Replies

Whoever can play the US card in Iran wins the game

4 July Guardian

The real question is whether to strike a deal with the Tehran regime. Next week, on the fourth anniversary of student protests in Tehran which ended with many injured and at least one dead, thousands of demonstrators are expected to burst on to the streets of the Iranian capital. The regime is fearful and divided about the proper response, while the protest leaders are anxious that their show of force should this time have some genuine impact rather than subsiding without any visible result, as on so many previous occasions. Iranians in general are waiting, without much hope, for some resolution of the contradictions of their political system - and for an end to the paralysis which leaves them forever poised between reform and reaction, autocracy and democracy, international isolation and acceptance.

They have waited for such a resolution for years, but two significant changes, one domestic and one international, could mean that what has always in the past been subject to indefinite postponement may not be too far away. The domestic change is the coming of age of the generation born just after the Iranian revolution, men and women with no memory of the Shah or, except for childhood recollections, of the Iran-Iraq conflict. The international change is, of course, the result of the two wars that have put America next door to Iran in Afghanistan and now Iraq - a change which makes the two countries even more important to one another than they were in the past. Iran could possibly undo the Americans in Iraq, if it set its mind to it, while the US has new means, including conceivably military ones, of influencing events in Iran. Yet a military intervention, even a limited one against nuclear facilities, is the remotest of prospects.

What is likely to ensue is a wary sparring for advantage, within Iran and between Iran and the United States and Europe, as competing elements within the Iranian regime and in the Iranian opposition all look for American support. Whoever can play the American card in Iran, delivering at the same time security against the US threat and meeting the aspirations of a youthful population for a nation more open to the world, will win the political game there, at least for a time.

The emergence into adulthood of the generation of '79 is the culmination of a demographic explosion that has seen the population of Iran double since Ayatollah Khomeini returned in triumph from Paris. It has added to the mass of doubtful and discontented young people who have been at the centre of Iranian politics since the early 90s. They have known nothing but the Islamic republic, but their experience of that republic, especially if they are middle class, is conditioned by their active alternative life as virtual citizens of the wider world, which they know through television, film, and the back and forth circulation of the huge and constantly topped up Iranian diaspora in America, Europe and Australia. Even the devout among them have their doubts about a regime whose religious credentials have eroded after years of exposure to the temptations of office, and after respected clerics have raised anew the question of whether it is theologically right that the clerical class should enjoy political power.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme cleric, said last month after a week of student protests that "disgruntled people" who allowed themselves to become "mercenaries" for the Americans would be punished. But he and others know that shooting students in the streets, or even going beyond a certain limit in detentions, would be wildly counterproductive. The wily former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, projecting both moderation in dealing with protesters and a desire for dialogue with the US, shows that he knows that the key to political success in Iran is not to suppress the young but to satisfy some of their demands. Because a romanticised America, in part a code for a more general opening up of Iranian society, has such symbolic importance for many of the youthful middle class, whichever Iranian leader can claim to have achieved an understanding with the United States would get a big lease on political life, for himself and the regime as a whole. In that sense, Rafsanjani is in competition with the much more genuinely liberal Mohammad Khatami, the current president, who promised so much but has been able to deliver so little. He is also in competition with less flexible conservatives who may accept that some concessions to the US are unavoidable but still see America as an enemy that must be resisted everywhere in the Middle East. American leverage, therefore, arises much less from American military power than from the fact that almost everybody in Iranian politics probably wants to do some kind of a deal with them, or at least benefit from a deal done by others.

Some readiness to bend has therefore been apparent in Tehran. Jack Straw's visit adds to the evidence that the Iranians are prepared to allow the intrusive inspections of nuclear plants upon which America, with support from Europe, Russia and the International Atomic Energy Authority, has been insisting. The French swoop on the Mojahedin Khalq network and reports that the Iranians are about to hand over a number of al-Qaida men to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt - countries which could hand them on to the US - suggest some elements of a bargain are in place. (Although some think the French move is unrelated.) The Americans and Europeans also want, and probably already have seen, some reduction in Iranian support for groups like Hizbullah, or the use of its influence to moderate their behaviour.

In the US the idea of inducing a sudden and total regime change in Iran has its supporters, perhaps including Donald Rumsfeld. Many of them set store on the opposition group connected to Reza Shah, the last Shah's son. Broadcasts in Farsi from his group encouraged the student protesters last month. But few Iranians, however discontented, have any interest in a monarchical restoration, just as few had any time for the Mojahedin Khalq. Backing outside opposition groups is not a serious policy.

The real choice before America and Europe is a harder one. If Iran is ready for some kind of bargain with western countries, a bargain which Europe, in particular, has been pursuing for years, should that bargain be done with an essentially unreconstructed regime, for whom an American deal would be the glue that would enable it to enjoy a few more wobbly years of power over an unhappy population? Or should we wait in the hope of a more radical transformation, perhaps based on an alliancebetween the more moderate segment of the regime and the opposition?

That may be wishful thinking, but it is worth a little time to find out how wishful it is. The best policies could lie somewhere between unwise attempts at regime change and support of the Iranian regime as it now exists.

source http://www.iranexpert.com/2003/iranwinsgame4july.htm

SMCCDI: Iranians celebrate National Hero's Legacy Of Fighting Against Islamist Legions

SMCCDI (Information Service)
July 4, 2003

Thousands of Iranians defied the Governmental ban and Religious taboos, yesterday, by gathering around the ruins of the famous "Babak Fortress" located in the Azarbaijan province.

Babak who's real name was "Papak" was the brave Iranian commander who fought for several years the 7th century's Islamic and Arab invaders of Iran and inflicted huge dammages to their troops.

Sporadic clashes and arrests took place in the later hour of this gathering as the regime plainclothes men tried to silence those calling for the renew of the Iranian traditions over those forcely imposed 14 centuries ago. The crowd protested about the desperate try of the regime men who believed to be able to shatter Papak's Legacy by installing huge speakers spreading the Qoran versets in Arabic.

In addition to the regime's men, few nostalgic of Pan-Turkism, who had traveled from the land of Aran (the self called Republic of Azarbaidjan), tried to use the event for the promotion of their agenda but faced massive protests from the Iranians and especially from most of the Iranians of Azari origin who renewed their atachement to their Iranian culture and history.

Some of these individuals are headed by the constroversial "Mahmudali Chohraganli" who claims to be the leader of a so-called Freedom movement in South Azerbaijan. Chohraganli who is among the nostalgics of Pan Turkism has recently attenuated his baseless claim, due to lack of Popular support among Iranian Azaris.

Once claiming that the majority of Iranian Azaris are seeking independence, he has resigned recently and at at least for now, to claim that his movement will content itself with more rights within an Iranian Federal Republic by hoping that time and spending foreign money can give him a chance.

It's to note that most Iranian Azaris have rejected his baseless claims and have declared at various occasions their attachement to Iran.

The false propaganda campaign carried by the Pan Turkist circles who're dreaming to split the Iranian province of Azarbaijan is not something new and has a long desperate history. But despite all these tries, Iranian Azaris have always shown the attachment to Iran and have contributed to its existence by chasing out the Pan Turkists who were able in the 50's to detach the Azarbaijan province from Iran with the help of Soviet Army.

Perhaps the sacrifices made by all Iranians of any ethnicity or religion in order to defend the motherland, especially during the Iraqi aggression of the 1980s, is the best example of what Iranians stand for and the consolidation of a National identity rather than ethnic as few nostalgic of Stalin era try to claim. The defense against Iraq took place while many were rejecting, already, the newly formed Islamic republic and some of the pan-Turkist, pan-Kurdish or pan-Arab were claiming that the Iran facing a revolutionary period will split following the attack of an external force. From Iranian Arabs who were the first to stop the Iraqi forces due to the lack of an organized army by passing to the Iranian Azari and Iranian Kurdish legions which went to fight the common and hereditary enemy of Iran the exploits of valiance and patriotism are not rare.

In addition it is important to know that the so-called republic of Azarbaijan was formerly known as Aran and was part of the great Persia till the mid 1800s when it was lost to the Russian empire at the issue of a bloody war.

It's to note that many Arani families still have, after the passage of all this time, the nostalgia of being Iranian and many of them still chose pure Persian name for their children instead of Turkic names. As an example, we can name "Shahin Imranov" the Arani box champion of the so-called Republic of Azarbaijan. Shahin in Persian means Eagle.

The name of Azarbaijan, which is the name of an Iranian province located in south of Aras river, forming the today's northern Iranian border, was usurped by Stalin and some pan Turkist groups in an effort to create a ground for the split of Azarbaijan from Iran. Such split was tried at the end of the WWII but failed following the departure of the Soviet troops from Iran which lead to the rebellion of the Iranian Azaris against the pan turkish.

The name Azarbaijan or Azarpadegan means bastion or temple of fire, in reference to the old Persian tradition of creating special places in order to keep on fire (Azar) which is considered as symbol of life and purification. Till our day no temple of fire has been found in the north of Aras river despite all propaganda efforts and falsification methods known to the Soviet Union and pan Turkist groups, contrary to the south (in the Iranian province of Azarbaijan) where ruins of huge temples of fire, such as, Azargoshassb have been found.

Also, everybody must note that The most well known of all Iranian warrior commanders who fought the Arab invaders was "Papak" known as "Babak" who lost his life lives following several years of fighting against the troops of the Islamic Calife ruling in Baghdad.

Papak or Babak will held in check for several years the Arab and Islamist troops in their tentative quest of conquering the Azarpadegan province (named as Azarbaijan following the Mongol invasion of Iran). Papak will loose his last battle following the betrayal of Afshin, an Iranian converted to Islam and benefiting from the caliph's gifts, lead the Arab troops in an effort to capture Papak. It is important to note that The name of "Papak" has been converted to "Babak" by Arabs as they're unable to pronounce the word "P". In addition many pan-Turkists try to claim our history and use Papak or Babak as a Turkist symbol. This is an illegitimate claim in line with the pan-Turkist policy of falsification of history. As Papak was living several centuries before the Mongol and Turkist invasions of Iran and was speaking the old Persian which was still spoken, till a few decades ago in some parts of the Azarpadegan (Azarbaidjan ) province.

http://www.iran-daneshjoo.org/cgi-bin/smccdinews/viewnews.cgi?category=5&id=1057331682

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail me”

EU Parliamentarians: Stop Torturing Manochehr Mohammadi

July 04, 2003 Iran va Jahan Shaheen Fatemi

Three prominent members of the European parliament who are also members of the Swedish and European Liberal Party in an unusually strong language have " demanded that....the IRI immediately take action to stop the torture" of Mr. Manochehr Mohammadi who "has been imprisoned since 1999 is now being held in the basement of a military camp in Tehran." In their letter addressed to the Iranian Ambassador in Stockholm they add: "...torture is of course a serious violation of international law, in particular the "UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment."

One of the signatories of this letter, Mme. Cecilia Malmstrom, in a letter addressed to the same Ambassador, as a symbolic gesture of her protest against the IRI regime, refused an invitation to attend the Embassy's celebration of their revolution. That letter was published in Iran va Jahan.

Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran Stockholm

Stockholm 1 July 2003

Dear Mr Ambassador,

We are writing to you concerning the case of the liberal student Mr Manochehr Mohammadi imprisoned since 1999. You probably know that Mr ManochehrMohammadi is of bad health and needs various treatment and operations in the dental area.

We have been informed that Mr Manochehr Mohammadi now is being held in the basement of a military camp in Teheran. He also said to be tortured by a brutal interrogator of the intelligent service, named Mr Ahmad Sheyka.

As you well know, torture is of course a serious violation of international law, in particular the "UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment". We therefore insist that you will examine if the information we has been given is true, and we, of course wish to be informed about the result of your inquiries. If our information is correct we demand that you and your government immediately take action to stop the torture and investigate the conditions for medical treatment and the release of Mr Maonochehr Mohammadi from prison.

With best regards,

Erik Ullenhag, Liberal member of the Swedish Parliament

Cecilia Malmstr?m, Liberal member of the European Parliament and its Foreign Affairs Committee

Carl B Hamilton, Liberal member of the Swedish Parliament and of its Foreign Affairs and EU Committees

Fred Saberi, Chairman of the Liberal Immigrant Association of Stockholm

http://iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news_en.pl?l=en&y=2003&m=07&d=04&a=4