My sincerest apologies to all of you who continue to check Medius Oriens for something worth reading. I’m going through an international move now and for the next couple of weeks, so any posting that happens will be minimal. I’m grateful you keep coming back and I can assure you that September will bring about more regular activity again. Thanks again.
It’s no surprise that Moqtada Sadr (click here for a profile) is still active in Shia politics even though we’ve not seen him for a long time. Some have wondered if he has been hiding out in the holy city of Qom in Iran since the 2007 ceasefire in Iraq; but his absence from view should never have been interpreted as a resignation from political influence. Now he has shown himself again. But why was his first public appearance with Syrian President Bashar Assad?
The only part of the conversation they have made public is the discussion they had over Iraq’s future. Fair enough. With the US reducing its commitments there, Sadr would want to be involved in shaping the new Iraq. But why Assad, and what about Sadr’s connections with the hardliners in Tehran?
Could they have also discussed the situation in Iran? Assad has supported Hezbollah who has also been financed and supported by the Iranian leadership. And Sadr has reportedly been camping in Qom, but even if he hasn’t, he has for years had close ties with Tehran. Was Sadr an ambassador to Assad for the radical clerics of Iran? What message would he have brought?
Was Sadr’s meeting with Assad publicly to indicate where the future of Iraq may be headed? Assad most certainly shares Sadr’s view that US-occupation has been an imperialist wolf in the sheep’s clothing of ‘freedom-fighting’. And I don’t disagree completely (see my nuanced discussion here). But does Sadr see an opportunity to make in Iraq what is falling apart in Iran?
I have no answers at the moment. But I’m thinking out loud with you. Let me know what you think.
Further to my comments from this morning, a very sage friend passed along this quote from Augustine, City of God, 19.12:
Whoever gives even moderate attention to human affairs and to our common nature, will recognize that if there is no man who does not wish to be joyful, neither is there any one who does not wish to have peace.
For even they who make war desire nothing but victory,–desire, that is to say, to attain to peace with glory. For what else is victory than the conquest of those who resist us? and when this is done there is peace. It is therefore with the desire for peace that wars are waged, even by those who take pleasure in exercising their warlike nature in command and battle.
And hence it is obvious that peace is the end sought for by war. For every man seeks peace by waging war, but no man seeks war by making peace. For even they who intentionally interrupt the peace in which they are living have no hatred of peace, but only wish it changed into a peace that suits them better.
They do not, therefore, wish to have no peace, but only one more to their mind.
…even wicked men wage war to maintain the peace of their own circle.
The inevitibility of conflict is assured by the refusal of the ausgespielt to accept the new ‘peace’ imposed upon them by the vanquisher; they rise up and a new conflict is borne.
Geopolitics is really not that complex. Self-interest is a useful interpreter.
Well, they do. But not really. If they did really want widespread democratic reform, they’d be harder on countries like Saudi Arabia for human rights abuses and for their refusal to implement the most basic principles of democracy, such as free and fair elections. They’d also crack the whip on countries like Egypt, whose pseudo-democratic posturing is laughable to onlookers outside of Egypt, but tragic to those who have to live with it.
The story on Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s Middle East trip in TIME today illustrates the problem.
Saudi Arabia, the Arab world’s largest economy and OPEC’s de facto leader, recycles significant petrodollars into U.S. Treasury bonds. And government-run investment funds in the United Arab Emirates — Geithner’s second Arab stop — have poured billions of dollars into U.S. banks and other companies.
As a group,the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council — which includes Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman — is now the U.S.’s second biggest creditor after China.
Tarik Yousef, dean of the Harvard-affiliated Dubai School of Government, said the United States views the region as an important source of funding and as a balancing force in the world’s financial system.
“A reinforcing message about their role in the global economy … is an important message to convey,” he said.
Geithner, who is expected to hold talks with King Abdullah and his top financial advisers later Tuesday, said the meetings in Saudi aim to highlight the importance of the two countries working together to resolve the economic global crisis.
But before you become non compos mentis with anti-Americanism, consider the complexities. That it is hypocritical and shameful America would try to force democracy in Iraq and not care about it everywhere else is incontrovertible. Obama is not exempt: that we’d encourage the Sea of Green in Iran, but never try to fan similar flames in the Kingdom or in Om El Donya is embarrassing.
Nonetheless, it is what it is. Nations have interests. Self-interests. And you can’t blame them for it. At least not entirely. A nation’s affairs are always conducted for its own internal needs and desires before any other nation’s. This doesn’t always allow for neat and tidy ethics, nor the idealism up to which some of us wish our nations would live. But because politicians in democracies are elected by their people, they must first serve the interests of those people who put them there. Every now and then, a transformational politician comes along who has the ability to introduce new ways of governance and to envision very different policies—and the popularity to get them implemented—and these will lead to change at a greater pace than his predecessors would have been able had they tried the same. We are living in such a time in the United States.
However, to assume these changes mean that president will not at times carry out the same practices as his predecessors is absurd. I have read so much nonsense in American and Middle Eastern press about how Obama is the same as Bush. Of course he is. Big shocker. He is the President of the United States, following in a long line of bad Middle Eastern (and other) policies. He can’t just up and quit them all at once, nor does he seem willing to even if he could. At the same time: of course he is not. Already this president has shown an approach to Israel and to the entire Middle East that is refreshingly different to the one we witnessed previously.
But if you were in hopes that Barack Hussein Obama would fly immediately to Riyadh after he took the oath of office, storm into King Abdullah’s presence and announce, ‘A new day has arrived! I’m here to bring change, not only to America, but to the entire world!’, it was you who were incredibly naive.
Nations have self-interests. And not all of them are ethical, just, noble.
The first animated Palestinian film tells the story of Fatenah, a lonely woman who cannot get breast cancer treatment. Initially, it appears it is going to be another fulmination against Israel, since Fatenah is stopped at a checkpoint and refused entry for medical attention by the Israelis. But Mohammed Harmassi claims it is far from an anti-Israel rant.
Instead, there are criticisms of both bureaucracies and their handling of one another. More pointedly, even if more implicitly, the film criticizes the roles assigned to women in Arab society. Fatenah’s animated character is given big eyes and a small mouth, since women are “compelled to a bitter existence but not empowered to speak”, says director Ahmad Habash.
But healthcare is the main focus of the film, and specifically the lack of healthcare available to Gazans. While animated, the story is based upon the real tragedy of Fatma Bargouth, whose struggle to obtain medical attention was documented by Israeli human rights agencies, and the group Physicians for Human Rights in a report published in 2005. Significantly, the film’s producers did not use Fatma as the name of the main character; Fatinah means ‘captivating’.
Before appearing throughout the Palestinian territories, the 30 minute film will be shown at festivals in Venice, Toronoto, Abu Dhabi, and Dubai. Last week crowds in Ramallah were approving: “I liked the balance of tragedy and comedy,” said one viewer. “It was depressing but also a very accurate picture of how Palestinians have to try and get health care, being treated as less than human beings.”
Today is the 10th anniversary of the student uprising in Iran. Recently, I referred to The Economist’s cover of that 1999 uprising, featuring Ahmad Batebi.
In memory of those who suffered during that uprising and in the ongoing one, protesters are said to be gathering throughout Iran as I write, in at least the following cities: Tehran, Shiraz, Isfahan, Ahwaz, Kerman, Mashhad and Babol. Some mobile phones are losing reception, helicopters are flying over Tehran and the government promises again to “smash” any protests. This could be another horrific day, but it will unquestionably be a tense one.
There are other gatherings happening around the world, but let me pass along this message from an Iranian-American friend about the gathering today in Atlanta:
Just wanted to let you know that in memory of the 10th anniversary of student uprising in Iran, we will have a rally in front of CNN on Thursday July 9th from 5-7. Hope you and your readers can join us. The moral support of our non Iranian friends is very much appreciated and valued.
I attended the vigil in Piedmont Park on 24 June, at which Alexander from the Brown Folks Blog (which has a lovely new design I should note) read this moving poem. I want to encourage anyone who is able to go to Atlanta tonight, or to another gathering wherever you may live. As my friend notes above, the moral support is encouraging them to continue.
Back in May, we mentioned the establishment of the Band-e Amir National Park. The US Department of State blog today recalled the celebration of 18 June.
Ambassador Eikenberry and several regional Afghan leaders joined together on June 18 to celebrate Afghanistan’s first national park — Band-e-Amir. The park, which features six lakes in central Bamyan Province and covers 59,000 hectares of land, is a place of astonishing natural beauty and a poorly-kept secret among the Afghan population. The recent gathering of the leaders included a ribbon-cutting ceremony and a walk to the lakes. Several American, Afghan, and international news sources were even on site to mark the historic day’s events.
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) had been working with the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and local communities surrounding Band-e-Amir to establish the national park since 2006. The hard work of our colleagues at USAID and the involved Afghan organizations has certainly paid dividends. The surrounding area is expected to benefit economically and will hopefully surpass its pre-war popularity through the park’s renaissance.
Ambassador Eikenberry, Afghanistan’s Second Vice President and Bamyan’s Governor were also able to enjoy the recreational opportunities at the park in a rare moment of spare time. They took advantage of the large swan paddle boats and paddled around the lake in the crisp, blue water edged by arching natural rock walls. It is a truly breath-taking sight that American and regional leaders alike hope will be a positive, sustainable attraction for decades to come.
When so much horrifying news comes out of this region by the minute, experiencing the beauty a place like Band-e Amir has to offer is good for the soul. Go back and look at those few pics from the original post.
Vahid Salemi/Associated Press
In a really stupid piece in the Telegraph, Will Heaven argues that the so-called ‘Twitter Revolution’ has actually been the cause of some of the violence in Iran. While he is no doubt correct that it was unrealistic to expect Twitter and Facebook could have brought down the regime, he is foolish to suggest these social networking tools in some way stand behind the brutality.
And for the record, I’m still baffled so many Western media are already declaring it over. The statement just issued by Rafsanjani’s party, Kargozaran, makes it clear there is still a fight to be had: the people may be more reluctant to head to the streets in protest, but the clerics are involved in an ongoing, and growing, struggle. Remember, we pointed out a while back about these fractures developing in Iran’s leadership.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, center, attends a 2007 ceremony with Revolutionary Guard Corps commander Maj. Gen. Mohammed Ali Jafari, right. /AP
Daragahi’s story yesterday in the LA Times indicated the IRGC are taking on a much more significant role.
Maj. Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari, commander of the elite military branch, said the guard’s takeover of the nation’s security had led to “a revival of the revolution.”
“These events put us in a new stage of the revolution and political struggles, and all of us must fully comprehend its dimensions,” he said at a Sunday press conference, according to reports that surfaced today.
“Because the Revolutionary Guard was assigned the task of controlling the situation, [it] took the initiative to quell a spiraling unrest. This event pushed us into a new phase of the revolution and political struggles and we have to understand all its dimensions.”
This information adds substance to what we’ve seen on the streets in the last few weeks, and now there is no way of misreading what has happened: Iran has become a military dictatorship. By their perverse and tyrannical actions, they have entirely abandoned the original purpose of the Islamic Revolution, and now only use the banner of their faith as a spiritual justification for inflicting horror upon their own people. Many of the Basij have stated they were shooting and clubbing the protesters “in the name of Allah”; the regime has convinced these fighters they are on a holy mission. Anyone with any historical sense about them can very easily recognize this is a new day in Iran’s interpretation of the Revolution and of Islam.
Today is Father’s Day in Iran. Remember today how many fathers have been detained and therefore are not able to celebrate with their families, and also how many fathers are without their children who have been arrested and jailed.
More and more reports are coming out of torture and abuse in the prisons, making this Father’s Day an especially trying time for many.
There will be lots to catch up on when Medius Oriens returns Monday, 6 July. We will continue covering the unfolding drama in Iran, but will return back to our pre-Iranian election form in which we include events in the wider Middle Eastern world. We need to catch up on the Israeli-Palestinian situation, have that long-promised conversation with Wael Abbas, and discuss whatever else may happen from now until then.
As always, I’m humbled by your interest in this blog and am grateful you choose to come back when you have so many other choices.
A source tells me Italian intelligence has discovered millions of $$$ being transferred out of Iran, including money connected to Rafsanjani. If this is confirmed, it indicates the powerful cleric either is planning a showdown after which he would need to flee if he lost, or he has calculated the tide is turning against him already and he will need to escape with the stink he has already stirred up. On the other hand, some pro-regime elements are also transferring funds which seems to indicate neither side yet knows what will be their end.
I hope to have more tomorrow.
More evidence for fraud has been presented in this new report that identifies 38 districts in which Ahmadi supposedly won 100% of the votes. If you are arithmetically challenged, that would mean not a single vote went for another candidate.
Here are some of the anti-Basiji websites I’ve collected over the past couple of days with some very expert help. Viviana Mazza of Corriere della Sera ran a story this morning on these and I wanted to bring your attention to them here.
ID the Basiji
Out the Basij
Iran, Why We Protest, and another from the same group
CS Monitor
Basiji Hunt
Also, Alexander, who has provided me with great help over the past few days, has also sent me his translation of Mohsen Makhmalbaf’s recent letter, and it is now online. The Brown Folks blog is one you should bookmark. These are not only great writers, but also very generous for allowing us to learn about their identity struggles as Arab- and Iranian-Americans.
A reader wrote to ask this:
Question: do you see anything wrong in this:
Lieberman, McCain, and Graham held a presser announcing new Iran legislation they intend to introduce. It will increase funding for Radio Farda and Voice of America, both of which have been critical at keeping Iranians informed of what’s happening in their own country and reporting those events to the outside world as well. They also talk of funding a new Farsi-language website with live news coverage, and “funding to foster the spread of technologies that would make it harder for the Iranian regime to crackdown” on the transmission of information over cellphones.
(The story is here.) All possible beneficial outcomes aside, this is still a bone-headed move by three senators who are completely ignorant of dealing with Iran and the Middle East. Senator McCain apparently didn’t know the difference between Shia and Sunni when he was on a tour in the Middle East last year to boast of his foreign policy credentials. This is also the man of the infamous “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” song. So when John McCain stands behind a microphone to speak about Iran, I’m not about to believe he has the Iranians’ best interests in mind. I’m also not going to listen with an attentive ear to learn from him something new about Iran. He doesn’t know Iran, so how could he offer anything helpful? Instead, under the self-righeous banners of “human rights” and “democracy” and “freedom”, he and his cohorts attempt to interfere, to meddle, in Iranian affairs. Now, I too hold those very ideals of human rights, democracy and freedom. But using them as a tool to demonstrate one’s righteousness and to give one the justification to increase American influence simply because it is American is unacceptable. Radio Farda and Voice of America have provided great services to many Iranians. But the former is sponsored by the US government and the latter is called ‘Voice of America‘. Can the senators be so oblivious? Just like the ridiculous suggestion to send military aircraft into Iran, these are also counter-productive and ultimately endanger the Iranians they claim they want to help.
The brilliant Juan Cole issues a very important caution to those insistent on more US intervention in Iran. I’m going to put the whole block in here because he makes an argument relevant to what I’ve been writing, only far more eloquently:
Moreover, very unfortunately, US politicians are no longer in a position to lecture other countries about their human rights. The kind of unlicensed, city-wide demonstrations being held in Tehran last week would not be allowed to be held in the United States. Senator John McCain led the charge against Obama for not having sufficiently intervened in Iran. At the Republican National Committee convention in St. Paul, 250 protesters were arrested shortly before John McCain took the podium. Most were innocent activists and even journalists. Amy Goodman and her staff were assaulted. In New York in 2004, ‘protest zones’ were assigned, and 1800 protesters were arrested, who have now been awarded civil damages by the courts. Spontaneous, city-wide demonstrations outside designated ‘protest zones’ would be illegal in New York City, apparently. In fact, the Republican National Committee has undertaken to pay for the cost of any lawsuits by wronged protesters, which many observers fear will make the police more aggressive, since they will know that their municipal authorities will not have to pay for civil damages.
The number of demonstrators arrested in Tehran on Saturday is estimated at 550 or so, which is less than those arrested by the NYPD for protesting Bush policies in 2004.
I applaud the Iranian public’s protests against a clearly fraudulent election, and deplore the jackboot tactics that the regime is using to quell them. But it is important to remember that the US itself was moved by Bush and McCain toward a ‘Homeland Security’ national security state that is intolerant of public protest and throws the word ‘terrorist’ around about dissidents. Obama and the Democrats have not addressed this creeping desecration of the Bill of Rights, and until they do, the pronouncements of self-righteous US senators and congressmen on the travesty in Tehran will be nothing more that imperialist hypocrisy of the most abject sort.
American politicians should keep their hands off Iran and let the Iranians work this out. If the reformers have enough widespread public support, they will develop tactics that will change the situation. If they do not, then they will have to regroup and work toward future change. US covert operations and military interventions have caused enough bloodshed and chaos. If the US had left Mosaddegh alone in 1953, Iran might now be a flourishing democracy and no Green Movement would have been necessary.
I’m going mobile for the rest of the day and will be forced to post minimally over the next week. Not the best time in the world, I know, but I am not a professional blogger, and therefore do not have anyone to step in for me to keep giving you the stuff I’ve been giving. At some point, I would like to appoint a willing and competent writer as a backup when I am unable to write. For now, however, this is impossible.
Before I go, I wanted to mention two things:
1. In fairness to some who have criticized recent comments I’ve made about neocons, I concede I have thrown them all in the same bunch. They are not all panting for a confrontation with Iran, and many are excellent thinkers with whom I simply disagree. Nonetheless, I reject Senator McCain’s stance, as well as most of the GOP who have been calling for stronger action against Iran. Once again, I think those calling for such actions are doing so selfishly; namely, they want confrontation, they want to flex their muscles, or they simply want to jump on the bash-Obama boat. Whatever their reasons, Majd took the words out of my mouth when he said these people know nothing of Iran and Iran’s unique situation. I wrote a few weeks ago that one cannot compare Iran to other movements and conclude that we should act in the same way with them. It would be a fatal mistake to assume what worked in Ukraine or anywhere else would work in Iran. Moreover, arguing about US actions in other countries ignores the very fact that we have had such a difficult relationship with Iran. Of course Iranian authorities will continue blaming the US. But many of the reformers, or those sympathetic with the reformers, can see right through that as long as we do not provide any justification for the regime’s accusations. The moment we step in, we prove them right.
2. I want to thank Viviana Mazza of Italy’s largest daily, Corriere della Sera, with whom I’ve had some very helpful exchanges. She and her colleagues have covered the Iran crisis admirably, and if you read Italian you are missing out if you are not following her. Go to Corriere’s website and in the top search field, type her name to get her latest reports on Iran.
The Supreme Leader did not lead the Friday prayers, a move some suggest was due to the complete disregard for his warnings given last week. Another week of protests after another Friday warning would have humiliated him even further. Instead, a different hard line cleric gave the sermon and called for the execution of all involved in the protests.
Also today, the Guardian Council wrapped up their investigation of the allegations of voter fraud. The Council determined that 2009’s election was the most healthy since 1979.
I say again: the hope of the opposition is rests entirely with Rafsanjani.
by KAL, via economist.com
Instead, two articles point out the battle appears to be moving from the street demonstrators to the clerics:
THE roller-coaster that liberal-minded Iranians boarded as they agitated en masse against a suspect presidential poll seemed to hit the buffers on June 20th, when a banned demonstration was met with lethal force. Millions of Iranians remain incensed by what they see as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s fraudulent victory over his main challenger, the reformist Mir Hosein Mousavi, in the election of June 12th. But far fewer now seem ready to take the risk of venting their anger on the streets. For all that, it may not take much to provoke another popular eruption. A fresh spark may yet be provided by the unusually public struggle for dominance over the Islamic Republic that has erupted within the ruling clerical establishment itself. The crisis may indeed be moving from the street to the back rooms of the mosque.
See the other piece here:
However, the courage of millions of ordinary Iranians will not have been in vain. The old establishment has not yet won and the crisis is far from over (see article). That is because the balance of power has shifted against the status quo.
This will be the last from MO tonight. Friday’s prayers, led once again by the Supreme Leader, will give more direction as to where we may be heading.
I’d be watching his tone: if he softens his words it might be that some sort of compromise is being worked out between both sides and he would want to start focusing on reconciliation. What are the compromises? I’ve mentioned some already but we’ll wait and see if Khamenei gives any reason to believe in these possibilities before hashing them out again.
As of late tonight, I’m still hearing that Musavi is refusing to give ground. This would mean that he believes Rafsanjani is close to pulling off something more favorable to him. If this is the case, we can expect the Supreme Leader’s words to follow the same hard line as last week.
So that is what I’m looking for on Friday, along with more allegations of Western involvement in the protest movement (which is, by the way, yet another reason Obama is doing the wise thing. I can hardly imagine the mess the US would be in right now had John McCain been elected).
Click this page here. This is the Iranian website Gerdab (which means ‘whirlpool’ in Farsi). They ask that readers help them identify those photographed at protests so that they may be arrested.
Last night I had the privilege of attending the Candlelight Vigil for Iran in Atlanta’s Piedmont Park. Take a look at some photos from that event. I hope new readers who stumble onto this blog to see the pics will stay around to read all of my coverage of Iran.
But before I show the pics, I wanted to mention an interesting conversation I had with a new found friend. For those of you who have been reading Medius Oriens, you’ll know I keep no secrets about my love for Iranian history and culture, but being a friend of an Iranian is one of the most rewarding relationships life has to offer. Whenever I get a chance to meet a new Iranian friend, I am always amazed at their knowledge of their history, the pride for their heritage, and their passion for life. Last night, I had a great time talking for about an hour with a new Iranian-American friend. After hearing the crowd chant ‘Step up Obama!’, I asked him what he thought of the US’s response to the situation. He argued that his views were in line with most Iranians in Atlanta, who collectively agree that the United States has failed to handle this situation properly. I’ve mentioned as recently as this morning that I’m still of the belief we should not get more involved than we already have. But my friend made a case that is worth considering if you haven’t yet decided where you fall on this issue. He wrote me an hour ago and articulated some of his thoughts again. Here is what he wrote:
…it was a pleasure to meet and chat with you. I think if you look at the situation in Iran, only from the point view of US national interest, it may make sense for president Obama to limit his remarks to condemnation of human rights violations and no more. But that brings up the problem of double and sometimes many fold standards that our government has in its application of foreign policy and human rights issues (look at our stands with regards to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan as opposed to Venezuela, Cuba and Syria or look at our stand with regard to the election in Palestine couple of years ago). But I think we should also think about the way all of this looks to the Iranians and their struggle to gain more access to democratic rights. We have openly spent millions of dollars under Bush and continue to do so under Obama administration to promote democracy in Iran; is that not considered meddling in internal affairs of Iran?
The people of Iran have always had this problem with our foreign policy; it is obvious to them that we make decisions not based on principals but only based on the politics of the day. For a country that claims moral authority on issues of Democracy and Human rights; this kind of decision making and policy stands is just appalling. We should very forcefully support the democratic aspiration of all people regardless of their geographic boundaries.
My question in response is whether or not this is the view unique to Iranian-Americans (or Iranian-Atlantans to be exact), or do the majority inside Iran also feel the same? I’ve heard reports of older women in chadors on the streets of Tehran begging, ‘Obama save us!’; I’ve also received communications from friends closer to my age that are adamant about Obama staying out and letting them do it for themselves. One might have expected it to be the other way round.
What do you think? Does my friend make a case strong enough to change your opinion about the US’s actions towards Iran?
Have a think on that, but look at these photos from last night while you are. Note in particular the pre-Islamic Revolution flag. I’ve removed faces from the photos for their safety.
Majd and Haleh Esfandiari were on Newshour last night with Gwen Ifill. The transcript can be read, and the video downloaded, here.
An interesting exchange:
GWEN IFILL: So what does this say about Mousavi? Is he now kind of absent? I want to ask you to follow up on something Haleh said. Do you think he was the accidental face?
HOOMAN MAJD: I think it was — yes, I do. One person in Tehran told me, after the first huge demonstration, and Mousavi attending that 3 million person demonstration, he said to me, “He’s probably sitting at home going (speaking Farsi) which in Farsi means, ‘My god, what a mistake I made. Why did I get myself into this?’”
I think that was kind of a half of a joke. It was — he was being half-serious there. I think there might be a little bit of that. There was a little bit of that. It was like, “Oh, my god, what have I unleashed here?”
Because I don’t think there was ever the intention on Mir Hossein Mousavi’s part to become this symbol, a revolutionary symbol that he has turned into in Iran. And I don’t think he ever intended for there to be a revolution, and I don’t think there is a revolution right now, by the way. But I think, you know, some people are ascribing him to that.
GWEN IFILL: He didn’t expect this uprising, at least?
HOOMAN MAJD: No, not to the scale that it’s been.
Salon.com has an interview featuring Hooman Majd, author of The Ayatollah Begs to Differ: The Paradox of Modern Iran. Majd is perhaps best positioned to speak to Americans about Iran for reasons you will discover when you read his excellent book! (Ok, you don’t have time to go out and get it right now, fine. But do it soon. Until then, the bio detail at the beginning of the Salon.com interview should give you enough.) You need to read the entire interview in which Majd speaks of Musavi as the “Islamic democrat”, attempts to balance media perceptions of just how radical this movement is, and calls the John McCains of the world Ahmadi’s useful idiots.
I have written about President Obama’s response to Iran over the past 10 days and have confessed that often my heart gets in the way of my head; but I continue to argue he should not get more involved than he already is. Majd supports this emphatically in his interview, and ends the discussion with some very powerful words for the neocons and some appreciation (though not without criticism) for Obama’s understanding of Iran and the Middle Eastern world. (Salon.com’s questions are in bold.)
If violence continues, if more protesters are killed, is there ever a scenario in which a more activist or interventionist policy from the U.S. or Western nations would be helpful or necessary?
Absolutely not. I don’t know what the U.S. could even do, short of invading the country, which would be a disaster because you turn everybody against the United States and for the government. Other than to say it’s unacceptable for a government to kill its own people who are peacefully protesting, and to make that point strongly, I don’t know what else the U.S. should do.
Let’s think about U.S. interests. Obama is there to protect the U.S. national interests. We don’t have a dog in this fight. We don’t have a preference. We should have a preference for the rule of law and for people’s rights being respected. If Ahmadinejad is president, the United States is going to have to deal with him whether or not his election was the will of the people. Clearly it’s not the will of the people for Hosni Mubarak to be president of Egypt. It was the will of the people to have Hamas represent the Palestinian territory and we decided not to deal with the will of the people there. I think we have to be careful. If we come out on the side of the reformers and say we can’t accept Ahmadinejad, it would be the equivalent of Iran saying we can’t accept that Bush is president because we don’t agree with the Supreme Court ruling.
Would you say that the neoconservatives’ extremely vocal calls to intervene on behalf of Mousavi are playing into the hands of the most conservative forces in Iran?
The neocons know nothing about Iran, nothing about the culture of Iran. They have no interest in understanding Iran, in speaking to any Iranian other than Iranian exiles who support the idea of invasions — I’ll call them Iranian Chalabis. It’s offensive, even to an Iranian American like me. These are people who would have actually preferred to have Ahmadinejad as president so they could continue to demonize him and were worried, as some wrote in Op-Eds, that Mousavi would be a distraction and would make it easier for Iranians to build a nuclear weapon and now all of a sudden they want to be on his side? Go away.
I’m not saying Obama is the most knowledgeable person on Iran, but he’s obviously getting good advice right now. He understands way more about the culture of the Middle East than any of the neocons. For them to be lecturing President Obama is a joke. I have criticized Obama; for instance, I criticized him for having a patronizing tone in his Persian New Year message. But right now I think he’s doing a good job. The John McCains of the world, they’re Ahmadinejad’s useful idiots. They’re doing a great job for him.
The party to celebrate Ahmadi’s ‘victory’ wasn’t as grand as he had hoped. Of 290 invited MPs, only 105 showed up. As the BBC notes, this again demonstrates the rift in the Iranian government. John Leyne’s analysis concludes neither side is about to give up.
CORRECTION: A reader pointed out that I had the figures reversed. I originally wrote that 105 stayed away, but actually 185 did. Thanks Jay.
These videos were just passed on to me by Iranians living in Turkey. By the way, since there are some hard feelings about Iranians who leave their country and then complain about it instead of staying and fighting from within, I just want to say some of the most passionate, patriotic Iranians I’ve ever met are in Turkey (I’m not saying the ones in Los Angeles or London are any less passionate, but the ones in Turkey have impressed me greatly). It’s not fair to slam these musicians simply because they left Iran. Many millions have left Iran through the years for a number of reasons. Nonetheless, I should also like to point out that the ones who are there now are indeed heroic for trying to change the system from within. So while I absolutely do not agree with those who think diaspora Iranians are cowards, I do think those who have stayed are remarkably courageous.
This first video is a rap-rock song called ‘Tarikhe Ma’ (‘Our History’) and tells the history of Iran from 1978 to Ahamadinejad. There is no ambiguity in their hatred for what became of the Islamic Republic. Some of the lyrics are actually funny, like when they make the play on Ahmadi’s name with the similar sounding Farsi word for monkey (there are also English subtitles). There is also a good deal of video footage of the entire period from 1978-2007.
Another musical attack on the regime may be worth watching if only for the pictures from this current uprising.
Regardless of the ideology of the musicians, or what one thinks about their methodology for expressing their displeasure, these are two examples of Iranian music that represent the mood of many under 30s living in Iran, and those living outside of their country.
Photo via the Guardian
Adding insult to injury, authorities have now forced Neda Agha Soltan’s family out of their flat in Tehran. Here is part of the report from the Guardian:
The Iranian authorities have ordered the family of Neda Agha Soltan out of their Tehran home after shocking images of her death were circulated around the world.Neighbours said that her family no longer lives in the four-floor apartment building on Meshkini Street, in eastern Tehran, having been forced to move since she was killed. The police did not hand the body back to her family, her funeral was cancelled, she was buried without letting her family know and the government banned mourning ceremonies at mosques, the neighbours said.
“We just know that they [the family] were forced to leave their flat,” a neighbour said. The Guardian was unable to contact the family directly to confirm if they had been forced to leave.
The bottom line: Iranian authorities realize the story of Neda has caused them tremendous difficulties, as it has inspired more and more defiance from an already restless population. They must be dumb enough to think that by forcing the family out, they will rid themselves of the problem. Instead, what is more likely to happen is this insensitive, cruel action will further inflame sentiment that is already on the opposite side of where they need it to be. But what do you expect? The regime is digging its own grave quicker and deeper.
Here is the CNN video I referred to earlier, after the transcript:
I was going towards Baharestan with my friend. This was everyone, not just supporters of one candidate or another. All of my friends, they were going to Baharestan to express our opposition to these killings and demanding freedom. The black-clad police stopped everyone. They emptied the buses that were taking people there and let the private cars go on. We went on until Ferdowsi then all of a sudden some 500 people with clubs came out of [undecipherable] mosque and they started beating everyone. They tried to beat everyone on [undecipherable] bridge and throwing them off of the bridge. And everyone also on the sidewalks. They beat a woman so savagely that she was drenched in blood and her husband, he fainted. They were beating people like hell. It was a massacre. They were trying to beat people so they would die. they were cursing and saying very bad words to everyone. This was exactly a massacre… I don’t know how to describe it.
Another video from today. This time, a man is absolutely blood-soaked, and it appears he is dead. Be sure you have the stomach.
Omid Habibinia reports that the army has shot another woman in the chest near Jomhori St. She died in the hospital moments ago.
If any Iranian readers see this, could you please tell me where this is happening in Tehran?
Watch especially at 0:29 when a young woman is targeted and beaten on the ground.
CNN just played a clip of a phone call from a terrified Iranian woman:
I was going towards Baharestan with my friend. This was everyone, not just supporters of one candidate or another. All of my friends, they were going to Baharestan to express our opposition to these killings and demanding freedom. The black-clad police stopped everyone. They emptied the buses that were taking people there and let the private cars go on. We went on until Ferdowsi then all of a sudden some 500 people with clubs came out of [undecipherable] mosque and they started beating everyone. They tried to beat everyone on [undecipherable] bridge and throwing them off of the bridge. And everyone also on the sidewalks. They beat a woman so savagely that she was drenched in blood and her husband, he fainted. They were beating people like hell. It was a massacre. They were trying to beat people so they would die. they were cursing and saying very bad words to everyone. This was exactly a massacre… I don’t know how to describe it.
Check back for video.
Neda was killed by the BBC according to two Iranian news sources. Robert Tait writes on the Guardian’s live blog:
Jomhouri Islami newspaper is blaming her shooting on snipers from the MKO (a militant group calling for the overthrow of the republic). It said the group exploited the lack of security created by the demonstrations.
Javan, another pro-regime paper, blamed an even more unlikely source – my friend and recently expelled BBC correspondent Jon Leyne. It claims that Leyne hired “thugs” to shoot her so he could then make a documentary film.
Meanwhile, the government has forbidden hospitals from releasing deaths certificates that give shooting as the cause of death.
President Barack Obama is appalled and outraged by the brutality of the Iranian government. “No iron fist is strong enough to stop the world from bearing witness,” said the president in a press conference at the White House. He called on the Iranian government to give its people the right to protest and the right to a fair vote.
Part of his prepared statement:
The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, beatings, and imprisonments of the last few days. I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost.
I have made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not at all interfering in Iran’s affairs. But we must also bear witness to the courage and dignity of the Iranian people, and to a remarkable opening within Iranian society. And we deplore violence against innocent civilians anywhere that it takes place.[...]
This is not about the United States and the West; this is about the people of Iran, and the future that they – and only they – will choose.
One questioner asked if the offer the US made to Iran for engagement is still open. The president replied that he would like to see how this current situation plays out, but that he made a ‘path’ for Iran to engage with the international community and if they will live up to those obligations, they can participate in the dialogue.
Nico Pitney asks, on behalf of an Iranian, (roughly) “Under which conditions would you accept the government of Ahmadinejad, and if you did accept his government, isn’t that a betrayal of the will of the people?” The president (roughly): “We don’t know for sure what happened at polling places, but we know there is a significant denial of legitimacy by the people. So it doesn’t matter if the US thinks the Iranian government is illegitimate or not; this is a decision for the people of Iran. But the violence shown thus far has violated moral norms, but we do not believe it is too late for the Iranian government to reject the violence and turn back to a more humane approach.” Basically, he did not answer Nico’s question.
In sum: the president condemns Iran’s violence but is still trying to leave the door open for engagement. This is a difficult position. He’s trying not to condemn them outright and give them reason to disengage completely from international discussions. I think this is wise, for now. If he follows John McCain’s advice, it is likely Iran would use that as an excuse never to enter dialogue. But how long can he do this while Iranian leaders continue to brutalize their people? At what point are all bets called off and the pursuit of engagement dropped because the regime is recognized not only as one put in power by theft, but also as one that cannot be trusted in any dialogue?
George Friedman, author of another STRATFOR piece I criticized last week for its incredible display of ignorance, has published another argument on the Iranian situation that is far worse than the first.
Friedman has already written off the protests for having failed to gather widespread support.
Amid the breathless reporting on the demonstrations, reporters failed to notice that the uprising was not spreading to other classes and to other areas. In constantly interviewing English-speaking demonstrators, they failed to note just how many of the demonstrators spoke English and had smartphones. The media thus did not recognize these as the signs of a failing revolution.
Friedman’s beef is with the Western media, whose gullibility led them to such excitement they failed to see what Friedman has seen. That is, the uprising has already lost its steam and will soon come to nothing. Now, Friedman may turn out to be right; but this is not a judgment that can be made right now. The decrease in crowd sizes may usually be ‘proof’ of a failing uprising, but there were special circumstances with this one that require our patience. First, the mobilization of police and military forced the crowds to dissipate. But we don’t yet know if they have altogether gone away; to the contrary, there are some indications they are only regrouping. Second, public demonstrations are not the only way a revolution can materialize. We should all be watching carefully the strikes that have been called for this week. If the business sector of Iranian society comes even to a partial halt, one can conclude that the movement still has strength. It’s simply hasty, and irresponsible, to conclude already that the movement has run its course.
But Friedman also makes the mistake of claiming the movement has not spread to other classes. Yet there have been thousands of middle and lower class participants in the demonstrations. This is not just a student movement. Moreover, Friedman claims that this university movement has not spread out from Tehran. Why then the reports of clashes in Isfahan, Tabriz, and elsewhere? This video has now surfaced, showing demonstrations in Kerman, some 600 miles from Tehran.
The numbers are not as high in other places as in Tehran, but that is to be expected: the Revolution itself was strongest in the capital. Friedman rather shows that he has been the one duped by Western media: since most of the press has reported from Tehran, Friedman concludes the movement is stuck in one city.
While Friedman goes on to agree that some fraud occurred, he then claims:
Very little direct evidence has emerged to establish vote fraud…But even if you take all of the suspect cases and added them together, it would not have changed the outcome.
Friedman, or his staff, should have done the research. As the Chatham House report demonstrated, the results would have required Ahmadi to have gained support in a third of the provinces from all former conservative voters, all former centrist voters, all new voters and almost half of all former reformist voters. Ali Ansari, editor of the report, also doubts the votes were actually counted. The outcome certainly would have changed. Yet, STRATFOR incredibly denied the Chatham House report demonstrates the results would have been different if there were no fraud.
The New York Times also asks some questions that are still unanswered:
How did the government manage to count enough of the 40 million paper ballots to be able to announce results within two hours of the polls closing? How is it that Mr. Ahmadinejad’s margin of victory remained constant throughout the ballot count? Why did the government order polls closed at 10 p.m. when they often stay open until midnight for presidential races? Why were some ballot boxes sealed before candidates’ inspectors could validate they were empty? Why were votes counted centrally, by the Interior Ministry, instead of locally, as in the past? Why did some polling places lock their doors at 6 p.m. after running out of ballots?
Friedman’s dubious conclusion:
Having been forced by the election and Khamenei to live with Ahmadinejad, some will make deals while some will fight — but Ahmadinejad is well-positioned to win this battle.
Medius Oriens believes Friedman and STRATFOR have not only been unaware of some obvious facts on the ground and lazy with their research on the election results, but have also underestimated the strength of this movement. It seems STRATFOR decided before the election who they would like to be President of Iran, and they are determined not to allow facts to get in the way of their dogma.
I know this is a bit late since the new issue of The Economist was out this weekend, but I thought it would be worth pointing out the differences between the 17 July 1999 cover and the 20 June 2009 cover (almost a full 10 years apart).
The first featured Ahmad Batebi, a 21 year old student involved in the student protests of that year. For appearing on the cover, Batebi was sentenced to death. Fortunately for The Economist, Batebi was not offended by the photo, saying that since he himself is a photographer, he understands journalism. The newspaper had a follow-up story after his escape from prison. When he was in exile in America, he had himself photographed in front of the Capitol building and posted the picture on his blog (now expired) with the caption, ‘Your hands will never touch me again.’ In Farsi, it must be something like دستت به من نمیرسه .اینجارو کلیک کن
The other cover published this past weekend shows The Economist having learnt its lesson by choosing a student whose face is covered.
The Guardian Council, who just yesterday said there were some irregularities in the voting in at least 50 districts, the most ridiculous being that the number of votes in certain regions exceeded the number of voters, today declared there were no major irregularities. After their thorough and unbiased investigation, they determined that Ahmadi was the rightful winner of the election, and that his landslide victory was not affected by insignificantly small discrepancies.
Therefore, opposition protesters can forget about a re-vote. The results of last Friday’s election will stand. Thus, there remains only a handful of options on the table for the Green Wave.
1. Rafsanjani is now their biggest hope. If this über-powerful Chairman of the Assembly of Experts has successfully gathered enough support to take action against either Khamenei or Ahmadi, or both, he may be able to provide the way out of this mess. The most likely scenario would be for the Assembly to force Ahmadi’s resignation (a source has told me that Rafsanjani told Khamenei he would be safe if he’d let Ahmadi go) on account of the voter fraud which the Guardian Council (run by Khamenei) is now ignoring with incredible gall. Rafsanjani has, from the start, been of the opinion that the fraud was widespread and should be corrected, and no doubt there are a number of leaders in Qom who are with him. The question is, how many?
2. The other effective response is to continue protesting, though in different ways since the regime has cracked down on public gatherings. This may be most effective with workers’ strikes, which would destabilize one of the three pillars of Iranian society.
I think we’ll see more of the latter for now. Getting Qom to swing against the Supreme Leader is going to be a monumental task, so I’d think the Assembly would be reticent until forced to do something drastic.
That’s what Kayhan News is claiming in their headline today, which reads ‘$400 Million CIA Budget For Creating Riots After The Election’:
This stuff used to convince most Iranians, especially considering the CIA’s past in Iran. But it would be interesting to know how many are starting to see through it.
HT: Nico
Iran will set up special tribunals to try protesters as ‘rioters’ and ‘thugs’. Each day brings more desperate measures. Can anyone question the moral bankruptcy of the shrinking world inhabited by Khamenei, Ahmadi and their cronies? But shockingly, some have written to Medius Oriens in defense of the government for cracking down on the ‘terrorists’ who are trying to seize the power the people clearly voted for. If you were too dull to be convinced after reading Juan Cole’s refutation, the latest report by Chatham House does away with the absurd belief in the Ahmadi victory. Besides the question over the legitimacy of the election—a question that should be settled by now—there is the incredible barbarity of the regime in murdering and beating their own. Read Musavi’s challenge to his supporters and tell me who is thuggish:
The protest against vote-rigging and untruth is your right…In your protest, keep avoiding violence and be like kind, broken-hearted parents to poorly behaving children in the law enforcement forces.”
…Be hopeful in obtaining your rights. Do not become irritated by those who try to make you hopeless and intimidate you.
With some reports I’ve received suggesting Rafsanjani has the needed votes to sack Khamenei and Ahmadi in one go, the special tribunals have all the marks of desperation. Even if these reports of Ransanjani taking down the entire regime turn out to be unfounded rumors (which is likely), there are credible reports that Rafsanjani is certainly close to having the support needed for a new election. Why else would the regime need to arrest his family?
Tick, tock.
The new Chatham House report is out and can be downloaded here ['Preliminary Analysis of the Voting Figures in Iran’s 2009 Presidential Election'].
The report’s main conclusions are these four, but if you are in to statistics, you’ll be impressed by reading the whole thing:
• In two Conservative provinces, Mazandaran and Yazd, a turnout of
more than 100% was recorded.
• At a provincial level, there is no correlation between the increased
turnout, and the swing to Ahmadinejad. This challenges the notion
that his victory was due to the massive participation of a previously
silent Conservative majority.
• In a third of all provinces, the official results would require that
Ahmadinejad took not only all former conservative voters, and all
former centrist voters, and all new voters, but also up to 44% of former
Reformist voters, despite a decade of conflict between these two
groups.
• In 2005, as in 2001 and 1997, conservative candidates, and
Ahmadinejad in particular, were markedly unpopular in rural areas.
That the countryside always votes conservative is a myth. The claim
that this year Ahmadinejad swept the board in more rural provinces
flies in the face of these trends.
The report was prepared by Professor Ali Ansari (Director, Institute of Iranian Studies, University of St Andrews; Associate Fellow, Middle East and North Africa Programme, Chatham House; author, Iran, Islam and Democracy), with the assistance of Daniel Berman and Thomas Rintoul of the Institute of Iranian Studies, University of St Andrews.
See now Neda’s Voice.
Michael Ledeen has published a letter from Musavi to Obama. The letter is printed here, but go read Ledeen’s caveat. If the White House deems this letter is legit, I believe this gives Obama the open door to go further. He does need to clarify his statements, but Musavi has unquestionably invited him to show more support. [I should note here that I have followed the convention of spelling Musavi without the 'ou' diphthong and although most Western media now spells Mousavi, I have not changed since I have already been using the Musavi spelling for months. It is not a misspelling.]
From the Office of Mr. Mir Hossein Mousavi
To the President of the USA, Mr. Barack Hussein Obama:
Dear Mr. President,
In the name of the Iranian people, we want you to know that when you recently made the statement “Achmadinejad or Mousavi? Two of a kind,” we consider this as a grave and deep insult, not just to Mr. Mousavi but especially against the judgment of the Iranian people, against our moral conviction and intelligence, especially those of the young generation that comprises a population of 31 million.
It is a specially grave insult for those who are now fighting for democracy and freedom, and an unwarranted gift and even praise for Mr. Khamenei, whose security forces are now killing peaceful Iranians in the streets of every major city in the country.
Your statement misled the people of the world. It was no doubt inspired by your hope for dialogue with this regime, but you cannot possibly believe in promises from a regime that lies to its own people and then kills them when they demand the promises be kept.
By such statements, your administration and you discourage the Iranian people, who believe and trust in the values of democracy and freedom. We are pleased to see that you have condemned the regime’s murderous violence, and we look forward to stronger support for the rightful struggle of the Iranian people against the actions of a regime that is your enemy as well as ours.
To the letters already written by Musavi, Khatami adds his own. Mohammad Khatami was the most popular politician in Iran, and may still be if Musavi has not equalled him. In the letter, he calls for a commission to investigate the election. It isn’t so much a drastically new message as much as it matters simply to have his voice. The English translation was provided by a reader of The Dish, but the original Farsi letter is here.
In the name of god,
Public participation and engagement is a great accomplishment of the Islamic Revolution that should be admired and promoted. This glorious participation of people of all ages and walks of life sends the clear message that the people are the true owners of the country and the revolution. This message should be observed today as well; the silent protest and civil behavior of people in the demonstrations show the public’s maturity and alertness, but is also a reminder of the undeniable fact that people have clear and constitutional right which every regime and government is obligated to observe.
The provocative and insulting portrayal of our people who have been acting independently, and accusing their healthy civil protest to be an act of foreign influence is an example of the wrong policies that further distance people from our government.
Elections were held in Iran and a massive number of our great people do not believe the results that were announced and are protesting them. Public trust has been damaged and closing the door to civil protests means opening a dangerous path and god knows where that will lead.
People’s rights must be respected.
Seyyed Mohammad Khatami
June 21, 2009Insecurity and tension must be avoided and reactions such as violence and military confrontation which can bear great expense and detriment for the regime and the people must be kept at bay. We should all take action towards reparation of public trust as it is the principle foundation of our country and government.
Violence and harassment, the like of which we unfortunately witnessed on Saturday, along with the arrest of men and women and our great cultural and political minds from the earliest hours of the announcement of election results and banning peaceful and dignified gathering of people that serves to demonstrate their civility, only adds to the problems.
Opportunities are quickly lost and give their place to threats, while I believe that there is still an exit from this situation and no need to create an atmosphere of security and military rule.
Referring the issue to sources or officials who should be protecting people’s rights and executing a free and healthy election and monitoring it, but are themselves the target of criticism and protest, is not the solution.
In resolving this problem why not look to the approach and methods of our dear Imam [Khomeini] who was faced with similar situations and should be held as an example for us.
Appointing a fair, competent and brave commission that is critically trusted by the protesting public and accepting the fair verdict of this commission is a path out of this stage and a positive step in the strengthening of the Islamic Republic and reparation of public trust. It would also show critical and crucial decision-making in favor of the people and in line with the principles of the revolution in a sensitive time.
The quick release of those who have been detained and arrested, which has caused grave concern for their families and much of the public, along with opening the lines of information and communication, all of which have unfortunately been shut down, can help calm down the atmosphere.
On the other hand, we should all respect civil criticism and protest (that is void of riots and violence), as it is an obvious right of the people.
The primary objective should be to denounce violence and to replace the current environment of animosity, spite and accusations in favor of a new atmosphere based on truth and honesty with kindness, friendship and cooperation.
It is then that no matter what the price, the Islamic Republic and all its values will be safe and immune.
The public is present and still waiting, this presence should be respected.
[Arabic verse of prayer in closing]
Seyyed Mohammad Khatami
June 21, 2009
It’s that time again. Time to play the it’s-everyone-else’s-fault-but-my-own game.
Speaker Ali Larijani
ISNA reports Ari Larijani has just issued a warning to the US and some European countries:
TEHRAN (ISNA)-Iran’s Parliament warned US and some European countries on Sunday not to interfere in the country’s internal affairs otherwise Iran will respond them in other fields.
The Islamic Iran has borne heavy pressures imposed by foreign states against the nation’s will in order to keep its political independence, said Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani.
Stances adopted by US President, Britain’s Prime Minister, Germany’s Chancellor and France’s President over Iran’s presidential elections and its developments showed other aspects of their adventurism when it comes to Iranians, he said.
It is embarrassing that the US which has resorted to every cruelty on Iran’s nation over half a century including backing the toppled Shah’s regime inhumane brutalities against people and imposing Iraq war on Iran, is now worried about Iran’s territorial integrity and human rights, Larijani added and directed the US, “you showed the deceitful meaning of change too soon.”
“We Iranians know the way to resolve our differences very well, there is no need to your opportunistic and imperialistic gestures,” he asserted.
Larijani then emphasized Iran’s Parliament warns the US President, Britain’s Prime Minister, Germany’s Chancellor and France’s President to avoid meddling with Iran’s domestic affairs and doing things that makes Iran respond in other fields.
He also called for the National Security and Foreign Policy Commission of the Parliament to revise relations with these countries.
And the president, from whom we have not heard a peep in days, issues a similar rebuke:
TEHRAN (ISNA)-Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recommended western countries on Sunday to keep away from the country’s domestic issues.
Addressing the US President and British Prime Minister over their stances towards Iran June 12 presidential elections Ahmadinejad noted,” definitely you won’t be placed inside Iranians circle of friendship with such hasty comments thus I recommend you to rectify your interventionist stances.”
Yet the enemies are not aware that 70 million people of Iran are against interference of foreigners and against the arrogance, he added.
photo via iranian.ws
I had a difficult conversation with a friend today. Difficult because I didn’t quite know what to say. My head tells me President Obama’s measured response has been on point; my heart wants him to call down curses upon the barbaric regime that is Iran’s. Alas, emotion often gets the best of us. But with a level head I think I can say up to this point President Obama has done a decent job walking the tightrope.
He is in an impossible situation, and I’m afraid some in Congress are using it to score some cheap points, trying to show he’s weak. The truth is he will be condemned any way he chooses to do it. If he gets tougher on the Iranians, he could add fuel to the conspiracy theorist’s fire and deepen the commitment of many to the orthodox faith of America-always-tries-to-control-us-ism. If he continues the way he’s been doing it all week—encouraging the stand for freedom, but not going too far into particulars, and certainly not calling out any of the leaders—he appears to some complacent or weak.
And that is just one example of the ridiculously difficult job of being President of the United States. No matter what he says, or doesn’t say, his words, or silence, will be parsed and re-parsed and digested and regurgitated and analyzed and dissected and hated and loved.
As for now, I think he’s done exactly what he should do. Today’s statement was better, because he specifically mentioned the violence. But I’ve watched him adapt each of his comments to the changing circumstances each day has brought, and in my view he’s been acting as well as anyone could in the same situation. I get the sense at least he is trying to learn what Iranians might think of any American message, before hastily issuing proclamations and condemnations that some have called for. I’ve already given my own responses to some of these asinine suggestions here and here.
But what do you think? This question is not for Americans only. I’d be interested especially in what some of my European and Middle Eastern readers think about the following:
Should Obama’s response change? How?
Should he be even more forceful now? How could he do so?
Should he continue to encourage the protesters by telling them the US supports their cries for freedom, or should he say more? What more could he say?
From Atlanta, GA, a reader is justifiably angry:
In my life I have never seen the brutality of oppression captured more clearly… This girl sacrificed before our eyes . The supreme leader has done exactly what he said he would do, and this is the sickening face of it. I am a citizen of the US. and I still don’t believe it is our place to interfere. (we have done far too much of that in the past) This is still an Iranian matter. But I see this girl Neda’s eyes… the fear, shock… I want to do something. I will say that although I am not there, and because of this, it would be hypocritical to say I understand completely. The time for peaceful protest has passed PLEASE AVENGE THIS GIRL.
I admit, today I had a conversation with a friend in which I expressed the same emotion. My head tells me to continue to support the president’s measured response; my heart cries out for immediate, unqualified, eye-for-an-eye retribution.
According to Rooyeh, Rafsanjani has been in Qom meeting with the Assembly of Experts to see if he has enough votes to ask for Ahmadinejad’s resignation.
What I want to know: is Rafsanjani looking not only to unseat Ahmadinejad, but also Khamenei? I had reports earlier this week he was indeed, but I have not been able to find strong corroboration. It is not absurd to imagine. The two aren’t best friends, and there has never been a moment when the Supreme Leader has been so weak.
I just find it hard to imagine he wants only Ahmadinejad’s resignation.
HT: NIAC
If you read German, in Die Zeit Thursday, Josef Joffe wrote that Ahmadinejad is Robespierre:
Robespierre wurde zum Schluss Opfer seiner Hybris. Bloß kam danach nicht die Demokratie, sondern die Militärdiktatur eines gewissen Bonaparte. Nach 30 Jahren Verelendung verdient dieses mutige Volk eine lichtere Zukunft.
My translation:
“Robespierre was, in the end, a victim of his hubris. Except after him came not democracy, but the military dictatorship of a certain Bonaparte. After 30 years of impoverishment, this courageous people deserves a brighter future.”
From tehranbureau:
Khamanei Condemns Tyranny
Quoting then (not-yet-Ayatollah) Hojatol-Islam Seyed Ali Khamanei, the current Supreme Leader at a speech in Qom: “The Shah was guilty of this: He said it’s my word, not the nation’s. Today anyone who repeats this behavior, it not acceptable; he is condemnable.”
“Once illiteracy, poverty, hunger, oppression and inequality are wiped away from society, the revolution will have been successful.”
UPDATE: See now Neda’s Voice
This moving letter was sent out before Saturday by an Iranian woman, translated into English:
I will participate in the demonstrations tomorrow. Maybe they will turn violent. Maybe I will be one of the people who is going to get killed. I’m listening to all my favorite music. I even want to dance to a few songs. I always wanted to have very narrow eyebrows. Yes, maybe I will go to the salon before I go tomorrow! There are a few great movie scenes that I also have to see. I should drop by the library, too. It’s worth to read the poems of Forough and Shamloo again. All family pictures have to be reviewed, too. I have to call my friends as well to say goodbye. All I have are two bookshelves which I told my family who should receive them. I’m two units away from getting my bachelors degree but who cares about that. My mind is very chaotic. I wrote these random sentences for the next generation so they know we were not just emotional and under peer pressure. So they know that we did everything we could to create a better future for them. So they know that our ancestors surrendered to Arabs and Mongols but did not surrender to despotism. This note is dedicated to tomorrow’s children…
Tonight, she writes about Neda:
Yesterday I wrote a note, with the subject line “tomorrow is a great day perhaps tomorrow I’ll be killed.” I’m here to let you know I’m alive but my sister was killed…I’m here to tell you my sister died while in her father’s hands
I’m here to tell you my sister had big dreams…
I’m here to tell you my sister who died was a decent person… and like me yearned for a day when her hair would be swept by the wind… and like me read “Forough” [Forough Farrokhzad]… and longed to live free and equal… and she longed to hold her head up and announce, “I’m Iranian”… and she longed to one day fall in love to a man with a shaggy hair… and she longed for a daughter to braid her hair and sing lullaby by her crib…my sister died from not having life… my sister died as injustice has no end… my sister died since she loved life too much… and my sister died since she lovingly cared for people…
HT: Nico Pitney
UPDATE: Could you doubters and conspiracy theorists imagine that this letter was written in the metaphorical sense that Neda represents the Iranian woman, and therefore she is a sister to all? Quit sending me your hateful diatribes against these people. Medius Oriens always welcomes rational dialogue, but never irrationally provocative and hateful comments.
