nationalization movement which resulted in the nationalization of oil and Mosaddegh became the prime minister. In Europe too, the same course was pursued.  As I said, long and gradual movements result in positive and solid results. It is only through this long process that ideas of freedom and democracy become institutionalized. What is important is a change in the type of relationships.

Rooz: How can the current regime come to this point?

Peyman: Protestors and dissidents can always find a common language to talk to the regime. National interest is an example. Both could believe and say that they are interested in preserving the national interest, the independence of the country, etc.

Once this common language is found, then issues can be discussed. Lets suppose we want to have a government that is strong and effective in the region, or internationally, talks could begin on this basis because both sides agree on it. Other common issues could be industrial development, economic growth, technical progress, etc.

Rooz: Are you concerned about a break in the organization of the movement among its leadership and damage to the movement?

Peyman: Yes, I am. There is now one trend that is moving towards a decentralized leadership that is spread out and diffused. But since our society has had a long history of centralized leadership, this new notion will need time to take form and be widely accepted and understood. This is why we are now in transition and have elements of both models. Every member of the movement must think for himself, while being a part of the movement and network. Still, I think today we still need a leader who has more experience and who is accepted by the public. This can exist in a relationship in which the leader consults and announces the results to the masses and civil activists. It is very important to have this now.

Rooz: Can you comment on the suggestions that the current leadership should move outside Iran or a new leadership should be formed there?

Peyman: I do not believe in either of these two. The leadership of any movement must remain within that society to have direct contact with realities in that society and its different strata. We are not following a secret society or movement like a guerrilla movement when leaders left the country because of threats and danger and led the movement from outside. This is a legal, massive and civil movement. Its leaders must definitely stay among the people. Those sincere individuals who have lived outside the country make suggestions which in most cases are not practical. Their ideas are not pursuable and have in fact created problems. This is what also happened on February 11 and some people made some recommendations which were absolutely wrong and had they been implemented, the movement would have suffered. So the leadership must be inside the country. Forces outside the country can and should provide ideas and participate in the exchange, but the final decisions must be taken inside the country by the current leadership and I do not believe there is any need leave the country. There is pressure, prison, arrest, release and those who are freed from prison return to activism. This is a civil movement not a secret revolutionary one.

Joe Stork is deputy director of Human Rights Watch's Middle East and North Africa division. Before joining Human Rights Watch in 1996, Mr. Stork co-founded the Middle East Research & Information Project (MERIP) and served as chief editor of Middle East Report.  Rooz had talked with Joe Stork about the current situation of human rights in Iran.

 Fariba Amini (Amini): Having been in this position for a number of years, how do you assess the current human rights situation in Iran?

Joe Stork (Stork): I think the situation is terrible.  Looking back, the state of human rights in Iran has been a problem for many years, a real crisis, even dating back to the Shah’s time. But I think the situation today is particularly bad because we are seeing the level of confrontation between the state, the government, and the very large sectors of population; it is quite severe. So I would say the scale of arbitrary arrests, though not unprecedented, is certainly bad. I don’t think we have seen certain phenomenon, such as show trials and so forth, stand out. They are similar to the 1980s when show trials were pretty common in the Islamic republic. The fact that we are seeing it again is very worrying.

Amini: Why do you think the regime is using such violent tactics?  It seems to me the tactics are similar those used in the early days of the Islamic Republic. Then there were systematic mass executions and now the torture and killings seem somewhat random.

Stork: Well we can’t and should not compare the two periods. If you look at the different periods, (and I have worked for HR Watch since 1996, more or less coinciding with Mohammad Khatami's presidency) the situation today is very serious, the worst it has been. There have not been mass executions; there have been a number of unexplained deaths of demonstrators in the streets, as well as people who have been in custody and unaccounted for. We are probably talking about several dozen in total, as compared to hundreds in the 1980s, so I am not sure whether it is correct to make the comparison. In terms of killings, yes, it was a lot of worse, but that is no comfort today when you have this severe oppression going on and you have people challenging the regime, unlike 20 years ago. Iranians are challenging the abuses on a massive scale.

Amini: In your opinion, why such a violent reaction? Is it a backlash to the massive demonstrations?

Stork: I am speculating here. This is really a question to pose to a government spokesperson, but I have to say that it is a response to the very considerable popular challenge that has been mounting in the wake of the contested presidential elections.

Amini: What are some of the forms of torture documented by HRW since the election unrest?

Stork: There have been cases of rape, solitary confinement, threats to the prisoner and his/her family members, etc. But mainly severe beatings have been reported in most cases.    We do not have any reports about possible electro shocks but that doesn’t mean it has not taken place.

Amini: What is HRW Watch doing at this point?

Stork: HRW is doing what it has been doing and what it customarily does: namely, we try to document the abuses and serious human rights violations; we try to publicize them; we do advocacy with the authorities to urge them to cease the violations and to protect human rights. We also do advocacy in other forms with the UN in New York and Geneva; we document everything, and all our findings are available on our website.

Amini: I am sure you have heard of Mohmmad Javad Larijani, head of Iran’s High Council for Human Rights who said recently in Geneva that there are no torture and abuses in Iran?

Stork: Well, this is rather fantastical. You have to ask what universe this person is living in and what country he is living in, to claim that there are no abuses; either he is blind or he is lying or he just does not know what abuse is.  

Amini: Was there a presence of HRW at this meeting?

Stork: HRW was not in the room at the time but we have a presence in Geneva.

Amini: What do you think ordinary citizens can do to help organizations such as HRW?

Stork: Obviously we appreciate support from all corners, including financial support in order to continue what we are doing.  But I think the most pertinent question is what Iranians can do to help the protesters and to expose the government abuses in Iran. We have seen a number of occasions where Iranians and Americans have been in the streets in this country protesting and raising their voices, particularly when Ahmadinejad was in New York. Obviously raising issues with American law makers and with the US and international media are ways to support our efforts.

Amini: What do you think the US government, especially the Obama administration, should do to ameliorate the situation?

Stork: It is a good question but it doesn’t have an easy answer. There are some limits to what the US can do, primarily because it has no working relationship with the government of Iran. It doesn’t have any relations to cut off. You know better than me that there is a lot of baggage when it comes to Iran-US relations. The US has had a terrible role over several decades, dating back to the military coup in 1953. So In light of that history, there is a limit to what the Obama administration can do in terms of the pressures it can exercise and what may help the situation. There are issues of sanctions or punishment, various measures that are being introduced in the US senate to cut off gasoline imports, etc. In my opinion, these kinds of measures are not the right way to respond; it will only hurt the people, not the government. On the other hand you have other bills that are being introduced to provide for American individuals and companies to send software and communications technology to Iran; this would help break the government’s embargo on information and help circumvent the Iranian government censor. These kind of measures have not been acted upon as of yet, which is too bad.

Amini: Since you also work on other parts of the Middle East, how do you evaluate the situation in Iraq? Are there still human right abuses and to what extent? Is torture going on?  Is it better today than before the invasion?

Stork: It is different. There are plenty of human rights violations that are going on today.  The general insecurity of people and the general vulnerability of many Iraqis is worse than it was before. On the other hand, the degree of authoritarianism has lessened, but now the problem is random violence; the indiscriminate acts carried out by militias or armed groups which are a threat to lives. Before 2003, arbitrary rule of the secret police was much more selective.  

Amini: Is there torture in Iraqi prisons?  

Stork: We have reason to think so.  We have been able to visit the detention centers a few times. The last time was in 2006 and there was definitely a problem then. We have no reason to believe that it has ceased today; whether it is as widespread or not I cannot say. I can tell you that the UN Assistance Mission to Iraq, the UNAMI group which puts out a report every year, does note the continuous torture in detention centers. It is still a serious problem.  

Amini: Have you ever asked to visit the Iranian prisons?

Stork: We have asked to go to Iran but have never been given a visa to even enter the country, let alone visit its prisons.

One day after the widespread media coverage of student Mohammad Amin Valian’s death sentence, which was said to have been issued on the basis of a fatwa (religious decree) issued by grand ayatollah Makarem-Shirazi, and which led several other grand ayatollahs, including Makarem-Shirazi himself, to oppose the death sentence, judiciary officials contacted Valian’s family members and denied the sentence stressing that such a sentence had never been issued.

According to one of Amin Valian’s family friends, officials who denied the issuance of the death sentence in fact scared Valian’s family members who now feared that this may have created the excuse for a harsh treatment of the prisoner by officials.

Late last week, judiciary officials announced that student Mohammad Amin Valian was sentenced to death by Judge Salavat in accordance with a fatwa issued by ayatollah Makarem-Shirazi.  The fatwa declared protesters participating in the Ashoura Day protests to be Moharebs (armed enemies of the state).  The news, reported by domestic dailies and Internet websites, caused international outrage.  One blogger was able to contact ayatollah Makarem-Shirazi’s office to ask about the fatwa.  The response was that the ayatollah’s office plays no role in the issuance of fatwas, and one hour later the fatwa was denied.  Protests continued until ayatollah Makarem-Shirazi’s website published a response in its “website guest” section denying the issuance of such a fatwa and blaming the incident on media “agitators.”  

But the explanation did not quell protests as it sounded very similar to state-run media strategy of blaming other media outlets for their faults.  One blogger went as far as writing that, unless the fatwa is voided, ayatollah Makarem-Shirazi’s office will serve as “logs for the last Wednesday’s fire,” referring to the Chaharshanbeh-Suri ceremony, celebrated across Iran on the last Tuesday of the Iranian calendar year (ending on March 21st) and traditionally involving fire and fireworks.

In the next development, the “website guest” section of ayatollah Makarem-Shirazi’s website was updated to reflect the ayatollah’s view that young protesters with no attachment to anti-regime groups should be pardoned.  The widespread coverage of the execution verdict also prompted grand ayatollah Sanei and grand ayatollah Bayat-Zanjani to issue separate fatwas describing actions by protestors on Ashoura Day as “legitimate self-defense.”

Rashid Miresmaili Released

University student Rashid Miresmaili was released on Wednesday after spending two months behind bars.  He spent a portion of that in cells shared with dangerous smugglers.  He was also without visitation rights in the final month of his incarceration.  

Rashi Esmaili is accused of insulting the supreme leader and the Islmic Republic.

Meanwhile, more than 20 days after the arrest of Tara Sepehrifar, secretary of Sharif University’s Islamic Student Association, nothing is known of her condition.

She only told her family in a short telephone conversation on the day of her arrest that she is being held at Evin Prison’s Ward 209.  

The Zahedan Univeristy’s disciplinary committee also summoned 8 students and convicted 7 of various disciplinary code violations.  

Azerbaijani journalist Abdollah Sadoughi was transferred to the Tabriz Prison’s medical clinic on Wednesday nineteen days into his hunger strike.  According to Sadoughi’s family, Abdollah, who is suffering from stomach ulcer, has lost more than 20 kilograms since the beginning of his hunger strike.

Hossein Sadoughi, the brother of this Azerbaijani journalist, who was arrested 48 days ago for designing a poster for the Teraktorsazi football club in Azeri Turkish language, told Rooz, “Judiciary officials are essentially ignoring his case and not investigating his charges.”  Speaking to Rooz, Hossein Sadoughi said he was worried about his brother’s deteriorating health since the hunger strike, adding, “Instead of transferring him to the prison’s medical facility, prison officials first gave him a heavy beating and only then transferred him to the medical facility.”  Meanwhile, Taghi Mahmoudi, Abdollah Sadoughi’s attorney tells Rooz about his failed efforts to convince his client to break his 19-day hunger strike: “Our requests to break his hunger strike have been ineffective.”  The interview with Sadoughi’s brother appears below.

Rooz: In recent days some news sources have published reports about your brother’s hunger strike.  Do you confirm the news?  What is his latest condition?

Hossein Sadoughi (Sadoughi): My brother has been on a hunger strike for the past 19 days.  Initially, not many people knew of the strike.  But four days after starting it, he sent a letter to his prosecutor Mr. Hashemzadeh.  The presiding judge, however, is effectively ignoring the case.  My brother was in his seventeenth day of the hunger strike yesterday, and as we found out during our visitation on Wednesday, he is suffering from stomach ulcer and internal bleeding, and is not in a good condition at all.  His family is extremely concerned about his condition and our requests from him to break his hunger strike were ineffective.  The judge has so far denied our request to release my brother.  

Rooz: You said you visited your brother on Wednesday.  What did he say about his condition?

Sadoughi: After my brother announced his hunger strike, in order to put him under more pressure, prison officials moved him to Ward 10, where dangerous criminals are kept.  Under provocations from prison officials, these dangerous criminals beat up my brother.  After the beating, the Tabriz Prison warden moved my brother and three other prisoners to a tiny cell filled with bugs and insects.  Under all the pressure, my brother’s condition deteriorated tremendously four days ago.  Instead of transferring him to the medical facility, prison officials first gave him a heavy beating and then transferred him to the medical facility.  This inhumane behavior of prison officials is absolutely not acceptable to me or my family.  

On Wednesday he didn’t say anything to us, but his condition was extremely fragile.  He has lost 20 to 25 kilograms in weight, and in addition limped badly in one leg.  We weren’t able to ask him why he was limping because of his wife’s presence and her emotional state.