Iran

Comparing human rights, education and infrastructure in Afghanistan and Iran

Joshua Brollier — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 13:05:40 -0600

Short Information Teaser

Jerica Arents and Mary Dean on Worldview wıth Jerome McDonnell

Excerpt

Afghan women from the Bamiyan Valley Worldview WBEZ 91.5 wıth Jerome McDonnell

Jerica Arents and Mary Dean are with Voices for Creative Non-violence. Jerica recently spent time in Afghanistan and Mary was in Iran. And they’re here to tell us about what they saw and to compare notes between the two countries on issues like health and education, human rights, and infrastructure.

Listen to the show

Body

Afghan women from the Bamiyan Valley

Listen to the show

We’re Better Than This

Gerald — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:54:09 -0500

Short Information Teaser

Challenging American anti-war, social justice and peace activists silence around oppressive policies of Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Excerpt

Bitta Mostofi
October 13, 2010

I refuse to be an apologist for any government’s moral bankruptcy—including my own. As a lawyer, I speak out for immigrant rights and attacks on civil liberties and I do not believe that we have any chance at a real and lasting dialogue if we see our struggle through the prism of any state. We need to find a better way to speak truth to power, whether that power is here at home or just in town for the week.

Body

Bitta Mostofi
October 13, 2010

Every year during his visit to the United Nations General Assembly, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad holds a series of strategic dinners and meetings. I have heard of these dinners in the past and often wondered at his courting of certain groups and people. This year, one of his dinners in New York was held for American anti-war, social justice and peace activists, and I attended it.

I firmly believe in diplomacy and dialogue and am disappointed each year with the growing lack of international cooperation and failing leadership. We see the same thing surrounding Ahmadinejad’s trip to the UN. The United States and Iran refuse to talk to each other so they talk around one another hoping that their messages will get delivered to those they are seeking to court. Lost in translation between these two countries and the static political posturing they use are the people of Iran and the United States.

While I didn’t know if I would have the opportunity to ask any questions or raise any issues at the meeting, I was hoping that I would be one among many that would challenge Ahmadinejad as to Iran’s human rights violations.

Unfortunately, after over one hour of speeches from other activists in the room, I found myself feeling disappointed and dismayed. One after another, the guests at the dinner delivered prepared statements, posing no questions or challenges to the Iranian delegation. Mostly, people expressed outrage over U.S. foreign policy. They lauded Ahmadinejad as a hero for standing up to the bullying of the United States government and likened the meeting to Malcolm X’s encounters in Africa with revolutionaries fighting against colonialism. Many apologized for decades of dire U.S. policy towards Iran, while calling for self-determination for Iran and confidence in Ahmadinejad.

Speech after speech failed to address any calls for solidarity with the brave young men and women in Iran who took to the streets and demanded their rights in the face of government suppression. Iran has upwards of 500 political prisoners and the highest rate of capital punishment in the world. In the last year government critical newspapers have been shut down and countless journalists imprisoned. An estimated 44 people were killed in street protests in the last year.

I recognize that many in the room were not there to excuse the Iranian government’s brutality, but their silence was striking. A fundamental role we have as American peace and social justice activists is to oppose our government’s threats towards Iran, while building solidarity with the Iranian people. Activists calling for solidarity at the dinner acted as though we stood in a town hall with our Iranian counter parts; however the fact is we stood in a room with the Iranian state, not its people.

Students, human rights defenders, and common folk currently languish in Iranian prisons for doing the very thing we did on this night – criticize their own government. This reality is the only thing that gave me the courage to stay at this dinner. I stood up and expressed my concern for my Iranian counterparts by stating, that attorneys in Iran like Nasrin Sotoudeh, and student activists like Bahar Hedayat and Majid Tavakoli have been imprisoned for criticizing Ahmadinejad. I went on to suggest that Ahmadinejad honor fundamental human rights and proposed a moratorium on executions and insisted that law be upheld in the judiciary. I spoke just a dozen feet away from him and looked at him the entire time. As I named the Iranian activists he put his head down and began writing.

Nothing I did or said was radical or out of line. But in the aftermath of the other attendees’ shocking adoration for Ahmadinejad and their shameful silence as to the Iranian government’s human rights abuses, I felt extreme and alone.

Some will say that first and foremost we must not impose our viewpoints on Iranians. They will also say that the protests were orchestrated and carried out by western spies. But I know people in Iran, friends, loved ones, and ordinary Iranians who were beaten in the streets, hospitalized, and arrested because they exercised their right to protest their government.

I add that Iran, like nearly every other state, is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which it has consistently violated. This covenant expresses what most people inherently know their rights are as human beings. It upholds the right of all people to self-determination, to freedom of expression, to receive and impart information, and to the freedom of assembly.

Who have we become as a peace and social justice movement when we accept and repeat as fact Iranian state propaganda dismissing the recent uprisings in Iran and the continued bravery of activists defending their rights? Just as J. Edgar Hoover likened civil rights activists to communists in order to de-legitimize them, so too has the Iranian government used the accusation of western spies to dismiss the relevancy of any resistance. They have thus stated that thousands of people voicing dissent and protest do not have the will to serve as their own actors. It is a grave failure on the part of peace and social justice activists to assume this position and belittle our Iranian counterparts. We must not turn our focus away from the Iranian activists we aim to work in solidarity with.

I believe strongly in the old adage “speak truth to power.” I was taught long ago, through the antiwar and peace movement - the very community that was at this dinner - that our job must include speaking up for those who have had their voices suppressed when we have the ability to do so. It also means having the knowledge and experience to have a nuanced conversation about the obstacles we face and not simply taking part in the self-censorship, deference to power, and accepted frameworks that have come to define any discourse in politics and diplomacy.

We have a tremendous task ahead of us. Many people have sacrificed a great deal in both countries to do this important work. Iranians took tremendous risks not only on the streets of Iran, but also with the videos and messages they delivered across the internet so that we would know the truth about their resistance. We believe in their right for self-determination and our voices must demand it. We owe them better than this.

Bitta Mostofi is an Iranian-American immigration and civil rights attorney who can be reached at .

Death to No One: 30 Years after the Iran Hostage Crisis

Dan Pearson — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:49:41 -0600

Short Information Teaser

How economic sanctions cripple the movement for democracy and human rights in Iran. By Bitta Mostofi

Excerpt

November 4, 2009
by Bitta Mostofi

Today marks the 30th year since the 444 day Iran Hostage Crisis began in 1979. On this day the media traditionally offers us images of Iranians burning American flags and effigies of Uncle Sam. We are reminded of the great chasm of mistrust and misunderstanding that has marked the last three decades of US-Iranian relations. But, in the past year both Americans and Iranians have asked for something new. Americans have elected a president that promises to pursue diplomacy and Iranians have given birth to a popular democratic movement. So, we should not use this 30th anniversary of the hostage crisis to simply re-live tragedy and tension. Rather, today Americans have an opportunity to honestly reflect on our relationship with Iran and think about how to move forward.

Body

November 4, 2009
by Bitta Mostofi

For the past 30 years our government has dealt with Iran through policies of isolation and sanctions.

As we all witnessed amidst post-election unrest, Iranians have created a new dialogue within their country about respect for human rights and the democratic process. Now, those of us concerned with human rights must drastically alter our own dialogue towards Iran. If we herald the bravery of the “Green Movement,” we should ask what effect crippling sanctions would have for Iran’s human rights prospects? Days before the United Nations General Assembly opened in September 2009, Human Rights Watch, the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, Nobel Laureate Shirin Ebadi and thousands of Iranians standing in solidarity with the Green Movement, called on the United Nations to prioritize human rights in discussions about Iran. The Preamble of the Universal Declaration for Human Rights avows that all Member States have pledged themselves “to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

Yet, in recent discussions regarding Iran, the United Nations Security Council plus Germany focused on the nuclear issue in every instance. In doing, so they have consistently neglected all critical and serious conversations about Iran’s human rights violations.

Furthermore, the negotiating states chose to threaten the very fabric of the domestic resistance with “crippling sanctions.” Economic sanctions that directly affect and isolate a civilian population weaken the ability of people committed to creating a better, more just governance.

Consider, for example, the effects of comprehensive sanctions imposed on Iraq for a period of 13 years. Those who bore the brunt of brutal and lethal punishment caused by economic sanctions were the elderly, the sick, the poor and the children. The economic sanctions directly contributed toward the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children. We should also remember that imposition of comprehensive, multilateral sanctions against Iraq proved to be a rallying cry for support of Saddam Hussein in countries where there was high antagonism against the United States. Saddam Hussein could claim to provide for the Iraqi people while the Americans insisted on starving them.

What effects would greater sanctions have on Iran? The Iranian regime has had years of practice in avoiding sanctions by relying on economic relations with China and Russia. The rising revenue and power of the underground economy has bolstered Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s allies who control it.

Meanwhile, sanctions leveled against Iran are creating hardships among the poorest communities in Iran. In 2007, the Iranian government announced fuel rations for private drivers. Due to Iran’s limited refining capabilities, Iran is not energy independent, despite its vast oil resources. The decision to create rations has led to massive uproar and protest for a people who have already suffered extreme rates of unemployment. Inflation has soared to twenty-five percent. Also, in the last year, Iran has faced a serious drought. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has estimated Iran’s loss of wheat production at thirty-three percent. The USDA also noted that, due to the drought and reduced reservoir levels, Iran’s hydroelectric generation capacity and supply have been severely cut. These conditions will lead to severe agricultural problems and possibly to food shortages.

Furthering morally bankrupt policies that focus on the nuclear issue and greater sanctions against Iran will harm the Green Movement’s capacity to struggle for democracy and human rights.

Iran has become the world’s poster child for the deficit of democracy that plagues many nations. Citizens of all nations understand justice and agree upon its terms with remarkable consistency across borders. “The arc of history is long,” Dr. Martin Luther King wrote, “but it bends towards justice.” For 30 years our policies have failed to stand up for truth or justice.

A flyer from Tehran University marking this anniversary declares “Marg bar hich kas”, “Death to no one”. The Green Movement is turning a page in Iran’s history, creating an opportunity for us to stand up for new policy based on human rights and the will of the people.

Bitta Mostofi is co-founder of Where is My Vote, New York. She is an immigrant and civil rights attorney who can be reached at . Kathy Kelly, a co-coordinator of Voices for Creative Nonviolence, contributed to this article.

Time for Solidarity With Iran

Dan Pearson — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:36:37 -0500

Short Information Teaser

Analysis of the current political events in Iran.

Excerpt

by Bitta Mostofi and Bill Quigley

June 25, 2009

In Isfahan, Iran, an 80-year-old woman stood defiantly in her doorway. Twenty baton-wielding Basij men arrived on motorcycles and threatened to enter her house in pursuit of a group of young demonstrators. Instead of running with fear or turning her back on the demonstrators, this woman looked the pursuers straight in the eye and said, “You will not get past me.”

Body

by Bitta Mostofi and Bill Quigley

June 25, 2009

Stories of extraordinary bravery and nonviolent defiance to aggression and injustice have slowly but consistently found their way over the Alborz Mountains and across rivers and oceans. They have found their way into the hearts and minds of people across the globe who have been captivated for the past week by this most unlikely of uprisings.

Iranians in Tehran, Shiraz, Isfahan and Tabriz have flooded the streets demanding their voices be heard. We see and are inspired by their movement. We have also witnessed the reality of violent suppression and carry a heavy sorrow for the tragically lost lives.

Yet, unfortunately, in the US, the loudest voices framing the discussion about Iran come from right-wing conservatives, who historically have repeated attempts to demonize and dominate Iran. The voices of solidarity from progressives and social justice activists who support the right of self-determination for Iran have not been raised as forcefully, if at all.

It is right to support President Obama’s position to let the Iranian people determine their own future, if that support is part of a larger and louder campaign for justice. This support does not minimize the need for international solidarity.

The Iranian regime must be held responsible for the severe violations of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The ICCPR upholds the right of all people to self-determination, to freedom of expression, to receive and impart information, to freedom of assembly and to vote in elections which guarantee the free expression of the will of the voters. The Iranian regime has continually violated these rights since the election and must be held accountable.

The leadership of Iran, and by this we mean the people on the streets, have lived the last week consistent with the principles of nonviolent resistance in response to a coup.

Where are the voices of social justice and human rights activists in the US? Where are our civil rights leaders and the leaders of nonviolent resistance? As the Iranians have stood side by side, and continue to do so, many on the left have come up with excuse after excuse as to why they remain silent.

Social justice activists must stand with Iranian activists now in order to prevent an ideological and dangerous intervention. Social justice activists must insist that the international community call for an immediate cessation against all human rights violations in Iran. Our commitment to freedom and self-determination cannot wane. Otherwise, we may have to ask ourselves when we look back on these weeks, what did our silence say?

Whether you believe the election was a fraud is beside the point. What is happening today is a popular movement that deserves the solidarity of all people of good will. The state apparatus in Iran continues to withhold information and refuses to carry any burden of proof. They intend to prevail by smothering the resistance.

What is needed now by all supporters of the rule of law, social justice and human rights in the United States is strong support for the Obama administration’s current position. Otherwise, a dangerous void is created in the conversation about Iran in which the same people who sang “Bomb, bomb Iran” are positioning themselves to be seen as the liberators of the very people they threatened to attack. We can support the administration’s position at present while urging the international community to condemn the violence used against civilians in Iran.

Over the past few years, many groups and organizations have led campaigns against US intervention and war on Iran. Yet, the people who led, donated to and supported much of this work have been too quiet in the last week, allowing conservatives to beat the drums of invasion louder than ever.

A woman at a prayer service for a fallen child said to one of the few remaining journalists in Iran, “I’m scared that all the blood shed for this cause may be wasted.”

The movement for rule of law in Iran deserves our solidarity. To those that continue to fight for their rights in the face of the perpetrators of these crimes against humanity, “We stand with you!”

Those of us that live over the mountains and across the oceans from Iran cannot show the bravery of the 80-year-old woman in Isfahan, refusing to allow the Basij to beat innocent protesters. But, like the brave Iranian woman, we can scream from the top of our lungs to those who are trying to usurp this movement for conservative causes, “You are not getting past us!”

Bitta Mostofi is an Iranian-American immigration and civil rights attorney who can be reached at . Bill Quigley is the Legal Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights and can be reached at quigley77@gmail.com.

The Iranian Uprising is Home Grown, and Must Stay That Way

Jeff Leys — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 10:51:17 -0500

Short Information Teaser

Analysis of the current political events in Iran.

Excerpt

by Stephen Zunes
CommonDreams - original source
June 19, 2009
Additonal Analysis by Stephen Zunes

The growing nonviolent insurrection in Iran against the efforts by the ruling clerics to return the ultra-conservative and increasingly autocratic incumbent president Mahmoud Ahmadinjead to power is growing. Whatever the outcome, it represents an exciting and massive outpouring of Iranian civil society for a more open and pluralistic society.

Ironically, defenders of Ahmadinejad’s repression are trying to blame everyone from the U.S. government, to nonviolent theorist Gene Sharp, to various small NGOs engaged in educational efforts on strategic nonviolent action as somehow being responsible for the popular uprising in Iran. It appears to be based upon the rather bizarre assumption that millions of Iranians would somehow be willing to pour out onto the streets in the face of violent repression by state security forces only because they have been directed to do so by people from an imperialist power which overthrew their last democratic government and subsequently propped up the tyrannical regime they installed in its place for the next quarter century.

Body

by Stephen Zunes
CommonDreams - original source
June 19, 2009
Additonal Analysis by Stephen Zunes

Even putting aside the bizarre spectacle of self-proclaimed “leftists” coming to the defense of a right-wing fundamentalist autocratic like Ahmadinejad, this claim ignores several key factors:

1) Neo-conservatives and other American hawks were hoping for a victory by the hard-line incumbent to justify their opposition to President Barack Obama’s tentative steps at rapprochement with the Islamic Republic.

2) Opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi and the vast majority of his supporters are strongly nationalist, anti-American, anti-imperialist, and would neither desire nor accept U.S. support.

3) There has been a longstanding Iranian tradition of such largely nonviolent civil insurrections against imperialist powers and autocratic rulers and no outside power is needed to convince the Iranian people to rebel.

The Neo-Cons Supported Ahmadinejad

The only people happier than the Iranian elites over Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s apparently stolen election win Friday, were the neoconservatives and other hawks eager to block any efforts by the Obama administration to moderate U.S. policy toward the Islamic republic.

Since he was elected president in 2005, Ahmadinejad has filled a certain niche in the American psyche formerly filled by the likes of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qaddafi as the Middle Eastern leader we most love to hate. It gives us a sense of righteous superiority to compare ourselves favorably to these seemingly irrational and fanatical foreign despots.

Better yet, if these despots can be inflated into far greater threats than they actually are, these supposed threats can be used to justify the enormous financial and human costs of maintaining American armed forces in that volatile region to protect ourselves and our allies, and even to make war against far-off nations in “self-defense.”

The neocons have not been subtle about their desire for Ahmadinejad to continue playing this important role. For example, right-wing pundit Daniel Pipes, at a panel discussion at the Heritage Foundation just before the election, said that he would vote for Ahmadinejad if he could, because he prefers “an enemy who is forthright, blatant, obvious.”

Last week, just two days before the Iranian election, Congressional Republicans — in an apparent effort to provoke a nationalist reaction which would enhance the chances of Iranian hard liners – tried to push through a floor vote to strengthen U.S. sanctions against Iran.

It is interesting how some of the very foreign policy hawks who just last week were dismissing Mir Hossein Mousavi’s expected victory as irrelevant since, in their view, there was essentially no meaningful difference between him and Ahmadinejad, are now among the most self-righteous in denouncing the apparent fraud and the most outspoken in their pseudo-outrage at the results.

Their worst-case scenario for these American hawks would be a nonviolent insurrection that would topple Ahmadinejad and allied hard-line clerics and the development of a more pluralistic and representative Islamic Republic in Iran. . Neither the neocons nor Iran’s reactionary leadership want to see that oil-rich regional power under a popular and legitimate government. Indeed, the neocons and Iranian hard-liners need each other.

The Nationalist Nature of the Opposition

Mousavi – despite his disagreements with Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei over the years — has been very much part of the establishment. Indeed, Mousavi would not have even been allowed to run for president otherwise, since the Council of Guardians routinely forbids anyone who is seen to not sufficiently support the country’s theocratic system to participate.

Yet, Mousavi attracted a large and enthusiastic following during the course of the campaign which may have led the ruling clerics to fear that the momentum of his incipient victory could result not just in limited reforms, like those attempted under former president Mohammed Khatami, but revolutionary change. The size and intensity of Mousavi’s final campaign rally, in which he referred to Ahmadinejad as a “dictator” — which, by extension, implied an indictment of the system as a whole — may have tilted the clerics into believing they could not take the risk of allowing the anticipated results to be verified. Despite his candidacy displaying a personality and style closer to Michael Dukakis than Barack Obama, Mousavi came to represent the change so many Iranians, especially young people, desperately desired and appeared determined to make happen.

Even among Iranians dedicated to the principles of the Islamic Republic, many now see their country essentially as a police state, recognizing that Ahmadinejad and the ruling clerics are little more than corrupt self-interested politicians who have manipulated their people’s religious faith for the sake of their own power.

However strong their opposition to the current regime, the democratic and reformist opposition simply does not trust the United States, which overthrew Iran’s last democratic government in 1953, armed and trained the Shah’s brutal security apparatus, backed Saddam Hussein in his bloody war against their country, imposed strict economic sanctions on their country, and has hypocritically obsessed about their civilian nuclear program while supporting such neighboring states as Israel, Pakistan and India despite their developing nuclear arsenals.

While Congress in recent years has approved millions of dollars in funding to support various Iranian opposition groups to promote “regime change,” most of these groups are led by exiles who have virtually no following within Iran or any experience with the kinds of grassroots mobilization necessary to build a popular movement that could threaten the regime’s survival. By contrast, most of the credible opposition within Iran has renounced this U.S. initiative and has asserted that it has simply made it easier for the regime to claim that all pro-democracy groups and activists are paid agents of the United States.

Feeling pressure from Iranian democrats and major Iranian-American groups regarding such counter-productive efforts, Obama and the Democrats have since ended this controversial program. Ironically, Republicans are now attacking the administration for having somehow abandoned Iran’s pro-democracy struggle while Ahmadinejad and his supporters are citing the now-discarded effort as proof of U.S. complicity in the current uprising.

Generations of Struggle

Most Iranians – who have traditionally been very proud of their political, social and cultural history – would find it rather bizarre to learn that some Western bloggers, ignorant of that very history, are insisting that the recent protests are a result not of their own anger at an apparent stolen election and continued autocratic rule, but simply because some Americans have told them to.

In reality, uprisings like the one witnessed in recent days have occurred with some regularity in Iran since the late 1800s. Indeed, the idea of Americans having to teach Iranians about massive nonviolent resistance is like Americans teaching Iranians to cook fesenjan.

In 1890, unpopular concessions on tobacco and other products to the British led leading Shia clerics to call for nationalist protests and a nationwide tobacco strike, which succeeded in forcing the Shah to cancel the concession in early 1892.

In 1905, in opposition to widespread corruption by the Qajar dynasty and allied regional nobles and a series of other concessions to Russian and other foreign interests, an uprising initially led by merchants and clergy ensued which would continue for the next six years. In what became known as the Constitutional Revolution, many thousands of Iranians engaged in peaceful protests, boycotts and mass sit-ins, along with occasional riots and scattered armed engagements. The result was significant political and social reforms, including the establishment of an elected parliament to share power with the Shah and anti-corruption measures.

A CIA-sponsored coup in 1953 ousted the elected nationalist prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh and his nationalist supporters and returned the exiled Shah to power as an absolute monarch. Through mass arms transfers from the United States, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi built one of the most powerful armed forces ever seen in the Middle East. His American-trained secret police, the SAVAK, had been thought to have successfully terrorized the population into submission during the next two decades through widespread killings, torture and mass detentions. By the mid-1970s, most of the leftist, liberal, nationalist, and other secular opposition leadership had been successfully repressed through murder, imprisonment or exile, and most of their organizations banned. It was impossible to suppress the Islamist opposition as thoroughly, however, so it was out of mosques and among the mullahs that much of the organized leadership of the movement against the Shah’s dictatorship emerged.

Open resistance began in 1977, when exiled opposition leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini called for strikes, boycotts, tax refusal and other forms of noncooperation with the Shahs regime. Such activism was met with brutal repression by the government. The pace of the resistance accelerated as massacres of civilians were answered by larger demonstrations following the Islamic 40-day mourning period. In the months that followed, Iranians employed many of the methods that would be used in the unarmed insurrections that toppled dictatorships in the Philippines, Latin America, Eastern Europe and elsewhere in subsequent years: mass demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, contestation of public space, and the establishment of parallel institutions.

Despite the bloody image of the revolution and the authoritarianism and militarism of the Islamic Republic that followed, there was a clear commitment to keeping the actual insurrection largely nonviolent. Protestors were told by the leadership of the resistance to try to win over the troops rather than attack them; indeed, thousands of troops deserted, some in the middle of confrontations with crowds. Clandestinely smuggled audio cassette tapes of Ayatollah Khomeini speaking about the revolution played a key role in the movement’s mass mobilization, and led Abolhassan Sadegh, an official with the Ministry of National Guidance, to note that “tape cassettes are stronger than fighter planes.” Ayatollah Khomeini’s speeches, circulated through such covert methods, emphasized the power of unarmed resistance and noncooperation. In one speech, he said, “The clenched fists of freedom fighters can crush the tanks and guns of the oppressors.” There were few of the violent activities normally associated with armed revolutions such as shooting soldiers, setting fires to government buildings or looting. Such incidents that did occur were unorganized and spontaneous and did not appear to have the support of the leadership of the movement.

In October and November of 1978, a series of strikes by civil servants and workers in government industries crippled the country. The crisis deepened when oil workers struck at the end of October and demanded the release of political prisoners, costing the government $60 million a day. An ensuing general strike on November 6 paralyzed the country. Even as some workers returned to their jobs, disruption of fuel oil supplies and freight transit, combined with shortages of raw materials resulting from a customs strike, largely kept economic life in the country at a standstill.

Despite providing rhetorical support for an improvement in the human rights situation in Iran, the Carter administration continued military and economic support for the Shah’s increasingly repressive regime, even providing fuel for the armed forces and other security services facing shortages due to the strikes.

Under enormous pressure, the oil workers returned to work but continued to stage slowdowns. Later in November, the Shah’s nightly speeches were interrupted when workers cut off the electricity at precisely the time of his scheduled addresses. Massive protests filled the streets in major cities in December as oil workers walked out again and an ongoing general strike closed the refineries and the central bank. Despite thousands of unarmed protesters being killed by the Shah’s forces, the protesters’ numbers increased, with as many as nine million Iranians taking to the streets in of cities across the country in largely nonviolent protests. The Shah fled on January 16, 1979, and Ayatollah Khomeini returned from exile two weeks later. He appointed Mehdi Bazargan prime minister, thus establishing a parallel government to challenge the Shah’s appointed prime minister Shapur Bahktiar. With the loyalty of the vast majority clearly with the new Islamic government, Bahktiar resigned February 11.

One element that contributed to people’s willingness to mobilize under harsh repression was the value of martyrdom in Shia Islam. The movement’s emphasis was to “save Islam by our blood.” Indeed, there are interesting parallels between the legacy of martyrdom inspired by early Shia leader Imam Hossein with the Gandhian tradition of self-sacrifice. As demonstrated by their subsequent rule, the Iranian revolution’s leadership – unlike Mohandas Gandhi – clearly did not support nonviolence as a principle, but recognized its utilitarian advantages against the well-armed security apparatus of the Shah’s regime.

While the revolution had the support of a broad cross-section of society (including Islamists, secularists, nationalists, laborers, and ethnic minorities), Khomeini and other leading Shia clerics strengthened by a pre-existing network of social service and other parallel institutions consolidated their hold and established an Islamic theocracy. The regime shifted far to the right by the spring of 1981, purging moderate Islamists including the elected president Abolhassan Bani-Sadr and imposing a totalitarian system.

A New Revolution?

Now, a new generation of Iranians is rising up in the tradition of previous generations using largely nonviolent tactics to challenge their oppression. Those out on the streets in Tehran, Isfahan, Tabriz, and other cities are not just middle class intellectuals but also represent a broad cross-section of the poor and working class and include both the majority Persians as well as other ethnicities.

It is not clear whether the opposition can successfully organize a “people power” revolution of the kind which have succeeded in ousting autocrats who attempted to steal elections in such countries as the Philippines in 1986, Serbia in 2000, or Ukraine in 2005 or whether – as in Azerbaijan, Belarus, and Mexico – the regime will remain in power.

In any case, it is clearly a home-grown indigenous struggle. Any effort by the United States (which has allowed one —and possible two—stolen elections to stand in recent years) to intervene will only hurt the pro-democracy movement. Given the history of U.S. interventionism in Iran, Obama’s cautious approach will do more to help those in the current popular struggle than anything more explicit, despite Republican demands to the contrary.

The future of Iran belongs in the hands of the Iranians and the best thing the United States can do to support a more open and pluralistic society in that country is to stay the hell out of the way.

–––-

Stephen Zunes is Middle East editor for Foreign Policy In Focus. He is a professor of Politics at the University of San Francisco and the author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (Common Courage Press, 2003.)

Visiting Iran

Ed Kinane — Tue, 01 May 2007 23:13:05 -0500

Short Information Teaser

Ed Kinane writes of his recent visit to Iran

Excerpt

May 1, 2007

The Islamic Republic of Iran is really, really, really and again really very different from what you hear in the West.
—S. Rahim Mashaee, VP of Iran speaking to the delegation

A few weeks ago (February 28 to March 13) I had the rare opportunity of visiting Iran. I say “rare” because few US activists - and few policymakers - know that controversial and fascinating nation firsthand. Despite being urged to do so by key Republicans, Mr. Bush refuses even diplomatic relations with Iran.

Body

Ed visiting a mosque in Iran

May 1, 2007

The Islamic Republic of Iran is really, really, really and again really very different from what you hear in the West.
—S. Rahim Mashaee, VP of Iran speaking to the delegation

The Fellowship of Reconciliation [www.forusa.org] organized our 25-person “civilian diplomacy” delegation. Most of us were seasoned activists and internationalists. Accompanied by our Iranian guide/translator, we saw the cities of Tehran, Shiraz, Esfahan and Qom.

Though we sometimes met reserve, without exception we experienced courtesy. (This came as no surprise as that’s generally the case abroad - even in countries extremely wary of the US.)

One of the many asymmetries between our two countries is that few US-born Americans speak Farsi, Iran’s first language, but many Iranians spoke to us in English. Although Farsi is spoken by tens of millions in one of the world’s most strategic countries, my computer spellcheck doesn’t even recognize “Farsi.”

I can’t claim to have had in-depth, one-on-one conversations: that will have to wait until next time and for less formal encounters. I did however have lunch with R., a grad student at the University of Tehran who fully expected the US to attack Iran soon. It would by no means be the first time Iran suffered from US aggression. The US supported its then-ally Saddam Hussein in his 1980s war on Iran. So significant is this war for Iranians that our first morning in-country we spent at the Society for Chemical Weapons Victims Support [www.scwvs.org]; next we were taken to a rehab center to meet veterans with spinal injuries from that war.

In Iran I was moved by the sheer beauty of design and architecture. I’m thinking of carpets and crafts, but more of the mosques and squares and bazaars in Iran’s centuries - or millenia - old cities. I particularly liked the lovely parks and bridges with which Esfahan frames the river that runs through it. In Shiraz, we paid our respects at the tombs of Iran’s famed medieval poets, Hafez and Sa’di - in the US prominent monuments like these are usually reserved for presidents or illustrious generals.

Tour constraints are real - whether in some western industrial power or in states with high degrees of social control and surveillance. Even with far more than this slight exposure to the country, I wouldn’t presume to generalize about such an old and demographically complex land as Persia/Iran.

The Bush administration’s self-excommunication from the 70 million people of Iran is nuts. More, it’s dangerous. The danger, let me hasten to explain, doesn’t come from Iran; it comes from what the US - in its greed and ignorance - may do to Iran. And, as in the Iraq debacle, from the blowback that’s sure to follow.

VCNV Author

Ed Kinane

Not Iran: Big Lies and Double Standards

voices — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:23:46 -0500

Short Information Teaser

Ed Kinane recently returned from Iran

Excerpt

Bush and Company deny that their interest in Iran, like that in Iraq, is all about its vast oil reserves. No, they would have us believe they might attack Iran because that nation is part of the “axis of evil” — because Iran is a “terrorist state” and a “nuclear threat.”

Such constantly repeated accusations are part of a grotesque double standard, and an exercise in the Big Lie. Who is really on any axis of evil?

Body

Such constantly repeated accusations are part of a grotesque double standard, and an exercise in the Big Lie. Who is really on any axis of evil?

Who is really a terrorist state, a nuclear threat?

Not Iran.

Iran: on the Axis of Evil?

In the last two centuries has Iran — or Persia as it was once called — invaded anyone? In that time the US has invaded or subverted oodles of countries near and far.

In the 1950s did Iran topple the Eisenhower government? No, it was the Eisenhower government, using CIA operatives based in the US Embassy in Tehran, that toppled Iran’s populist and democratically-elected prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh.

Why the coup? Because Mossadegh insisted that Western corporations pay more than nominal fees for extracting Iranian crude.

The US then imposed its puppet, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi (backed by the SAVAK, his savage secret police), on that country.

In 1979 a broad swath of Iranians rose up and dethroned the Shah. When the Shah fled to the US, Iran sought his return to answer criminal charges. The US refused. Iranian students then took over the US Embassy.

If the US had been willing to extradite, it’s likely there would have been no crisis — with the Embassy and its personnel held hostage for 444 days. (For the rarely heard Iranian side of the story, see Massoumeh Ebtekar, Takeover in Tehran, Talonbooks, 2000.)

In 1980-88 Iraq’s Saddam Hussein invaded Iran. That war led to hundreds of thousands of casualties on each side. The United States helped arm and finance Saddam, even winking at his use of chemical weapons against Iran.

These days Shi’a Iran is often conflated with the Taliban or with Al Qaeda. Yet when Iran was famously declared to be on the axis of evil, it had been informally working with the US in Afghanistan to defeat Al Qaeda, a Sunni movement. (Without getting into the complexities of Islam’s Shi’a/Sunni split, the point here is that in this context politically Shi’as and Sunnis are anything but allies.)

Iran: a Terrorist State?

Terror: the deliberate and systematic murder, maiming and menacing of the innocent to inspire fear for political ends.
— US State Department

Here in the West, Iran is repeatedly maligned as a “terrorist” state.

These days, with no substantiation, Bush claims that Iran provides the Iraqi terrorists/insurgents with high tech weaponry, thereby “destabilizing” Iraq. But it’s the US — not Iran — that has invaded and occupied Iraq and plunged that nation into chaos. So far from being destabilized by Iran, Iraq’s current government, being Shi’a, has close affinities with Iran.

Regarding Iran and Iraq, it is the US that is the intruder and outlaw. US military, violating international law, abduct Iranian diplomats in Iraq. US special forces penetrate Iran’s interior, violating its sovereignty. (Imagine Iranian commandos skulking around the Syracuse plant of major war contractor, Lockheed Martin!) Equally provocative, the US supports the secessionist MEK guerillas in their destabilizing incursions into Iran.

Now, Iran does support Hamas in Palestine and Hezbollah in Lebanon — parties that the US government also maligns as “terrorist.” If politicos and commentators ever defined that overused buzzword, it would quickly be seen that “terrorist” — simply given the scale of their violence — applies far more to the US and to Israel than to Hamas and Hezbollah. It isn’t Hamas and Hezbollah who impose apartheid. Nor did they invade Lebanon or occupy Palestine.

Iran: a Nuclear Threat?

This is where the imperial double standard really comes into its own. That Iran is a nuclear threat is the Big Lie — repeated so often that many come to believe it. Few credible intelligence sources believe Iran, even if it had the will to do so (which is questionable), is within several years of acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Let’s say someday Iran manages to develop a nuclear weapon. If somehow that weapon could be launched at the US or Israel, wouldn’t those countries massively retaliate? Surely Iran knows that, given their vast nuclear arsenals and their powerful air forces, engaging the US and Israel in a nuclear exchange would be insane.

It’s the US — not Iran — that has contaminated Iraqi air, water and soil with toxic and radioactive depleted uranium. It’s Israel — not Iran — that for years has maintained a secret nuclear arsenal. It’s Israel — not Iran — that refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It’s the US — not Iran — that keeps developing its nuclear arsenal despite having signed the NPT. It’s the US and Israel — not Iran — who refuse to allow their nuclear facilities to be inspected.

It’s the United States which has used the atomic bomb, not once, but twice…each time deliberately targeting civilians. It’s the United States that for over sixty years has blackmailed the planet with nuclear arms, occasionally threatening to use the Nuke and keeping alive its first strike option.

It’s the US — not Iran — that has more nuclear warheads and more nuclear submarines than all other nuclear nations combined. But it’s Iran — not the United States — that is flanked by nuclear powers: Israel, Russia, India, Pakistan — each tolerated or even supported by the US…not to mention US bases in neighboring Turkey, Iraq, Afghanistan and among nearby Central Asian and Persian Gulf nations.

This past March our Fellowship of Reconciliation delegation met with Iranian Vice President S. Rahim Mashaee. Mashaee told us that if the world gives up nuclear power, Iran would do so first.

No wonder.

While it occupies the White House, Bush Inc. is sure to keep maligning Iran. Doing so keeps the pot boiling. Given Bush’s quagmires and corruptions, a boiling pot is usefully distracting. Further: expropriated oil reserves and the contracts of war provide mega-profit.

Many think US policy in the Middle East is a shambles. It is…but its amoral architects get to smirk all the way to the bank.

Recently Ed visited Iran. Reach him at edkinane@verizon.net.

Iraq/Iran Interview with Milan Rai

voices — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 23:41:10 -0600

Short Information Teaser

Milan Rai, activist and author, on Iraq and the likelihood of an anglo/american assault on Iran

Excerpt

March 9, 2007

By Milan Rai
Foreign Policy

Exclusively to ukwatch.net an interview with Milan Rai, activist and author on the continuing disaster in Iraq and the likelihood of an anglo/american assault on Iran.

Read the Interview on ukwatch.net

Body

March 9, 2007

By Milan Rai
Foreign Policy

Exclusively to ukwatch.net an interview with Milan Rai, activist and author on the continuing disaster in Iraq and the likelihood of an anglo/american assault on Iran.

Read the Interview on ukwatch.net

IED LIES by Milan Rai

Dan Pearson — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:24:15 -0600

Short Information Teaser

Milan Rai on the US allegations of Iranian weapons supply to Iraqi insurgents

Excerpt

A Justice Not Vengeance Note
By Milan Rai
download the PDF

The US claims that Iran supplies Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDS) to Iraqi insurgents.
No serious evidence has been provided.

12 February 2007

SUMMARY

On Sunday 11 February, anonymous US officials presented roadside bombs, and components and fragments of bombs, and other weapons used by Iraqi insurgents, claiming that they had been manufactured in Iran and smuggled into Iraq on the orders of the highest levels of the Iranian Government. The language used by US d Secretary Robert Gates, and by the briefers themselves, however, was tentative rather than conclusive. Dramatic ‘evidence’ that had been promised failed to materialize.

Claims that the serial numbers and quality of machining of weapons and components could only have originated in Iran were not substantiated with any detail. No evidence was produced that the weapons and components had come via government channels rather than through criminal markets or informal and irregular contacts with Iranian military units. The Iraqi party and militia closest to Iran has actually been recognized for its support for the US occupation. One previous claims as to the Iranian provenance of insurgent technology actually traces back to the IRA, who apparently acquired the bomb-triggering capability with the knowledge and facilitation of the British Government. Curiously, none of the British national ‘quality’ dailies reports the admission of one of the US briefers that there was ‘no “smoking gun” linking Tehran and Iraqi militants’.

Body

A Justice Not Vengeance Note
By Milan Rai
download the PDF

The US claims that Iran supplies Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDS) to Iraqi insurgents.
No serious evidence has been provided.

12 February 2007

SUMMARY

On Sunday 11 February, anonymous US officials presented roadside bombs, and components and fragments of bombs, and other weapons used by Iraqi insurgents, claiming that they had been manufactured in Iran and smuggled into Iraq on the orders of the highest levels of the Iranian Government. The language used by US Defence Secretary Robert Gates, and by the briefers themselves, however, was tentative rather than conclusive. Dramatic ‘evidence’ that had been promised failed to materialize.

INTRODUCTION

On Sunday 11 February, after days of press leaks, US military officials in Baghdad made allegations of high-level Iranian Government involvement in the supply of weapons and training to Iraqi insurgents. Most of these allegations centred on the increasing sophistication of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) used as roadside bombs by Iraqi insurgents targeting US military convoys.

The ‘evidence’ produced to support these claims in fact amounted to little more than assertion. Perhaps the most interesting aspect is the gap between what we had been promised and what was actually unveiled.

Months earlier, it has been excitedly reported that there was ‘smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq: brand-new weapons fresh from Iranian factories.’¹

When it came to it, on 11 February, the ‘senior US defence analyst’ presenting the ‘evidence’ said (in an apparently little-reported admission — see end of briefing) that there was ‘no “smoking gun” linking Tehran and Iraqi militants’.²

WHAT WAS PROMISED

A number of dramatic claims were made before the press conference. The Associated Press reported the day before that evidence to be presented included ‘documents captured when U.S.-led forces raided an Iranian office Jan. 11 in Irbil in northern Iraq’. According to this advance briefing, the materials to be displayed included’ ² inches of documents’ demonstrating Iran’s role in supplying Iraqi militants with highly sophisticated and lethal improvised explosive devices and other weaponry.³

The New York Times reported on 10 February that the presentation would include ‘information gleaned from Iranians and Iraqis captured in recent American raids on an Iranian office in Erbil and another site in Baghdad.’⁴

A few days earlier, a senior US military intelligence official told reporters that ‘shaped charges’ had been discovered ‘in the presence of Iranians captured in the country.’ He declined to elaborate but noted that US operators who raided an Iranian office in the Iraqi Kurdish city of Arbil in January 2007 captured documents and computer drives he called a ‘treasure trove’ on Iran’s ‘networks, supply lines, sourcing and funding.’⁵

Documents, possibly interviews, computer files, even ‘shaped charge’ explosives. Much was promised.

WHAT WAS DELIVERED

According to the BBC account of the Baghdad press conference, none of this materialized. There were no documents from the US raids in Arbil or Baghdad, certainly no ‘two-inch’ stack of documents. No massive intelligence-based ‘dossier’ was offered. US officials said at the press conference that incriminating documents had been discovered in these raids (including ‘inventory sheets of weaponry and equipment that had been brought into Iraq’), but none were produced for journalists to assess. There was no mention of any other evidence ‘gleaned’ from the Iranians or Iraqis kidnapped by the US in these raids. No ‘shaped charges’ captured with these alleged operators were presented or even referred to.⁶

What was on display, according to Reuters⁷:

a) Fragments of an allegedly Iranian-made roadside bomb.

b) Fragments of fins from 81-mm and 60-mm mortar bombs. One grenade from a rocket-propelled grenade launcher.

c) Slides showing other weapons, including a shoulder-fired surface-to-air missile.

d) Slides showing a complete mortar bomb, with serial and manufacturing number.

THE GENERAL ARGUMENT

There are two ways in which the US has attempted to link Iran to these weapons. The first is a general argument.

US concern centres on a new form of roadside bomb, described in Western military terminology as a ‘explosively formed projectile’ (EFP). The EFP is a tube of explosives with a concave lid of metal capping one end. The explosives fire and re-shape the lid into a high-speed, super-hot projectile that can punch its way through heavy armour.⁸

It was claimed in The New York Times that: ‘The manufacture of the key metal components required sophisticated machinery, raw material and expertise that American intelligence agencies do not believe can be found in Iraq.’⁹ In the Guardian, this gloss was offered: ‘The briefers claimed the deadliest of the roadside bombs being used in Iraq were from Iran: the machine-tooling was so sophisticated that the only place it could have been done in that part of the region was Iran.’¹⁰

In the June 2006 Daily Telegraph report that first revealed the use of EFPs in Iraq, however, it says only that: ‘this newspaper understands that Government scientists have established that the mines are precision-made weapons which have been turned on a lathe by craftsmen trained in the manufacture of munitions’.¹¹

No evidence has been produced that out of all the countries in the region, only Iran possesses ‘lathes’ and ‘operators trained in the manufacture of munitions’.

No evidence has been produced that Iraq lacks these ingredients for the production of EFPs.

As for the ‘raw materials’, there is no lack of metal tubes or explosives in Iraq. An independent assessment of IEDs in Iraq, obtained by Defense News in 2006 and based on British military intelligence, said, ‘Based on current usage, there are enough stocks of illegal explosives to continue the same level of attack for 274 years without re-supply.’¹²

Anthony Cordesman, the respected US military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington DC, responded to an earlier version of this claim by observing that Iraq’s insurgents are probably just tapping a pool of common bombmaking technology, none of which requires special expertise: ‘There’s no evidence that these are supplied by Iran. A lot of this is just technology that is leaked into an informal network. What works in one country gets known elsewhere.’¹³

THE 2006 MARKINGS

Specifically, it was said that some of the bombs and fragments on display were said to have Iranian factory markings - from 2006, no less:

‘U.S. officials say they have found smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq: brand-new weapons fresh from Iranian factories. According to a senior defense official, coalition forces have recently seized Iranian-made weapons and munitions that bear manufacturing dates in 2006. This suggests, say the sources, that the material is going directly from Iranian factories to Shia militias, rather than taking a roundabout path through the black market. “There is no way this could be done without (Iranian) government approval,” says a senior official.’¹⁴

As Gareth Porter of IPS pointed out in the Asian Times, this story was based on the claim that ‘a private market for weapons or, more likely, components, could not move them from Iran across the porous border to Iraq in a few months’.¹⁵

BLAMING TEHRAN

At the 11 February Baghdad press conference, a US official said: ‘We assess that these activities are coming from the senior levels of the Iranian government,’ pointing the finger at Iran’s elite al-Quds brigade, a unit of the Revolutionary Guards, noting also that this unit reports directly to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei.¹⁶

However, this ‘assessment’ does not have any basis in the evidence produced, apart from unsupported allegations that Iranians seized in Arbil and Baghdad have included members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and the al-Quds brigade.

In mid-2005, at a more honest phase of the war, US Lieutenant General John R. Vines, Commander of the ‘Multinational Corps’ in Iraq, conceded that the Iraqi insurgents were ‘certainly getting some outside advice’, but he pointed out that there was ‘some technical expertise that was resident in the Iraqi army, probably from their explosive ordnance personnel.’ He concluded: ‘So, in terms of technical support, I don’t see it from a government, I don’t see support by other governments.’¹⁷

A few months later, in November 2005 (after a high-level decision had been taken to blame Iran), there was still a relatively honest briefing from British Army Major General J.B. Dutton, the commander of the US-led forces in southeastern Iraq. General Dutton said the smuggling of the deadlier weapons had been difficult to stop because of the long, open border between Iraq and Iran. He added: ‘I think we don’t know whether this is Iranian government policy or if this is splinter groups who are using Iran for their own purposes and not being controlled.’

Dutton also conceded: ‘We’re not completely certain where the manufacture takes place. We know where the technological know-how comes from, and we suspect where the parts come from.’ The bombs were of varying grades of sophistication, with some requiring a simple workshop to build and others ‘a reasonably sophisticated factory,” he said: ‘Some are probably put together in country [in Iraq]. Others may not be.’¹⁸

At the Baghdad press conference, a US official asserted that the ‘machining’ on the bomb components was traceable to Iran — without elaborating further.¹⁹ Earlier, the new Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, had made the public claim that the serial numbers on the bomb components provided a link to Iran.

As a wire report pointed out, ‘Gates’ remarks left unclear how the U.S. knows the numbers are traceable to Iran.’²⁰ Even if we accept these unsubstantiated claims, they fail to demonstrate that the Iranian Government is authorizing or organizing these supplies.

A number of press reports support the notion that arms are being smuggled into Iraq across the border with Iran. To take only one example, Ghaith Abdul-Ahad reported on this topic in the Guardian on 27 January 2007:

‘Fadhel and other Mahdi army officers also describe a complex relationship with Iraq’s Shia neighbour. Iran, which backs a rival Shia faction to the Mahdi Army, secured a PR success when Mr Sadr upon his arrival in Tehran last year announced that the Mahdi Army would defend Iran if attacked by the US. One Mahdi Army commander told me: “The Iranians are helping us not because they like us, but because they hate the US.” The help comes in different forms. “We get weapons from them, mortar shells, RPG rounds, sometimes they give us weapons for free sometimes we have to buy. Depends on who is doing the deal,” said the same commander.’²¹

This is evidence against a coordinated high-level Iranian government initiative. The variety of prices and weapons, and the dependence on the particular Iranian broker or donor all argue for an informal market place, with a mixture of criminals and sympathisers supplying weapons, rather than a ‘high-technology’ ideologically-driven programme being run through an elite military force on the instruction of the head of state.

IRAN, SCIRI AND THE OCCUPATION

There are other reasons to be sceptical. ‘Few doubt that Iran is seeking to extend its influence in Iraq. But the groups in Iraq that have received the most Iranian support are not those that have led attacks against U.S. forces. Instead, they are nominal U.S. allies.’²²

The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) is one of the two largest parties in the Iraqi parliament. It was based in Iran during Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship, and it is believed to be the largest beneficiary of Iranian support. This has not led it into militant opposition or insurgency, however. Quite the reverse. Since SCIRI returned to Iraq, it has effectively collaborated with the US occupation. President Bush played host to the head of SCIRI, Abdelaziz Hakim, at the White House in December 2006, and, as the Los Angeles Times points out, ‘administration officials have frequently cited Adel Abdul Mehdi, another party leader, as a person they would like to see as Iraq’s prime minister.’²³

Patrick Cockburn, Baghdad reporter for the Independent, points out that the Shia group which is taking a confrontational approach, Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mehdi Army, is not a natural ally of Tehran: ‘the most powerful Shia militia, the Mehdi Army, is traditionally anti-Iranian. It is the [SCIRI] Badr Organisation, now co-operating with US forces, which was formed and trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.’²⁴

THE IRA CONNECTION

From a narrower perspective, when we are confronted with strong claims such as these, it is salutary to reflect on similar recent propaganda initiatives. Not long ago, it was being asserted confidently that Iraqi insurgents must be receiving technical assistance from Iran and its clients in Lebanon, the Hezbollah guerrillas, because roadside bombs were beginning to use sophisticated infra-red triggering devices (which could not be blocked by Western technology).

This story abruptly disappeared from the media after the Independent on Sunday revealed that this technology actually originated from the IRA rather than Hezbollah, and that the IRA had been facilitated in developing it by the British Government itself.

A British intelligence source told the newspaper that the Army ‘Force Research Unit’ and officers from MI5 learned in the early 1990s that a senior IRA member in south Armagh was working to develop bombs triggered by light beams. It was decided that the risks would be diminished if British intelligence knew what technology was being used, and therefore the IRA was permitted to purchase the required items in New York. ‘The thinking of the security forces was that if they were intimate with the technology, then they could develop counter-measures, thereby staying one step ahead of the IRA. It may seem absurd that the security services were supplying technology to the IRA, but the strategy was sound,’ said an official source. ‘Unfortunately, no one could see back then that this technology would be used to kill British soldiers thousands of miles away in a different war.’

A former British agent who infiltrated the IRA told the Independent on Sunday that the light-trigger technology reached the Middle East through the IRA’s co-operation with Palestinian groups. In turn, some of these groups used to be sponsored by Saddam Hussein and his Ba’ath party.²⁵ We cited Anthony Cordesman earlier on this point: ‘A lot of this is just technology that is leaked into an informal network. What works in one country gets known elsewhere.’²⁶

A TIMID EFFORT

A classified US intelligence report from 2006 cited in The New York Times said: ‘All source reporting since 2004 indicates that Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Corps-Quds Force is providing professionally-built EFPs and components to Iraqi Shia militants. Based on forensic analysis of materials recovered in Iraq. Iran is assessed as the producer of these items.’²⁷

Speaking before the Baghdad press conference, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said: ‘Well, I think that Iran is very much involved in providing either the technology or the weapons themselves for these explosively formed projectiles.’²⁸

Gates said that the markings on the explosives provided ‘pretty good’ evidence that Iranians are supplying either weapons or technology for Iraqi extremists: ‘I think there’s some serial numbers, there may be some markings on some of the projectile fragments that we found.’²⁹

Also speaking before the press conference, a US intelligence official ‘said the U.S. is “fairly comfortable” it knows the source of the explosives.’³⁰

During the press conference, a US official said: ‘We assess that these activities are coming from the senior levels of the Iranian government.’³¹

Also during the presentation, the ‘senior US defence analyst’ present said that there was ‘no “smoking gun” linking Tehran and Iraqi militants’.³²

What do we have? ‘Assessments’, ‘indications’, ‘thoughts’, ‘pretty good’ evidence that the US is ‘fairly comfortable’ with.

No smoking gun. No real evidence.

THE BRITISH MEDIA REACTION

The British national ‘quality’ dailies have sharply differing treatments of the Baghdad presentation, with one curious feature in common, however.

The Times puts the story on page 31, with no front page trail, and highlights in paragraph 3 the ‘caution’ and ‘suspicion’ of journalists because of the timing of the presentation ‘coinciding with Washington intensifying the pressure on Tehran over its nuclear programme’. Nevertheless, the claims are reported without qualification,³³ and an accompany editorial is uncompromisingly hard-line, accepting the claims without a murmur.³⁴

After a straightforward no-questions-asked ‘reporting the claims’ front-page trail, the Telegraph (the newspaper of the armed forces) has the most technically detailed report of all the newspapers on page 16. It also sounds a cautious note amidst the technicalities: ‘This level of sophistication may point to Iran, as only a state arms company would have the ability to manufacture weapons of this kind.’³⁵

The Guardian has a front-page trail to a page 15 story. Rather than question the claims itself or seek out a Western (and more credible) sceptic, the paper puts criticisms in the mouth of the Iranian Government: ‘Iran will dismiss the claims, saying it is hardly surprising there are Iranian weapons in Iraq given that the two countries fought between 1980 and 1988, and that Tehran had armed militia groups fighting Saddam Hussein.’³⁶

The Independent on the other hand (after devoting the entire front page to the story), leads with a sceptical analysis by Patrick Cockburn filling most of page 2. Among other points, Cockburn writes:

‘The US stance on the military capabilities of Iraqis today is the exact opposite of its position in four years ago. Then President Bush and Tony Blair claimed that Iraqis were technically advanced enough to produce long-range missiles and to be close to producing a nuclear device. Washington is now saying that Iraqis are too backward to produce an effective roadside bomb and must seek Iranian help.’³⁷

The Financial Times relegates the entire production to three short agency paragraphs at the end of an unrelated story on page 6, indicating the lack of credibility and substance of the Baghdad presentation. The shell and component markings are not mentioned at all:

‘US-led forces in Iraq have presented what officials said was “a growing body” of evidence of Iranian weapons being used to kill their soldiers, as US anger rises at Tehran’s alleged involvement in the war, Reuters reports from Baghdad.

‘A US defence official in Baghdad said 170 coalition troops had been killed by Iranian-made roadside bombs he said had been smuggled into Iraq.
‘Tehran denies the charge and blames US soldiers for the violence and for inflaming tensions between Shia and once-dominant Sunni.’³⁸

One striking common feature to all of these stories is that none of them mentions the key admission made by the US ‘senior defence analyst’, reported by Reuters, that there was ‘no “smoking gun” linking Tehran and Iraqi militants’.³⁹

QUESTIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT

1) How are the serial numbers on the components and bombs retrieved in Iraq linked to Iran?

2) What is the evidence that components or weapons smuggled into Iraq from Iran are authorized by the Iranian Government, as opposed to criminal gangs or individuals within the Iranian armed forces? In other words, what new evidence has emerged since the press conference held by Major General J.B. Dutton in November 2005, in which he said: ‘I think we don’t know whether this is Iranian government policy or if this is splinter groups who are using Iran for their own purposes and not being controlled’?

3) What is the evidence that components or weapons smuggled into Iraq that bear 2006 manufacturing dates could not have circulated via the informal arms market rather than via an official government channel?

4) What has happened to the documents allegedly captured when US-led forces raided Iranian offices in Arbil and Baghdad? In particular, what has happened to the documents and computer drives described as a ‘treasure trove’ on Iran’s ‘networks, supply lines, sourcing and funding’? Did these documents ever exist, and if so what has happened to them?

5) What relevant information, if any, was ‘gleaned’ from Iranians and Iraqis captured in these US raids?

6) Were any explosives — in particular, ‘shaped charges’ - discovered in the presence of Iranians seized in Iraq?

7) What is the evidence that political groups and militias supported by Iran are engaging in an armed campaign against the occupation?

8) What is the evidence that the Mehdi Army is receiving support of any kind from the Iranian Government?

9) Is it true that light trigger technologies being used by Iraqi insurgents can be traced back to technology that British intelligence allowed the IRA to acquire in the late 1990s?

10) Why, in January 2006, did the British Government withdraw its similar claims as to Iran’s role in Iraq’s insurgency?⁴⁰

NOTES:

Jonathan Karl and Martin Clancy, ‘EXCLUSIVE: Iranian Weapons Arm Iraqi Militia: Hezbollah training also linked to Iraq violence’, ABC News Online, 30 November 2006 http://tinyurl.com/yxfftc.
Reuters Factbox — ‘Evidence shown of Iran’s involvement in Iraq chaos’, 11 February 2007, 17:47:37 GMT http://tinyurl.com/3yhfem.
Lolita C. Baldor, ‘Official says U.S. commanders in Iraq showed lawmakers explosives that came from Iran’, Associated Press, 10 February 2007, 3:23 PM EST http://tinyurl.com/2n8eo.
Michael R. Gordon, ‘Deadliest Bomb in Iraq Is Made by Iran, U.S. Says’, New York Times, 10 February 2007 http://tinyurl.com/3dvu5m.
Alexandra Zavis and Greg Miller, ‘Scant evidence found of Iran-Iraq arms link’ Los Angeles Times, 23 January 2007 http://tinyurl.com/364vme.
‘US accuses Iran over Iraq bombs’, BBC News Online, 11 February 2007, 20:26 GMT http://tinyurl.com/3yv4q7.
Reuters Factbox — ‘Evidence shown of Iran’s involvement in Iraq chaos’, 11 February 2007, 17:47:37 GMT http://tinyurl.com/3yhfem.
The EFP differs from the ‘shaped charge’ (SC) in that it fires a solid object, whereas the SC fires a blast of superheated metal ‘gas’ (plasma) that can burn through heavy armour. Despite being more slow moving, the EFP has one key advantage over the SC. Modern tank armour has explosive panels which detonate when then SC gas starts to burn through the outer layers of armour. This counter-explosion (known as ‘Explosive Reactive Armour’) disrupts the SC attack and renders it much less efficient, allowing the armoured vehicle to survive. The advantage of the EFP is that because its metal projectile is at a lower temperature than an SC plasma it can break through ‘Explosive Reactive Armour’ without triggering the counter-explosion, and therefore achieve its full destructive effect. ‘INFANTRY 1, TANK 0: Hand-Held Anti-Tank Weapons’, SoldierTech, Military.Com 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3bxmbp.
Michael R. Gordon, ‘Deadliest Bomb in Iraq Is Made by Iran, U.S. Says’, New York Times, 10 February 2007 http://tinyurl.com/3dvu5m.
Ewen MacAskill, Ian Traynor and Robert Tait, ’US accuses highest levels in Iran of supplying deadly weapons to Iraqi insurgents’, Guardian, 12 February 2007 http://tinyurl.com/2tgbex.
Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent, ‘The precision-made mine that has “killed 17 British troops” ‘, Telegraph, 25 June 2006 http://tinyurl.com/gqadg.
Greg Grant, ‘U.S. Shifts Focus On IED Problem’, Defense News, 11 September 2006 http://tinyurl.com/37lplr.
‘Bombs in Iraq Getting More Sophisticated’, AP, 10 November 2005 http://tinyurl.com/36fzq4.
Jonathan Karl and Martin Clancy, ‘EXCLUSIVE: Iranian Weapons Arm Iraqi Militia: Hezbollah training also linked to Iraq violence’, ABC News Online, 30 November 2006 http://tinyurl.com/yxfftc.
Gareth Porter, ‘US lacks “explosive” evidence against Iran’, Asian Times, 18 January 2007 http://tinyurl.com/2zve96.
‘US accuses Iran over Iraq bombs’, BBC News Online, 11 February 2007, 20:26 GMT http://tinyurl.com/3yv4q7.
Presenter: Lieutenant General John R. Vines, Commander, Multinational Corps Iraq, ‘Briefing on Security Operations in Iraq’, 21 June 2005 http://tinyurl.com/2jd4dl.
‘Britain: IED expertise in Iraq comes from Iran’, AFP, 3 November 2005 http://tinyurl.com/2lyrqr.
Steven R. Hurst, ‘U.S. Officer: Iran Sends Iraq Bomb Parts’, Associated Press, 11 February 2007 http://tinyurl.com/2o27kh.
‘Gates says markings tie bombs to Iran’, Los Angeles Times, 10 February 2007 http://tinyurl.com/3296kw.
Ghaith Abdul-Ahad, ’ “If they pay we kill them anyway” - the kidnapper’s story’, Guardian, 27 January 2007 http://tinyurl.com/322rx6.
Alexandra Zavis and Greg Miller, ‘Scant evidence found of Iran-Iraq arms link’, Los Angeles Times, 23 January 2007 http://tinyurl.com/364vme.
Alexandra Zavis and Greg Miller, ‘Scant evidence found of Iran-Iraq arms link’, Los Angeles Times, 23 January 2007 http://tinyurl.com/364vme.
Patrick Cockburn, ‘Inside Baghdad: A city paralysed by fear’, Independent, 25 January 2007 http://tinyurl.com/ysv9ud.
Greg Harkin, Francis Elliott and Raymond Whitaker, ‘Revealed: IRA bombs killed eight British soldiers in Iraq’, Independent on Sunday, 16 October 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bltkd.
‘Bombs in Iraq Getting More Sophisticated’, AP, 10 November 2005 http://tinyurl.com/36fzq4.
Michael R. Gordon, ‘Deadliest Bomb in Iraq Is Made by Iran, U.S. Says’, New York Times, 10 February 2007 http://tinyurl.com/3dvu5m.
‘Intelligence Links Iran to Weapons Used by Iraqi Insurgents’, 11 February 2007 http://tinyurl.com/2ly583.
Lolita C. Baldor, ‘Official says U.S. commanders in Iraq showed lawmakers explosives that came from Iran’, Associated Press, 10 February 2007, 3:23 PM EST http://tinyurl.com/2n8eo.
Lolita C. Baldor, ‘Official says U.S. commanders in Iraq showed lawmakers explosives that came from Iran’, Associated Press, 10 February 2007, 3:23 PM EST http://tinyurl.com/2n8eo.
‘US accuses Iran over Iraq bombs’, BBC News Online, 11 February 2007, 20:26 GMT http://tinyurl.com/3yv4q7.
Reuters Factbox — ‘Evidence shown of Iran’s involvement in Iraq chaos’, 11 February 2007, 17:47:37 GMT http://tinyurl.com/3yhfem.
Stephen Farrell and Richard Beeston, ‘US blames Tehran agents for troop deaths’, The Times, 12 February 2007 http://tinyurl.com/252lse.
Editorial, ‘Persian Pariah? Naivety is the surest way to guarantee a showdown with Iran’, The Times, 12 February 2007 http://tinyurl.com/2jm3ce.
David Blair, Diplomatic Correspondent and Ben Rooney, ‘US presents “evidence” that weapons from Iran are being used in Iraq’, Telegraph, 12 February 2007 http://tinyurl.com/2kgf2h, emphasis added.
Ewen MacAskill, Ian Traynor and Robert Tait, ‘US accuses highest levels in Iran of supplying deadly weapons to Iraqi insurgents’, Guardian, 12 February 2007 http://tinyurl.com/2tgbex.
Patrick Cockburn, ‘Target Tehran: Washington sets stage for a new confrontation’, Independent, 12 February 2007 http://tinyurl.com/2xoe4s.
Emphases added. These paragraphs are not present on the web. Appended in the print edition to Demetri Sevastopulo and Stephen Fidler, ‘Gates plays down Putin attack on US policy’, Financial Times, 12 February 2007, p. 6.
Reuters Factbox — ‘Evidence shown of Iran’s involvement in Iraq chaos’, 11 February 2007, 17:47:37 GMT http://tinyurl.com/3yhfem.
In January 2006, The Times and the Independent both reported that British officials in Iraq had withdrawn this claim, and in particular the assertion that Iran was supplying a new and more deadly design of roadside bomb with infrared triggers which cannot be disrupted by US/UK technology. BBC News Online, 10 January 2006 http://tinyurl.com/2wgxca. A year later, ‘Senior British officials, citing mistakes over Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, are voicing scepticism about US efforts to build an intelligence-based case against Iran… Amid signs of a concerted American operation to prove that Iran is threatening US troops in the region, British officials say that they are “not aware of a smoking gun” that would justify taking military action against Tehran.’ Times, 1 February 2007, http://tinyurl.com/ypl5kx.

Nine Windows on Iran

voices — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:19:17 -0600

Short Information Teaser

Ed Kinane's reading list about the history, culture and people of Iran and US/Iran relations

Excerpt

January 24, 2007

Will the US attack Iran?

The question is obscene. But when the U.S. government is so bellicose and when its target sits on one of the world’s larger oil reserves, we need to prepare ourselves for the unthinkable. One way to do that is to be much better informed.

Bush, Inc. may know its weapon systems. But it seems oblivious to the history, culture and people of Iran (formerly Persia). It’s oblivious to the human factors that will likely upset its grandiose schemes.

Aware of my own vast ignorance, I’ve been reading up on Iran. In the following I want to mention some books that other Voices folks might also find fascinating. Each provides a unique window on Iran.

Body

January 24, 2007

Will the US attack Iran?

Historical Background

To put US/Iran relations in context, I began by reading Stephen Kinzer’s All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror. Here in the US few recall the 1954 CIA coup against Iran’s populist and democratically-elected leader, Mohammad Mossadegh. Trouble is, Iranian memories aren’t so short or so convenient.

Nor can Iranians forget the U.S.-owned regime that succeeded Mossadegh. Ryszard Kapuscinski’s Shah of Shahs tells of the rise and fall of Reza Pahlavi — his imperial ambition; his squandering; his attempts to militarize, industrialize and secularize Iran; his brutal secret police, the SAVAK; his isolation from his people; his exile.

The Shah displaced Mossadegh; in turn, Ayatollah Khomeini and his mullahs displaced the Shah. Robin Wright has written widely on Iran. Her In the Name of God: the Khomeini Decade, for example, interprets that tumultuous era and the charismatic figure who inspired his people and made the western world tremble — at least with rage. Probably no US journalist knows more firsthand about Iran and its people than the intrepid Ms. Wright.

So far I’ve mentioned only western authors. But we need to hear Iranian voices. One such voice — a singular one — is that of Massoumeh Ebtekar. Dr. Ektekar is an immunologist, partly raised in the States. Her Takeover in Tehran: The Inside Story of the 1979 U.S. Embassy Capture, published in Canada, provides a perspective seldom heard in the US. Dr. Ebtekar, then an undergrad, was the on-site English-language media contact for those students who (more or less nonviolently) took over the Embassy and held its large staff captive for 444 days.

Thanks to the foregoing titles I could more critically read Kenneth M. Pollack’s The Persian Puzzle: The Conflict Between Iran and America. Although Pollack has never been to Iran and can’t read Farsi, for seven years he was a CIA Persian Gulf military analyst. One of his earlier books made the case for invading Iraq. Nonetheless The Persian Puzzle, is a challenging, scholarly tome — valuable for seeing how some US military strategists think.

Iran’s majority: women

In the early eighties, egged on by the US, Saddam Hussein invaded Iran. The long war led to hundreds of thousands of dead soldiers. Today most Iranians (and most Iraqis) are women. Many have lived hardscrabble lives in isolated rural enclaves.

In Women of Deh Koh: Lives in an Iranian Village, anthropologist Erika Friedl provides 12 interconnecting narratives. The narratives are intimate but unsentimental. The harsh realities aren’t sugarcoated.

The women of Deh Koh probably can’t even imagine the affluent, westernized women of Tehran’s northern suburbs. Two such urban women have produced extraordinary literature, extraordinary mirrors of their privilege and of their secularized sensibilities.

Azar Nafisi’s Reading Lolita in Tehran: A Memoir in Books was a New York Times bestseller. It tells of Nafisi’s clandestine group of university women studying the forbidden novels of James, Austen, Nabokov, and Fitzgerald.

I devoured Reading Lolita, an engaging and literary page-turner…but it angered me. Nafisi portrays women of a particular sliver of society evading the ayatollahs’ patriarchal repression. But she glosses over the Shah’s regime — a regime whose patronage helped generate that sliver and whose arrogance provoked the Islamicist backlash.

Marjane Satrapi is also of the elite. But her eye is ironic, self-penetrating, and class conscious. Satrapi’s wry and elegant memoirs have been translated from Farsi into English. She conveys her edgy life in black and white comic book drawings accompanied by sparse text.

Satrapi’s Persepolis: The Story of a Childhood and Persepolis 2 derive their titles from the ancient capital of Persia. They portray the artist as a young woman, a woman with a social conscience. She comes of age under oppression and within a family and society torn between east and west, between tradition and modernity.

Like Iraqis, Iranians are more complex, diverse and cultured than George W. ever dreamed of. Like Iraqis, Iranians will surely be formidable foes if the US attacks. Before we let our tax money be used to maim and kill these proud people, we might make their acquaintance.

Ed was in Baghdad with the Iraq Peace Team in March and April of 2003. In late February he’ll be joining the Fellowship of Reconciliation citizen diplomacy delegation to Iran. Reach him at edkinane@verizon.net

Book notes:

(in the order mentioned; all are in paperback)

Kinzer, All the Shah’s Men, Wiley, 2003, 258 pp.

Kapuscinski, Shah of Shahs, Vintage 1985 (orig. in Polish, 1982), 152 pp.

Wright, In the Name of God, Simon & Schuster, 1989, 286 pp.

Ebtekar, Takeover in Tehran, Talonbooks, 2000, 256 pp.

Pollack, The Persian Puzzle, Random House, 2004, 540 pp.

Friedl, Women of Deh Koh, Penguin, 1989, 237 pp.

Nafisi, Reading Lolita in Tehran, Random House, 2003, 257 pp.

Satrapi, Persepolis, Pantheon, 2003, 154 pp.

Persepolis 2, Pantheon, 2004, 188 pp.

VCNV Author

Ed Kinane