Tehran will not and cannot accept US demands,
writes Yassamine Mather
Obama’s message to Iranians to mark Norooz, the Iranian new year, was hailed by sections of the media as “unprecedented” and “historic”, offering a new beginning in Iran-US relations. It was therefore inevitable that when ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme religious leader, dismissed the message as consisting of meaningless slogans, Middle East and Iran ‘analysts’ expended a lot of effort trying to put a positive spin on a very unambiguous negative response.
So what was implicit in Obama’s message and why can Iran not accept it? There is no doubt that its tone differed from George Bush’s pronouncements on similar occasions - it accepted the existence of the Islamic Republic, to start with. However, for the most part it was very similar to what Bush had said before. He too used Norooz to appeal to Iran’s innate sense of cultural superiority as an ancient civilisation. One wonders how this went down in other Middle East capitals and amongst ordinary people in the area, not to mention the other minority nationalities living inside Iran’s borders (Arabs, Baluchis, Turks).
Demanding the impossible
As far as details are concerned, Obama repeated Bush’s conditions for normal relations, albeit in a slightly more diplomatic tone. Referring to Iran’s right to its place in the “community of nations”, he said: “You have that right, but it comes with real responsibilities and that place cannot be reached through terror or arms.”1
In other words, Iran should give up uranium enrichment, should stop arming Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, should abandon its threats against Israel, should continue supporting the occupation government in Iraq and should help the ‘peace’ conference in Afghanistan. Of course, Iran has done all in its power to help the US and its Nato allies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and secret negotiations regarding US-Iran cooperation over the ‘war on terror’ are well documented.2
However, the government in Tehran will not and cannot accept the other three demands, because it has built its reputation on taking a tough political stance and cannot afford to lose face without risking losing power. For over three decades the Iranian leadership has thrived through maintaining a state of crisis. Conflict with the US and sanctions, many of them going back to the early 80s, provide the regime with a convenient excuse for its economic failures, the growing gap between rich and poor, political repression and endemic corruption. In fact the regime’s survival depends on the continuation of the sanctions and a form of ‘cold war’.
Khamenei’s response to all this was both predictable and clear: “They chant the slogan of change, but no change is seen in practice.” Khamenei asked how Obama could congratulate Iranians on the new year yet in the same message accuse them of supporting terrorism and seeking nuclear weapons: “Have you released Iranian assets? Have you lifted oppressive sanctions? Have you given up mudslinging and making accusations against the great Iranian nation and its officials? Have you given up your unconditional support for the Zionist regime?”
It is quite clear that the Obama administration has no intention of lifting sanctions against Iran - in fact earlier this month US sanctions were renewed. According to an Israeli newspaper, “Senior US officials are preparing to present Obama with a plan for dialogue with Iran on its nuclear programme, including increased international sanctions against Tehran.”3
Ayatollah Khamenei is well aware that his first demand - an end to ‘sanctions’ - will not happen unless Iran gives up its nuclear programme. His second demand - an end to US support for Israel - is even more unlikely. Israel acts in effect as a US military base in the Middle East and to call on the US administration to withdraw support is the equivalent of suggesting it abandons a key strategic outpost.
At a time of serious economic difficulties it is in fact in the interest of both governments to continue the state of conflict. So, contrary to the euphoria expressed by sections of the media (including supporters of the ‘reformist’ faction of the Islamic Republic inside and outside Iran), it will take more than quoting a couple of lines of Saadi, the 13th century Persian poet, to resolve this conflict.
However, there is no doubt that Obama’s message will encourage further (open or covert) Iranian cooperation with US efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, where both countries are natural allies against the common ‘enemy’: al Qa’eda, and Sunni and secular opponents of the Iraqi occupation government.
Iran elections and the US
There is a vague reference to Iran’s June 12 presidential elections in Obama’s message and, despite the new year public holiday, the ‘reformist’ faction repeated the popular call for ‘an end to isolation’, hoping to use the speech to its own electoral advantage.
Outside Iran the pro-‘reformist’ and anti-war National Iranian American Council led the praise: “President Barack Obama’s historic Norooz message recognised the greatness of Iranian civilisation, the contributions of Iranian Americans to America and that threats cannot resolve the differences between Iran and the US.”4 The central committee of Fedayeen Majority wrote to Obama to assure him that Khamenei does not speak for the Iranian people! (As if the supreme cleric in a religious theocracy was likely to do so).5
Clearly Obama’s speech is already playing a role in what passes for the presidential election campaign in Iran. It represents the main issue over which one can detect small differences between the two main factions of the Islamic Republic party. Both are united on the nuclear programme, on support for Hezbollah, on maintaining Iran’s ambivalent position regarding Hamas and on keeping up the propaganda against Israel. However, the ‘reformists’ argue that a positive response to the new US administration will bring prosperity (for the rich) and an end to isolation, while the ‘conservatives’ prefer maintaining the current state of affairs.
Currently the main preoccupation of the ‘reformists’ is selecting a presidential candidate. On March 17, former president Mohammad Khatami pulled out in favour of Mir Hossein Moussavi, prime minister for most of the 1980s. Given the slump in Ahmadinejad’s popularity resulting from Iran’s dire economic situation (high unemployment, 25%-29 % inflation, etc), the ‘reformists’ see a chance of winning, yet Moussavi, the only viable candidate they are left with, is more of a centrist - probably closer to Khamenei than Ahmadinejad is. Opposition papers have rightly labelled Moussavi the ‘official candidate of the current order’. He is a member of the National Confidence (Etemad-e-Melli) Party and only stopped being prime minister when the post was abolished.
‘Reformists’ are now pinning their hopes on a Moussavi victory, but the statement he produced announcing his candidature reads more like a something from the hard-line ‘principlists’ (the so-called Ossulgara, who advocate a return to the basic Islamic ‘principles’ of the first years of the revolution), who are the main backers of Ahmadinejad. In addition it is now clear that Moussavi was never keen to be closely associated with Khatami and resented his original proposal that only one of them should stand.
Although Khatami himself had not seemed very enthusiastic in his bid for the nomination, the timing of his decision to withdraw, a week after Moussavi’s announcement, exposes the disarray in the ‘reformist’ camp whose ‘grand strategy’ was to keep both Moussavi and Khatami, along with 2005 presidential candidate Mehdi Karroubi, as runners. This was in case one or two of the candidates were disqualified by the Council of Guardians, and was said to be a tactic that would confuse the ‘conservatives’. So the ‘grand strategy’ was not as coordinated as some had claimed.
But the ‘conservatives’ are not doing much better. Many in the principlist camp do not consider Ahmadinejad a suitable candidate and they are considering a number of alternatives, including Tehran mayor Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, former nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani and major-general Mohsen Rezai, former commander of Pasdaran, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards.
Elections and the economy
In some ways, the election debate about relations with the US will only matter as part of the debate about Iran’s economy.
The economic chaos is symbolised by oil. The budget for last year, which ended on March 21, was based on oil selling at $150 a barrel, but for many months during this period, the price was below $45. As a result Iran is looking at a deficit of $25 to $30 billion and Ahmadinejad’s government has lost a number of crucial votes regarding the budget in parliament. And yet a few months ago Iranian leaders made the bold prediction that the world economic crisis would not affect Iran! By the end of the Iranian year, however, all Iran’s ills were being blamed on the crisis.
In addition to the dramatic drop in the price of oil, Iran has faced a major drought, with severe consequences for generating hydroelectricity. This forced the government to impose rationing on both water and electricity supplies to homes and businesses. The extent of the drought is so bad that the level of lake Urmia in Azarbaijan province is said to be falling by 2cms a day. It has also had a drastic effect on agriculture, resulting in the import of 6 million tons of grain.
Sanctions are beginning to hit ordinary Iranians hard and the poverty line now stands at 8,500,000 rials ($860) a month. A 10% increase: “With a possible 35% inflation rate next year, a family of five would be in absolute poverty with an income of under 8,500,000 rials.”6
Unless there is breakthrough over the nuclear saga the situation will get much worse in the new Iranian year and, of course, none of the reactionary candidates presented by various factions/parties of the Islamic Republic regime will address the problems faced by the majority of Iran’s population. Whoever wins the presidential election, it will make little difference to the lives of workers and their struggle to survive in Islamic Iran.
Notes
1. The message can be viewed at www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ee0wrjVtkk
2. See for example, M Rubin, ‘Iranian politicians discuss secret US-Iran talks’: corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTU1ZDJhMjRkNWM1MjE4ODMzMThiYjBhZGYwZWViZjk=
3. ‘US plan for Iran: talks alongside sanctions’ Ha’aretz: haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072808.html
4. ‘Thank president Obama for his wonderful Norooz message’: www.niacouncil.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1 373&Itemid=2
5. Fedayeen Majority - www.iran-chabar.de/news.jsp?essayId=20028
6. www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=88372§ionid=351020102
Friday, March 27, 2009
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Iran - no end to stand-off with US
Tehran will not and cannot accept US demands, writes Yassamine Mather
Obama’s message to Iranians to mark Norooz, the Iranian new year, was hailed by sections of the media as “unprecedented” and “historic”, offering a new beginning in Iran-US relations. It was therefore inevitable that when ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme religious leader, dismissed the message as consisting of meaningless slogans, Middle East and Iran ‘analysts’ expended a lot of effort trying to put a positive spin on a very unambiguous negative response.
So what was implicit in Obama’s message and why can Iran not accept it? There is no doubt that its tone differed from George Bush’s pronouncements on similar occasions - it accepted the existence of the Islamic Republic, to start with. However, for the most part it was very similar to what Bush had said before. He too used Norooz to appeal to Iran’s innate sense of cultural superiority as an ancient civilisation. One wonders how this went down in other Middle East capitals and amongst ordinary people in the area, not to mention the other minority nationalities living inside Iran’s borders (Arabs, Baluchis, Turks).
Demanding the impossible
As far as details are concerned, Obama repeated Bush’s conditions for normal relations, albeit in a slightly more diplomatic tone. Referring to Iran’s right to its place in the “community of nations”, he said: “You have that right, but it comes with real responsibilities and that place cannot be reached through terror or arms.”1
In other words, Iran should give up uranium enrichment, should stop arming Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, should abandon its threats against Israel, should continue supporting the occupation government in Iraq and should help the ‘peace’ conference in Afghanistan. Of course, Iran has done all in its power to help the US and its Nato allies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and secret negotiations regarding US-Iran cooperation over the ‘war on terror’ are well documented.2
However, the government in Tehran will not and cannot accept the other three demands, because it has built its reputation on taking a tough political stance and cannot afford to lose face without risking losing power. For over three decades the Iranian leadership has thrived through maintaining a state of crisis. Conflict with the US and sanctions, many of them going back to the early 80s, provide the regime with a convenient excuse for its economic failures, the growing gap between rich and poor, political repression and endemic corruption. In fact the regime’s survival depends on the continuation of the sanctions and a form of ‘cold war’.
Khamenei’s response to all this was both predictable and clear: “They chant the slogan of change, but no change is seen in practice.” Khamenei asked how Obama could congratulate Iranians on the new year yet in the same message accuse them of supporting terrorism and seeking nuclear weapons: “Have you released Iranian assets? Have you lifted oppressive sanctions? Have you given up mudslinging and making accusations against the great Iranian nation and its officials? Have you given up your unconditional support for the Zionist regime?”
It is quite clear that the Obama administration has no intention of lifting sanctions against Iran - in fact earlier this month US sanctions were renewed. According to an Israeli newspaper, “Senior US officials are preparing to present Obama with a plan for dialogue with Iran on its nuclear programme, including increased international sanctions against Tehran.”3
Ayatollah Khamenei is well aware that his first demand - an end to ‘sanctions’ - will not happen unless Iran gives up its nuclear programme. His second demand - an end to US support for Israel - is even more unlikely. Israel acts in effect as a US military base in the Middle East and to call on the US administration to withdraw support is the equivalent of suggesting it abandons a key strategic outpost.
At a time of serious economic difficulties it is in fact in the interest of both governments to continue the state of conflict. So, contrary to the euphoria expressed by sections of the media (including supporters of the ‘reformist’ faction of the Islamic Republic inside and outside Iran), it will take more than quoting a couple of lines of Saadi, the 13th century Persian poet, to resolve this conflict.
However, there is no doubt that Obama’s message will encourage further (open or covert) Iranian cooperation with US efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, where both countries are natural allies against the common ‘enemy’: al Qa’eda, and Sunni and secular opponents of the Iraqi occupation government.
Iran elections and the US
There is a vague reference to Iran’s June 12 presidential elections in Obama’s message and, despite the new year public holiday, the ‘reformist’ faction repeated the popular call for ‘an end to isolation’, hoping to use the speech to its own electoral advantage.
Outside Iran the pro-‘reformist’ and anti-war National Iranian American Council led the praise: “President Barack Obama’s historic Norooz message recognised the greatness of Iranian civilisation, the contributions of Iranian Americans to America and that threats cannot resolve the differences between Iran and the US.”4 The central committee of Fedayeen Majority wrote to Obama to assure him that Khamenei does not speak for the Iranian people! (As if the supreme cleric in a religious theocracy was likely to do so).5
Clearly Obama’s speech is already playing a role in what passes for the presidential election campaign in Iran. It represents the main issue over which one can detect small differences between the two main factions of the Islamic Republic party. Both are united on the nuclear programme, on support for Hezbollah, on maintaining Iran’s ambivalent position regarding Hamas and on keeping up the propaganda against Israel. However, the ‘reformists’ argue that a positive response to the new US administration will bring prosperity (for the rich) and an end to isolation, while the ‘conservatives’ prefer maintaining the current state of affairs.
Currently the main preoccupation of the ‘reformists’ is selecting a presidential candidate. On March 17, former president Mohammad Khatami pulled out in favour of Mir Hossein Moussavi, prime minister for most of the 1980s. Given the slump in Ahmadinejad’s popularity resulting from Iran’s dire economic situation (high unemployment, 25%-29 % inflation, etc), the ‘reformists’ see a chance of winning, yet Moussavi, the only viable candidate they are left with, is more of a centrist - probably closer to Khamenei than Ahmadinejad is. Opposition papers have rightly labelled Moussavi the ‘official candidate of the current order’. He is a member of the National Confidence (Etemad-e-Melli) Party and only stopped being prime minister when the post was abolished.
‘Reformists’ are now pinning their hopes on a Moussavi victory, but the statement he produced announcing his candidature reads more like a something from the hard-line ‘principlists’ (the so-called Ossulgara, who advocate a return to the basic Islamic ‘principles’ of the first years of the revolution), who are the main backers of Ahmadinejad. In addition it is now clear that Moussavi was never keen to be closely associated with Khatami and resented his original proposal that only one of them should stand.
Although Khatami himself had not seemed very enthusiastic in his bid for the nomination, the timing of his decision to withdraw, a week after Moussavi’s announcement, exposes the disarray in the ‘reformist’ camp whose ‘grand strategy’ was to keep both Moussavi and Khatami, along with 2005 presidential candidate Mehdi Karroubi, as runners. This was in case one or two of the candidates were disqualified by the Council of Guardians, and was said to be a tactic that would confuse the ‘conservatives’. So the ‘grand strategy’ was not as coordinated as some had claimed.
But the ‘conservatives’ are not doing much better. Many in the principlist camp do not consider Ahmadinejad a suitable candidate and they are considering a number of alternatives, including Tehran mayor Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, former nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani and major-general Mohsen Rezai, former commander of Pasdaran, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards.
Elections and the economy
In some ways, the election debate about relations with the US will only matter as part of the debate about Iran’s economy.
The economic chaos is symbolised by oil. The budget for last year, which ended on March 21, was based on oil selling at $150 a barrel, but for many months during this period, the price was below $45. As a result Iran is looking at a deficit of $25 to $30 billion and Ahmadinejad’s government has lost a number of crucial votes regarding the budget in parliament. And yet a few months ago Iranian leaders made the bold prediction that the world economic crisis would not affect Iran! By the end of the Iranian year, however, all Iran’s ills were being blamed on the crisis.
In addition to the dramatic drop in the price of oil, Iran has faced a major drought, with severe consequences for generating hydroelectricity. This forced the government to impose rationing on both water and electricity supplies to homes and businesses. The extent of the drought is so bad that the level of lake Urmia in Azarbaijan province is said to be falling by 2cms a day. It has also had a drastic effect on agriculture, resulting in the import of 6 million tons of grain.
Sanctions are beginning to hit ordinary Iranians hard and the poverty line now stands at 8,500,000 rials ($860) a month. A 10% increase: “With a possible 35% inflation rate next year, a family of five would be in absolute poverty with an income of under 8,500,000 rials.”6
Unless there is breakthrough over the nuclear saga the situation will get much worse in the new Iranian year and, of course, none of the reactionary candidates presented by various factions/parties of the Islamic Republic regime will address the problems faced by the majority of Iran’s population. Whoever wins the presidential election, it will make little difference to the lives of workers and their struggle to survive in Islamic Iran.
Notes
1. The message can be viewed at www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ee0wrjVtkk
2. See for example, M Rubin, ‘Iranian politicians discuss secret US-Iran talks’: corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTU1ZDJhMjRkNWM1MjE4ODMzMThiYjBhZGYwZWViZjk= 3. ‘US plan for Iran: talks alongside sanctions’ Ha’aretz: haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072808.html
4. ‘Thank president Obama for his wonderful Norooz message’: www.niacouncil.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1 373&Itemid=2
5. Fedayeen Majority - www.iran-chabar.de/news.jsp?essayId=20028
6. www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=88372§ionid=351020102
Obama’s message to Iranians to mark Norooz, the Iranian new year, was hailed by sections of the media as “unprecedented” and “historic”, offering a new beginning in Iran-US relations. It was therefore inevitable that when ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme religious leader, dismissed the message as consisting of meaningless slogans, Middle East and Iran ‘analysts’ expended a lot of effort trying to put a positive spin on a very unambiguous negative response.
So what was implicit in Obama’s message and why can Iran not accept it? There is no doubt that its tone differed from George Bush’s pronouncements on similar occasions - it accepted the existence of the Islamic Republic, to start with. However, for the most part it was very similar to what Bush had said before. He too used Norooz to appeal to Iran’s innate sense of cultural superiority as an ancient civilisation. One wonders how this went down in other Middle East capitals and amongst ordinary people in the area, not to mention the other minority nationalities living inside Iran’s borders (Arabs, Baluchis, Turks).
Demanding the impossible
As far as details are concerned, Obama repeated Bush’s conditions for normal relations, albeit in a slightly more diplomatic tone. Referring to Iran’s right to its place in the “community of nations”, he said: “You have that right, but it comes with real responsibilities and that place cannot be reached through terror or arms.”1
In other words, Iran should give up uranium enrichment, should stop arming Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, should abandon its threats against Israel, should continue supporting the occupation government in Iraq and should help the ‘peace’ conference in Afghanistan. Of course, Iran has done all in its power to help the US and its Nato allies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and secret negotiations regarding US-Iran cooperation over the ‘war on terror’ are well documented.2
However, the government in Tehran will not and cannot accept the other three demands, because it has built its reputation on taking a tough political stance and cannot afford to lose face without risking losing power. For over three decades the Iranian leadership has thrived through maintaining a state of crisis. Conflict with the US and sanctions, many of them going back to the early 80s, provide the regime with a convenient excuse for its economic failures, the growing gap between rich and poor, political repression and endemic corruption. In fact the regime’s survival depends on the continuation of the sanctions and a form of ‘cold war’.
Khamenei’s response to all this was both predictable and clear: “They chant the slogan of change, but no change is seen in practice.” Khamenei asked how Obama could congratulate Iranians on the new year yet in the same message accuse them of supporting terrorism and seeking nuclear weapons: “Have you released Iranian assets? Have you lifted oppressive sanctions? Have you given up mudslinging and making accusations against the great Iranian nation and its officials? Have you given up your unconditional support for the Zionist regime?”
It is quite clear that the Obama administration has no intention of lifting sanctions against Iran - in fact earlier this month US sanctions were renewed. According to an Israeli newspaper, “Senior US officials are preparing to present Obama with a plan for dialogue with Iran on its nuclear programme, including increased international sanctions against Tehran.”3
Ayatollah Khamenei is well aware that his first demand - an end to ‘sanctions’ - will not happen unless Iran gives up its nuclear programme. His second demand - an end to US support for Israel - is even more unlikely. Israel acts in effect as a US military base in the Middle East and to call on the US administration to withdraw support is the equivalent of suggesting it abandons a key strategic outpost.
At a time of serious economic difficulties it is in fact in the interest of both governments to continue the state of conflict. So, contrary to the euphoria expressed by sections of the media (including supporters of the ‘reformist’ faction of the Islamic Republic inside and outside Iran), it will take more than quoting a couple of lines of Saadi, the 13th century Persian poet, to resolve this conflict.
However, there is no doubt that Obama’s message will encourage further (open or covert) Iranian cooperation with US efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, where both countries are natural allies against the common ‘enemy’: al Qa’eda, and Sunni and secular opponents of the Iraqi occupation government.
Iran elections and the US
There is a vague reference to Iran’s June 12 presidential elections in Obama’s message and, despite the new year public holiday, the ‘reformist’ faction repeated the popular call for ‘an end to isolation’, hoping to use the speech to its own electoral advantage.
Outside Iran the pro-‘reformist’ and anti-war National Iranian American Council led the praise: “President Barack Obama’s historic Norooz message recognised the greatness of Iranian civilisation, the contributions of Iranian Americans to America and that threats cannot resolve the differences between Iran and the US.”4 The central committee of Fedayeen Majority wrote to Obama to assure him that Khamenei does not speak for the Iranian people! (As if the supreme cleric in a religious theocracy was likely to do so).5
Clearly Obama’s speech is already playing a role in what passes for the presidential election campaign in Iran. It represents the main issue over which one can detect small differences between the two main factions of the Islamic Republic party. Both are united on the nuclear programme, on support for Hezbollah, on maintaining Iran’s ambivalent position regarding Hamas and on keeping up the propaganda against Israel. However, the ‘reformists’ argue that a positive response to the new US administration will bring prosperity (for the rich) and an end to isolation, while the ‘conservatives’ prefer maintaining the current state of affairs.
Currently the main preoccupation of the ‘reformists’ is selecting a presidential candidate. On March 17, former president Mohammad Khatami pulled out in favour of Mir Hossein Moussavi, prime minister for most of the 1980s. Given the slump in Ahmadinejad’s popularity resulting from Iran’s dire economic situation (high unemployment, 25%-29 % inflation, etc), the ‘reformists’ see a chance of winning, yet Moussavi, the only viable candidate they are left with, is more of a centrist - probably closer to Khamenei than Ahmadinejad is. Opposition papers have rightly labelled Moussavi the ‘official candidate of the current order’. He is a member of the National Confidence (Etemad-e-Melli) Party and only stopped being prime minister when the post was abolished.
‘Reformists’ are now pinning their hopes on a Moussavi victory, but the statement he produced announcing his candidature reads more like a something from the hard-line ‘principlists’ (the so-called Ossulgara, who advocate a return to the basic Islamic ‘principles’ of the first years of the revolution), who are the main backers of Ahmadinejad. In addition it is now clear that Moussavi was never keen to be closely associated with Khatami and resented his original proposal that only one of them should stand.
Although Khatami himself had not seemed very enthusiastic in his bid for the nomination, the timing of his decision to withdraw, a week after Moussavi’s announcement, exposes the disarray in the ‘reformist’ camp whose ‘grand strategy’ was to keep both Moussavi and Khatami, along with 2005 presidential candidate Mehdi Karroubi, as runners. This was in case one or two of the candidates were disqualified by the Council of Guardians, and was said to be a tactic that would confuse the ‘conservatives’. So the ‘grand strategy’ was not as coordinated as some had claimed.
But the ‘conservatives’ are not doing much better. Many in the principlist camp do not consider Ahmadinejad a suitable candidate and they are considering a number of alternatives, including Tehran mayor Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, former nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani and major-general Mohsen Rezai, former commander of Pasdaran, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards.
Elections and the economy
In some ways, the election debate about relations with the US will only matter as part of the debate about Iran’s economy.
The economic chaos is symbolised by oil. The budget for last year, which ended on March 21, was based on oil selling at $150 a barrel, but for many months during this period, the price was below $45. As a result Iran is looking at a deficit of $25 to $30 billion and Ahmadinejad’s government has lost a number of crucial votes regarding the budget in parliament. And yet a few months ago Iranian leaders made the bold prediction that the world economic crisis would not affect Iran! By the end of the Iranian year, however, all Iran’s ills were being blamed on the crisis.
In addition to the dramatic drop in the price of oil, Iran has faced a major drought, with severe consequences for generating hydroelectricity. This forced the government to impose rationing on both water and electricity supplies to homes and businesses. The extent of the drought is so bad that the level of lake Urmia in Azarbaijan province is said to be falling by 2cms a day. It has also had a drastic effect on agriculture, resulting in the import of 6 million tons of grain.
Sanctions are beginning to hit ordinary Iranians hard and the poverty line now stands at 8,500,000 rials ($860) a month. A 10% increase: “With a possible 35% inflation rate next year, a family of five would be in absolute poverty with an income of under 8,500,000 rials.”6
Unless there is breakthrough over the nuclear saga the situation will get much worse in the new Iranian year and, of course, none of the reactionary candidates presented by various factions/parties of the Islamic Republic regime will address the problems faced by the majority of Iran’s population. Whoever wins the presidential election, it will make little difference to the lives of workers and their struggle to survive in Islamic Iran.
Notes
1. The message can be viewed at www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ee0wrjVtkk
2. See for example, M Rubin, ‘Iranian politicians discuss secret US-Iran talks’: corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTU1ZDJhMjRkNWM1MjE4ODMzMThiYjBhZGYwZWViZjk= 3. ‘US plan for Iran: talks alongside sanctions’ Ha’aretz: haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072808.html
4. ‘Thank president Obama for his wonderful Norooz message’: www.niacouncil.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1 373&Itemid=2
5. Fedayeen Majority - www.iran-chabar.de/news.jsp?essayId=20028
6. www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=88372§ionid=351020102
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Hopi Campaign launched
Hopi Campaign launched
Simon Wells reports on the launch of the Smash the Sanctions campaign
On March 16, Hands Off the People of Iran kicked off its Smash the Sanctions campaign with a press conference in the House of Commons. John McDonnell MP, Jenny Jones (Green Party member of the London assembly) and Hopi chair Yassamine Mather addressed the meeting.
Go to link below to listen to the speeches given by Yassamine Mather (chair of Hands Off the People of Iran) John McDonnell MP and Jenny Jones (London Assembly member, Green Party)
http://www.hopoi.org/
Comrade Mather started off by saying that sanctions are another form of war. The current set has just been renewed by Barack Obama. This shows that - if any proof was needed - his policies are very much a continuation of those of the Bush administration. There has also been a new round of sanctions, which includes serious restrictions on Sharif University, a leading educational institution in Iran, along with the Razi institution, a developer of immunisation medicines and a textile plant in the north of the country.
“I really fail to see how you can build a nuclear bomb with immunisation medicine or textiles, said comrade Mather. “But these sanctions have a real effect in that doctors and hospitals in Iran tell us that they can’t get hold of so-called ‘dual use’ equipment.”. It is not the senior clerics’ welfare which is harmed by the sanctions. They can buy the goods they need through the black market, but “at a price that the poor simply cannot afford”. The Iranian working class is hit thrice: it is hit by sanctions, the disastrous economic policies of the Islamic government and by world recession.
Clearly, sanctions are an important weapon in imperialism’s arsenal. They are supposed to pave the way for regime change from above.
However, Iraq and Zimbabwe are two countries that show where these efforts lead: sanctions strengthen the leaders of those countries and at the same time disempower the working class, which is struggling just to survive. “But this is the only force that can bring about real regime change - change from below,” said John McDonnell. “These are not smart sanctions: they are insane! They force people into poverty, giving them little opportunity to rise up to challenge the regime.”
He suggested that Hopi should do some work in explaining that the sanctions on Iran are of a qualitative difference from those imposed on South Africa, which many people on the left campaigned for: “For a start, British capital had a lot of money invested in and profited from the apartheid regime. And, of course, the people in South Africa asked for our solidarity to impose those sanctions.”Jenny Jones agreed with both speakers and added that in today’s media culture it would be useful if Hopi could find some concrete examples of Iranians suffering from the sanctions.
The meeting went on to discuss the campaign and concrete ways to spread the message. For example, comrade McDonnell is preparing an early day motion, a request to the foreign affairs committee to investigate the effect of sanctions on the Iranian people and a letter from the Labour Representation Committee to political parties on the European Left.
There were also suggestions that Hopi should contact the National Union of Journalists regarding the internet ban which affects millions of students in Iran, to link up Hopi supporters in Unison with Iranian health workers in hospitals, where staff are complaining about the effects of sanctions, and to mobilise student activists and academics to oppose sanctions on Iranian universities.
Simon Wells reports on the launch of the Smash the Sanctions campaign
On March 16, Hands Off the People of Iran kicked off its Smash the Sanctions campaign with a press conference in the House of Commons. John McDonnell MP, Jenny Jones (Green Party member of the London assembly) and Hopi chair Yassamine Mather addressed the meeting.
Go to link below to listen to the speeches given by Yassamine Mather (chair of Hands Off the People of Iran) John McDonnell MP and Jenny Jones (London Assembly member, Green Party)
http://www.hopoi.org/
Comrade Mather started off by saying that sanctions are another form of war. The current set has just been renewed by Barack Obama. This shows that - if any proof was needed - his policies are very much a continuation of those of the Bush administration. There has also been a new round of sanctions, which includes serious restrictions on Sharif University, a leading educational institution in Iran, along with the Razi institution, a developer of immunisation medicines and a textile plant in the north of the country.
“I really fail to see how you can build a nuclear bomb with immunisation medicine or textiles, said comrade Mather. “But these sanctions have a real effect in that doctors and hospitals in Iran tell us that they can’t get hold of so-called ‘dual use’ equipment.”. It is not the senior clerics’ welfare which is harmed by the sanctions. They can buy the goods they need through the black market, but “at a price that the poor simply cannot afford”. The Iranian working class is hit thrice: it is hit by sanctions, the disastrous economic policies of the Islamic government and by world recession.
Clearly, sanctions are an important weapon in imperialism’s arsenal. They are supposed to pave the way for regime change from above.
However, Iraq and Zimbabwe are two countries that show where these efforts lead: sanctions strengthen the leaders of those countries and at the same time disempower the working class, which is struggling just to survive. “But this is the only force that can bring about real regime change - change from below,” said John McDonnell. “These are not smart sanctions: they are insane! They force people into poverty, giving them little opportunity to rise up to challenge the regime.”
He suggested that Hopi should do some work in explaining that the sanctions on Iran are of a qualitative difference from those imposed on South Africa, which many people on the left campaigned for: “For a start, British capital had a lot of money invested in and profited from the apartheid regime. And, of course, the people in South Africa asked for our solidarity to impose those sanctions.”Jenny Jones agreed with both speakers and added that in today’s media culture it would be useful if Hopi could find some concrete examples of Iranians suffering from the sanctions.
The meeting went on to discuss the campaign and concrete ways to spread the message. For example, comrade McDonnell is preparing an early day motion, a request to the foreign affairs committee to investigate the effect of sanctions on the Iranian people and a letter from the Labour Representation Committee to political parties on the European Left.
There were also suggestions that Hopi should contact the National Union of Journalists regarding the internet ban which affects millions of students in Iran, to link up Hopi supporters in Unison with Iranian health workers in hospitals, where staff are complaining about the effects of sanctions, and to mobilise student activists and academics to oppose sanctions on Iranian universities.
Wave of repression
Wave of repression
Internationalism must be a principle which we make concrete, writes Dave Isaacson
The level of repression against radical activists and voices of opposition to the Islamic Republic in Iran has increased in the recent weeks. Activists from the students’, women’s and workers’ movements, as well as those from national and religious minorities, have all suffered violent attacks and arrests. Eight labour activists from the Haft Tapeh sugarcane factory union in southern Iran have been detained by the intelligence ministry, including Ali Nejati, the president of the board of directors of the Haft Tapeh Sugar Cane Company Workers’ Syndicate, who was arrested on March 8.
Thousands of workers and their relatives have engaged in protests, strikes and sit-ins over the past couple of years. Many have been charged with “acting against national security” - an allegation used frequently by the regime against labour and social activists. Ahmadinejad’s government is trying to impose the Islamic Labour Council - a state-sponsored agency - on workers in order to undermine their own independent organisation. However, workers have overwhelmingly boycotted elections to the Islamic Council, which is considered a repressive force that supports government and employers.
The regime also mobilised its repressive forces to prevent activists marking International Women’s Day on March 8. Women activists had called a gathering for Warsaw Park in Tehran, but security forces blocked the entrance. Students of Shiraz University in southern Iran had also planned a meeting, but buses carrying students were stopped and students were forced to give their details.
The most serious incident occurred outside Malat Park in Mashhad, where when 700 women had gathered to celebrate International Women’s Day. Fifty were arrested and transferred to an unknown location. At one point the security forces attacked the women in an attempt to disperse the demonstrators, but they fought back bravely with bricks and stones.
On February 18, Sussan Razani and Shiva Kheirabadi, two women labour activists, were flogged inside the central prison in Sanandaj, capital of the Iranian Kurdistan province. Razani was given 70 lashes and Kheirabadi 15. they had been prosecuted because of their role in a May Day celebration in May 2008. The court also sentenced two other working class activists, Abdullah Khani and Syed Ghalib Husseini, to prison terms and flogging for their part in the same event.
Four other men, whose identities were not given, were hanged on March 9 in a prison in Zahedan, according to the official state news agency, IRNA. They were accused of kidnapping and murder - a charge regularly (mis)used against political opponents of the regime. Zahedan is the capital of Sistan-va-Baluchistan province, and Baluchis are a predominantly Sunni Muslim national minority.
These are just a few examples of a wave of repression being unleashed in the run-up to the Iranian presidential elections to be held on June 12 this year. All voices opposing the Islamic Republic must be cowed.
The international media did report the February 23-24 protests at Amir Kabir polytechnic university in Tehran, which ended with violent attacks by Revolutionary Guards and the basij militia and the arrest of over 70 students. Prior to this comrades from Students for Equality and Freedom in Iran (SEF) had informed us of the arrest of two of their activists - Mohammad Pourabdollah and Alireza Davoudi:
“On the morning of February 12 2009, the forces of the regime arrested Mohammad Pourabdollah in a brutal attack on his house in Tehran. He has been kept in Evin prison since then. There is no recent news from his situation and he has had no contact with his family. Mohammad, a chemical engineering student at the University of Tehran, was one of the 50 SEF students who were arrested last year following Student Day celebrations. Alireza Davoudi was taken from his home in Isfahan by regime forces and transferred to an unknown place. He is a well known student activist at the University of Isfahan who was arrested last spring and subjected to physical and mental torture” (Letters Weekly Worker February 19).
On February 23 SEF comrades at the University of Tehran held a protest demanding the release of the two. On the same day over at Amir Kabir, another university in Tehran, hundreds of students gathered for the first of two protests at the site on campus where the remains of five members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, ‘martyrs’ who died during the 1980-88 war with Iraq, were being reburied.
Iran’s supreme leader, ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has insisted that commemorating such people is a duty for each and every Iranian: “Our nation, mainly our youth, are indebted to the martyrs.” Protesters said they feared that the government would use the presence of the war graves in universities as a pretext for official suppression of demonstrations, which might be deemed ‘disrespectful’. This would also have allowed the basij increased access to the campus in order to police student activities.
Despite all these pressures, and the presence of the Revolutionary Guards and basij, the students defiantly chanted slogans such as “Dictator of the day, the war dead have become your excuse”, “Death to the dictator”, “We don’t want a fascist regime”, “Basiji get lost” and “Guns, tanks, basijis are no use any more”, immediately before the reburial ceremony on February 23.
The protesters were viciously attacked. Over 60 students were injured and around 20 taken to hospital with injuries consistent with the use of knives and knuckle-dusters as well as fists. Photos and videos of the assault, captured on student mobile phones, can be seen at www.autnews.us/archives/1387,12,00017569 and www.youtube.com/watch?v=UytG8w ByRIQ.
There were further clashes and arrests on February 24 and over 70 students were arrested and many still remain in prison. Students are saying that their campus is being turned into a graveyard and Tehran’s notorious Evin prison is being turned into a university due to the number of students held there.
Subsequently four more of Students for Equality and Freedom - Amirhosein Mohammadifar, Sanaz Allahyari, Nasim Roshanai and Maryam Sheikh - were arrested. It goes without saying that as communists we demand the release of these comrades, and of all political prisoners held by the Islamic Republic. We stand in solidarity with all students, workers and women who are fighting the regime.
Equally, we understand that that the war threats and sanctions emanating from the US and other imperialist countries make the position of our comrades in Iran more difficult. It gives the theocratic regime the perfect excuse to crack down on internal dissent. It is no accident that so many political opponents to the regime are arrested on the pretext of being stooges of foreign powers. The war threats play directly into the hands of the regime.
However, while the bulk of the left (excluding the social-imperialist Alliance for Workers’ Liberty) are clear in their opposition to any attack on Iran, they are less than clear about the position they take with regard to the Iranian regime and its attacks on movements inside Iran.
Much of the left makes the mistake of believing that that ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’: reactionary states in conflict with imperialism must be supported - or at least opposition to them suspended. This is the ‘anti-imperialism’ of fools. It is a class-collaborationist politics which leads ‘socialists’ to take a side other than that of the working class.
When the US sent ships into the Gulf in 1987 in a show of support for Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war, according to Phil Marshall of the Socialist Workers Party, this meant that, “notwithstanding the reactionary nature of the Khomeini regime, socialists should therefore support Khomeini’s military campaign against Iraq and the west, while retaining their complete political independence of the regime” (Revolution and counterrevolution in Iran London 1988, p106). But this “political independence” did not stop Socialist Worker from opposing strikes. In its November 28 1987 edition it argued: “We have no choice but to support the Khomeini regime ... socialists should not call for the disruption of military supplies to the front … should not support actions which could lead to the collapse of the military effort.” A shameful position.
Earlier this year, the SWP appeared to take up a different line. Its article marking the 30th anniversary of the Iranian revolution of 1979 noted: “Khomeini and his allies argued that national unity was needed to defeat the US. Any dissenters were enemies of the revolution. The left didn’t know how to respond ... The left’s failure to organise independently among workers and the poor to fight for socialism allowed Khomeini to consolidate power” (Socialist Worker January 20). But the article made no mention of the working class movement in Iran today - the SWP has virtually nothing to say about the repression of activists by the regime.
Indeed at the last conference of the Stop the War Coalition in October 2007 it was SWP comrades who lead the rapturous applause for Campaign Iran’s Somaya Zadeh when she belittled the repressive actions of the Iranian state in an astonishing display of apologetics. She outlined what she saw as five “lies”. ‘Lie’ number five was that “Iran is an undemocratic and repressive country” (see Weekly Worker November 1 2007).
Internationalism must be more than something we mention in ‘Where we stand’ statements and Sunday afternoon meetings. It is a principle which we must make concrete. We must stand in solidarity with our comrades around the world, whether the states they are fighting happen to be in conflict with US interests or not.
This does not mean we do not also oppose US imperialism. Our movement must be able to walk and chew gum.
Internationalism must be a principle which we make concrete, writes Dave Isaacson
The level of repression against radical activists and voices of opposition to the Islamic Republic in Iran has increased in the recent weeks. Activists from the students’, women’s and workers’ movements, as well as those from national and religious minorities, have all suffered violent attacks and arrests. Eight labour activists from the Haft Tapeh sugarcane factory union in southern Iran have been detained by the intelligence ministry, including Ali Nejati, the president of the board of directors of the Haft Tapeh Sugar Cane Company Workers’ Syndicate, who was arrested on March 8.
Thousands of workers and their relatives have engaged in protests, strikes and sit-ins over the past couple of years. Many have been charged with “acting against national security” - an allegation used frequently by the regime against labour and social activists. Ahmadinejad’s government is trying to impose the Islamic Labour Council - a state-sponsored agency - on workers in order to undermine their own independent organisation. However, workers have overwhelmingly boycotted elections to the Islamic Council, which is considered a repressive force that supports government and employers.
The regime also mobilised its repressive forces to prevent activists marking International Women’s Day on March 8. Women activists had called a gathering for Warsaw Park in Tehran, but security forces blocked the entrance. Students of Shiraz University in southern Iran had also planned a meeting, but buses carrying students were stopped and students were forced to give their details.
The most serious incident occurred outside Malat Park in Mashhad, where when 700 women had gathered to celebrate International Women’s Day. Fifty were arrested and transferred to an unknown location. At one point the security forces attacked the women in an attempt to disperse the demonstrators, but they fought back bravely with bricks and stones.
On February 18, Sussan Razani and Shiva Kheirabadi, two women labour activists, were flogged inside the central prison in Sanandaj, capital of the Iranian Kurdistan province. Razani was given 70 lashes and Kheirabadi 15. they had been prosecuted because of their role in a May Day celebration in May 2008. The court also sentenced two other working class activists, Abdullah Khani and Syed Ghalib Husseini, to prison terms and flogging for their part in the same event.
Four other men, whose identities were not given, were hanged on March 9 in a prison in Zahedan, according to the official state news agency, IRNA. They were accused of kidnapping and murder - a charge regularly (mis)used against political opponents of the regime. Zahedan is the capital of Sistan-va-Baluchistan province, and Baluchis are a predominantly Sunni Muslim national minority.
These are just a few examples of a wave of repression being unleashed in the run-up to the Iranian presidential elections to be held on June 12 this year. All voices opposing the Islamic Republic must be cowed.
The international media did report the February 23-24 protests at Amir Kabir polytechnic university in Tehran, which ended with violent attacks by Revolutionary Guards and the basij militia and the arrest of over 70 students. Prior to this comrades from Students for Equality and Freedom in Iran (SEF) had informed us of the arrest of two of their activists - Mohammad Pourabdollah and Alireza Davoudi:
“On the morning of February 12 2009, the forces of the regime arrested Mohammad Pourabdollah in a brutal attack on his house in Tehran. He has been kept in Evin prison since then. There is no recent news from his situation and he has had no contact with his family. Mohammad, a chemical engineering student at the University of Tehran, was one of the 50 SEF students who were arrested last year following Student Day celebrations. Alireza Davoudi was taken from his home in Isfahan by regime forces and transferred to an unknown place. He is a well known student activist at the University of Isfahan who was arrested last spring and subjected to physical and mental torture” (Letters Weekly Worker February 19).
On February 23 SEF comrades at the University of Tehran held a protest demanding the release of the two. On the same day over at Amir Kabir, another university in Tehran, hundreds of students gathered for the first of two protests at the site on campus where the remains of five members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, ‘martyrs’ who died during the 1980-88 war with Iraq, were being reburied.
Iran’s supreme leader, ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has insisted that commemorating such people is a duty for each and every Iranian: “Our nation, mainly our youth, are indebted to the martyrs.” Protesters said they feared that the government would use the presence of the war graves in universities as a pretext for official suppression of demonstrations, which might be deemed ‘disrespectful’. This would also have allowed the basij increased access to the campus in order to police student activities.
Despite all these pressures, and the presence of the Revolutionary Guards and basij, the students defiantly chanted slogans such as “Dictator of the day, the war dead have become your excuse”, “Death to the dictator”, “We don’t want a fascist regime”, “Basiji get lost” and “Guns, tanks, basijis are no use any more”, immediately before the reburial ceremony on February 23.
The protesters were viciously attacked. Over 60 students were injured and around 20 taken to hospital with injuries consistent with the use of knives and knuckle-dusters as well as fists. Photos and videos of the assault, captured on student mobile phones, can be seen at www.autnews.us/archives/1387,12,00017569 and www.youtube.com/watch?v=UytG8w ByRIQ.
There were further clashes and arrests on February 24 and over 70 students were arrested and many still remain in prison. Students are saying that their campus is being turned into a graveyard and Tehran’s notorious Evin prison is being turned into a university due to the number of students held there.
Subsequently four more of Students for Equality and Freedom - Amirhosein Mohammadifar, Sanaz Allahyari, Nasim Roshanai and Maryam Sheikh - were arrested. It goes without saying that as communists we demand the release of these comrades, and of all political prisoners held by the Islamic Republic. We stand in solidarity with all students, workers and women who are fighting the regime.
Equally, we understand that that the war threats and sanctions emanating from the US and other imperialist countries make the position of our comrades in Iran more difficult. It gives the theocratic regime the perfect excuse to crack down on internal dissent. It is no accident that so many political opponents to the regime are arrested on the pretext of being stooges of foreign powers. The war threats play directly into the hands of the regime.
However, while the bulk of the left (excluding the social-imperialist Alliance for Workers’ Liberty) are clear in their opposition to any attack on Iran, they are less than clear about the position they take with regard to the Iranian regime and its attacks on movements inside Iran.
Much of the left makes the mistake of believing that that ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’: reactionary states in conflict with imperialism must be supported - or at least opposition to them suspended. This is the ‘anti-imperialism’ of fools. It is a class-collaborationist politics which leads ‘socialists’ to take a side other than that of the working class.
When the US sent ships into the Gulf in 1987 in a show of support for Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war, according to Phil Marshall of the Socialist Workers Party, this meant that, “notwithstanding the reactionary nature of the Khomeini regime, socialists should therefore support Khomeini’s military campaign against Iraq and the west, while retaining their complete political independence of the regime” (Revolution and counterrevolution in Iran London 1988, p106). But this “political independence” did not stop Socialist Worker from opposing strikes. In its November 28 1987 edition it argued: “We have no choice but to support the Khomeini regime ... socialists should not call for the disruption of military supplies to the front … should not support actions which could lead to the collapse of the military effort.” A shameful position.
Earlier this year, the SWP appeared to take up a different line. Its article marking the 30th anniversary of the Iranian revolution of 1979 noted: “Khomeini and his allies argued that national unity was needed to defeat the US. Any dissenters were enemies of the revolution. The left didn’t know how to respond ... The left’s failure to organise independently among workers and the poor to fight for socialism allowed Khomeini to consolidate power” (Socialist Worker January 20). But the article made no mention of the working class movement in Iran today - the SWP has virtually nothing to say about the repression of activists by the regime.
Indeed at the last conference of the Stop the War Coalition in October 2007 it was SWP comrades who lead the rapturous applause for Campaign Iran’s Somaya Zadeh when she belittled the repressive actions of the Iranian state in an astonishing display of apologetics. She outlined what she saw as five “lies”. ‘Lie’ number five was that “Iran is an undemocratic and repressive country” (see Weekly Worker November 1 2007).
Internationalism must be more than something we mention in ‘Where we stand’ statements and Sunday afternoon meetings. It is a principle which we must make concrete. We must stand in solidarity with our comrades around the world, whether the states they are fighting happen to be in conflict with US interests or not.
This does not mean we do not also oppose US imperialism. Our movement must be able to walk and chew gum.
Call to prosecute officials after Iranian blogger dies in prison
The Guardian, Friday 20 March 2009
An Iranian blogger convicted of insulting the country's religious leaders has died in jail after taking a drug overdose.
Omidreza Mirsayafi, 29, died in Tehran's notorious Evin prison on Wednesday, just over a month after a judge gave him a two-and-a-half year sentence for posting comments on his blog about figures including the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini .
Human rights campaigners called for prison officials to be prosecuted after Mirsayafi took extra doses of tranquilisers prescribed by prison doctors. He was suffering from depression and had previously attempted to commit suicide, according to a fellow inmate.
His death followed that of Amir Hossein Heshmatsaran, founder of an Iranian opposition group called the National Unity Front, who died on 6 March while serving an eight-year sentence. Heshmatsaran's family alleged that he had died because of negligence, after suffering a stroke.
The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran said the deaths illustrated contempt for political detainees' health.
"Iranian leaders have relegated the administration of the prison system to a group of incompetent and cruel officials who are showing their utter disregard for human life," said Hadi Ghaemi, the campaign's spokesman. "If the authorities do not move quickly to hold negligent officials responsible, they are reinforcing impunity and the lack of accountability."
Mirsayafi was convicted of insulting religious leaders and of making propaganda against the Islamic system. He was awaiting a further trial on charges of insulting "sacred Islamic values". The offences were allegedly committed on his blog, Rouznegar, which focused mainly on music and cultural issues.
Mirsayafi denied the postings were insulting and said they were only intended to be read by friends. Before being convicted, he told associates he would die if he was imprisoned.
Details of Mirsayafi's deterioration in prison were given by Hesam Firoozi, an imprisoned doctor who witnessed his treatment. Firoozi, who has treated some of Iran's best-known political activists, told Mirsayafi's lawyer that medical staff had denied him proper care by failing to send him to hospital.
Iran has come under scrutiny before for its treatment of imprisoned activists. Human rights groups voiced outrage in July 2006 when Akbar Mohammadi, incarcerated for leading anti-government student demonstrations, died in Evin prison after going on hunger strike. He had been fasting to protest against the lack of treatment for injuries suffered in captivity.
News of Mirsayfi's death emerged as officials announced the arrest of 27 people they said were involved in pornographic and erotic websites allegedly created by foreign powers aiming to foment a "soft revolution" against the Islamic regime.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/20/omidreza-mirsayafi-iran-blogger-rouznegar
An Iranian blogger convicted of insulting the country's religious leaders has died in jail after taking a drug overdose.
Omidreza Mirsayafi, 29, died in Tehran's notorious Evin prison on Wednesday, just over a month after a judge gave him a two-and-a-half year sentence for posting comments on his blog about figures including the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini .
Human rights campaigners called for prison officials to be prosecuted after Mirsayafi took extra doses of tranquilisers prescribed by prison doctors. He was suffering from depression and had previously attempted to commit suicide, according to a fellow inmate.
His death followed that of Amir Hossein Heshmatsaran, founder of an Iranian opposition group called the National Unity Front, who died on 6 March while serving an eight-year sentence. Heshmatsaran's family alleged that he had died because of negligence, after suffering a stroke.
The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran said the deaths illustrated contempt for political detainees' health.
"Iranian leaders have relegated the administration of the prison system to a group of incompetent and cruel officials who are showing their utter disregard for human life," said Hadi Ghaemi, the campaign's spokesman. "If the authorities do not move quickly to hold negligent officials responsible, they are reinforcing impunity and the lack of accountability."
Mirsayafi was convicted of insulting religious leaders and of making propaganda against the Islamic system. He was awaiting a further trial on charges of insulting "sacred Islamic values". The offences were allegedly committed on his blog, Rouznegar, which focused mainly on music and cultural issues.
Mirsayafi denied the postings were insulting and said they were only intended to be read by friends. Before being convicted, he told associates he would die if he was imprisoned.
Details of Mirsayafi's deterioration in prison were given by Hesam Firoozi, an imprisoned doctor who witnessed his treatment. Firoozi, who has treated some of Iran's best-known political activists, told Mirsayafi's lawyer that medical staff had denied him proper care by failing to send him to hospital.
Iran has come under scrutiny before for its treatment of imprisoned activists. Human rights groups voiced outrage in July 2006 when Akbar Mohammadi, incarcerated for leading anti-government student demonstrations, died in Evin prison after going on hunger strike. He had been fasting to protest against the lack of treatment for injuries suffered in captivity.
News of Mirsayfi's death emerged as officials announced the arrest of 27 people they said were involved in pornographic and erotic websites allegedly created by foreign powers aiming to foment a "soft revolution" against the Islamic regime.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/20/omidreza-mirsayafi-iran-blogger-rouznegar
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
