The Latest from Iran (29 January): Sideshows and Main Events

2320 GMT: The Committee of Human Rights Reporters has issued a statement on recent allegations against its members, many of whom are detained:

The civil society’s endurance depends on acceptance and realization of modern norms and principles. When a ruling establishment with an outdated legal system tries to impose itself politically and ideologically on a modern society, the result will be widespread protests.

2315 GMT: Correction of the Day. Although it was not widely noted, there were 40th Day memorial ceremonies for Grand Ayatollah Montazeri in Qom.

2310 GMT: Diversion of the Day. From Press TV:

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's top aide said Friday Tehran is concerned about the direction of the US administration after President Barack Obama delivered his first State of the Union address.

"We have concerns Obama will not be successful in bring change to US policies," Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai, the senior aide to President Ahmadinejad and his chief of staff, said.

With respect, Esfandiar, I don't think President Obama is your biggest concern right now.

NEW Iran Patriotism Special: Wiping the Green From The Flag
Iran Document: Karroubi Maintains the Pressure (28 January)
Iran Document: Resignation Letter of Diplomat in Japan “Join the People”
Iran Document/Analysis: Karroubi’s Statement on the Political Situation (27 January)
Iran Analysis: Leadership in the Green Movement
The Latest from Iran (28 January): Trouble Brewing

2300 GMT: Yawn. Well, we started the day with a sanctions sideshow (see 0650 GMT), so I guess it is fitting to close with one. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking in Paris:

China will be under a lot of pressure to recognize the destabilizing impact that a nuclear-armed Iran would have in the [Persian] Gulf, from which they receive a significant percentage of their own supplies....We understand that right now it seems counterproductive to [China] to sanction a country from which you get so much of the natural resources your growing economy needs....[But China] needs to think about the longer-term implications.

1. The White House is not even at the point of agreeing a sanctions package with the US Congress, let alone countries with far different agendas.
2. China is not going to agree tough sanctions in the UN Security Council. Really. Clinton is blowing smoke.
3. About the only outcome of this will be Press TV running a story on bad America threatening good Iran Government.


2250 GMT: Back after a break (Up In The Air is fantastic --- there, I've said it) to find that the reformist Islamic Iran Participation Front has written an open letter to Iran's head of judiciary, Sadegh Larijani, putting a series of questions over the executions of Mohammad Reza Ali Zamani and Arash Ramanipour.

1820 GMT: We've moved our item on the regime's apparent removal of Green from Iran's flag to a separate entry.

1755 GMT: Today's Pot-Kettle-Black Moment. Just came across a discussion on Press TV of a bill, passed in the US House of Representatives, threatening to block "anti-US" television channels.

Don't get me wrong: this is an incredibly stupid measure, although as Professor William Beeman, the most reflective of the three guests notes, it is a symbolic declaration unlikely to become law. However, I have to note that at no point do the words "Internet filtering", "expulsion/imprisonment of journalists", "jamming of satellite signals" (say, of Voice of America Persian or BBC Persian) come up in the conversation, which also includes a Dr Franklin Lamb and a Dr Seyed Mohammad Marandi.

1750 GMT: The Judiciary v. Ahmadinejad. At insideIRAN, Arash Aramesh has a useful summary of the suspension of the publication Hemmat by Iran's judiciary. The twist is that Hemmat, which ran into trouble for running an attack piece against Hashemi Rafsanjani, is a supporter of the Ahmadinejad Government. No surprise then that the President reportedly declared:

I am not very happy with some of the Judiciary’s actions. Someone published a paper and you shut it down. It is the job of a jury to order the closure of publications. We do not agree with such actions and believe that these actions show a spirit of dictatorship.

However, Aramesh does not connect the Hemmat story to the imprisonment of Mohammad Jafar Behdad (see 1230 GMT), an official in the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance, for four months.

1725 GMT: The Latest from Gohardasht Prison. Peyke Iran reports that 300 Ashura detainees are under severe pressure by Ministry of Intelligence agents, demanding confessions of "mohareb" (war against God), in sections controlled by the Revolutionary Guard.

1700 GMT: The International Committee for Human Rights in Iran has started a new blog. Current posts consider the Zamani/Rahmanipour executions and "Members of Committee of Human Rights Reporters Under Pressure to Make Forced Confessions".

1600 GMT: The Strategy of Deaths. Tehran Prosecutor General Abbas Jafari Doulatabadi has offered details on the regime's handling of executions: having put to death two pre-election detainees to death yesterday, the Government has handed down five more sentences on five people arrested on Ashura (27 December). The sentences are currently being appealed.

Doulatabadi's declaration complements a recent announcement that by Iran Prosecutor General Gholamhosein Mohseni Ejei that at least three Ashura Day detainees will be executed. Ejei also said four more pre-election prisoners had been sentenced to death. (Added to Thursday's executions, Doulatabadi and Ejei's numbers match up to the "eleven" death sentences announced by Iranian state media yesterday.)

1410 GMT: Man, 1) Ayatollah Jannati is in a really bad mood after being verbally slapped by Mehdi Karroubi; 2) the Government is scared of the forthcoming demonstrations on 22 Bahman (11 February); 3) both. The Los Angeles Times offers translated extracts from Jannati's Friday Prayers address (see 1155 GMT) in Tehran:

The prophet Muhammad signed non-aggression pacts with three Jewish tribes. The Jews failed to meet their commitments, and God ordered their massacre (by Imam Ali, the 3rd Imam Shia, despite his reputation for compassion)....When it comes to suppressing the enemy, divine compassion and leniency have no meaning.

The judiciary is tasked with dealing with the detained rioters. I know you well, judiciary officials! You came forward sincerely and accepted this responsibility. You are revolutionary and committed to the Supreme Leader. For God's sake, stand firm as you already did with your quick execution of these two convicts....

God ordered the prophet Muhammad to brutally slay hypocrites and ill-intentioned people who stuck to their convictions. Koran insistently orders such deaths. May God not forgive anyone showing leniency toward the corrupt on earth.

1230 GMT: An Ahmadinejad Official in Jail. Mohammad Jafar Behdad, head of internal media at the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance, has been sentenced to 4 months in prison. Behdad, a former head of the Islamic Republic News Agency, was convicted of disregarding judiciary warnings against provocative publications. His newspaper Hemmat had been suspended for a feature on "Hashemi [Rafsanjani] and his band of brothers".

1220 GMT: Verbal Skirmishes. Retired Revolutionary Guard General Ali Asgari, a former minister in the Khatami Government, has declared that Hashemi Rafsanjani must remain by the side of the Supreme Leader and denounced Rafsanjani's verbal attacker, Ayatollah Mohammad Yazdi, as a radical who defends a backward Islam.

On the regime side, Iran's police chief Esmail Ahmadi-Moghaddam has announced that "some of the elite are against the regime and with the enemy". At the same time, he appears to have held out a hand to Mir Hossein Mousavi, saying he "was deceived" by these wrong-doers.

1210 GMT: The "Real" Karroubi Interview. Fars News, whose distorted report on Mehdi Karroubi's views inadvertently moved Karroubi's challenge to the Ahmadinejad Government centre-stage, makes another clumsy intervention today.

Selecting extracts from Karroubi's interview with Britain's Financial Times and quoting them out of context, Fars declares that Karroubi has "100%" backed the Supreme Leader and denounced protesters.

Yeah, right.

1155 GMT: Your Tehran Friday Prayer Summary. Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, the head of the Guardian Council, had the podium today. Given that Mehdi Karroubi knocked him about a bit yesterday, Jannati was probably not in the most conciliatory of moods as he said:

Weakness in the face of events such as the "irreverence" of demonstrations on Ashura will undermine the regime. Ayatollah [Sadegh] Larijani, be a man, get tough, bring in some protesters. (Hey, but it was pretty cool that you executed those two guys yesterday to please God.)

1140 GMT: A very slow day, both for sideshows and main events. During the lull, this comment from a reader to Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish, reacting to the Zamani/Rahmanipour executions, is striking:

You see the strategy is an obvious one: start with the people who are the weakest links, some obscure monarchist group and not directly related to the reformist/Mousavi's camp or the greens, that way it would make it harder politically for [Mir Hossein] Mousavi or [Mehdi] Karoubi to defend them. Then they will advance. This is, in their mind, also the best way to send a message about Feb 11th that if you are arrested on that day, you could be executed. The combination of desperation and cruelty.

0750 GMT: Remembering Montazeri. Video of the bazaar at Najafabad, the birthplace of Grand Ayatollah Montazeri, was empty on Thursday to mark the passing of the cleric in late December. Memorials for the "40th Day" of Montazeri's death were planned for both yesterday and today.)

0650 GMT: There are a number of obstacles to clear this morning before getting to the important developments. Foremost amongst these is last night's news that the US Senate, the upper house of the Congress, has approved tougher sanctions against Iran. The focus is on petroleum, denying loans and other assistance from American financial institutions to companies that export gasoline to Iran or help expand its oil-refining capacity. The penalties would extend to companies that build oil and gas pipelines in Iran and provide tankers to move Iran’s petroleum. The measure also prohibits the United States Government from buying goods from foreign companies that do business in Iran’s energy sector.

Even if sanctions are central to a resolution of Iran's political crisis, as opposed to their place in the manoeuvres over Iran's nuclear programme --- personally, I don't think they are --- there is a lot of bureaucratic road to cover before they are in place. The Senate has to agree its version of the bill with the House of Representatives. More importantly (and The New York Times story ignores this point), the Obama Administration so far has opposed the petroleum measures because they are unlikely to be effective. The White House and State Department prefer "targeted" sanctions, aimed especially at economic interests of bodies like the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps.

Then there is the Washington sideshow of Very Important People battering each other in the guise of offering the Very Best US Policy on Iran. The Washington Post announces the boxing match between Richard Haass, formerly of the State Department and now head of the Council for Foreign Relations, and the Flynt/Hillary Leverett duo, formerly of State and the National Security Council. The punches are entirely predictable --- Haass, while proclaiming himself a "realist", has joined the chorus of US experts singing of "regime change", while the Leveretts are staunchly defending the legitimacy of the Iran Government --- and pretty much swatting air when it comes to the complexities of the Iranian situation. (But Haass was best man at the Leveretts' wedding, which turns a marginal story into a "quirky" one.)

So where are the significant stories? Well, there is yesterday's execution of two detainees, Mohammad Reza Ali Zamani and Arash Rahmanipour, who were jailed in April 2009 for endangering Iran's national security. In one sense, this is another sideshow. Obviously, neither Zamani and Rahmanipour were involved in post-election protest and the "monarchist" group to which they allegedly belonged is not significant in the Green movement.

However, the regime was far from subtle in linking the hangings of the two men to the demonstrations of Ashura (27 December), and that linkage --- inadvertently --- displays its fear of the forthcoming marches on 22 Bahman/11 February, the anniversary of the 1979 Revolution. What's more, by promising the executions of nine more detainees if everyone didn't just shut up and go away, the Government made a risky commitment. Either it goes ahead with the executions, making more martyrs for the protests, or it backs down.

And then there is The Week of Mehdi Karroubi, with the cleric launching another broadside against President Ahmadinejad and his allies yesterday. Some media continue to be led astray by confusion over Karroubi's loud and emerging strategy --- The New York Times, for example, mis-reads Karroubi's latest statement as "conciliatory remarks...shifting the blame for the violent postelection crackdown away from Ayatollah Khamenei".

They are not. Karroubi is both giving the Supreme Leader (or "Mr Khamenei", as he was labelled on Monday) a chance and setting him a test: do what you are supposed to do under our Constitution and Islamic Republic, Supreme Leader, and make your President accountable for injustices and abuses.

Enjoy all the sideshows, folks, but in this political circus, that's your centre-ring main event.

Comments

[Bill]

Bijan, Rev. Magdalen, & Barry,

Jumping in on your discussion regarding Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. While I am no expert I have spent countless hours over the last three years studying Islam and reading many pieces of scripture. I am also a Chrisitian. It is true all sprung from the same source but that is where the similiarities end. As a disclaimer most of my points are from a puritanical Sunni perspective. In addition this is mainly comparing religions and not actions of secular states to Islamic ones. Here are some points to consider:

Christianity and to a larger extent Judaism:

1) Follows a Golden rule of live and let live. Christianity is aggressive in missionary work but has no scriptural support of using force to attain these ends. In fact Christianity manily spread by missionary work within a crumbling Roman empire. Judaism, on the other hand, is not missionary at all and you literally have to jump through hoops to become a Jew(sort of dispells the myth of all 13 million Jews wanting to take over the world.)

2) While some view scripture as the word of God most subscribe to the belief that it is the work of man. It is viewed as a narrative on how to live life and not prescriptive. In addition it is highly contextual aligning verses to a specific, time, place, and event to convey a point.

3) Regarding violence perpetrated by Christians and Jews some claim it is supported in scirpture. They cite verses but ignore that the Bible is contextual. Islamists often do this because, unlike non Muslims, they do not view their scripture as contextual but an example good for all time. However, the most important point about Christians or Jews commiting violence, even if some wingnut cites scripture, is that it has no basis our support within scirpture! I often see WWI, WWII, Waco, Rawanda, Congo, and any number of events used to prove this. Yet in each of those instance you have never heard about about Christian clergy espousing religious beliefs to wage these wars. Even if they had they went directly against core Christian and Jewish beliefs. The only war I can think of that Christians specifically cited religious beliefs was the Crusades. The Crusades like all other wars fought by Christians again had no scirptural basis but actually contradicted it. The irony of the whole Crusade topic is the majority of scholars agree that the idea of the Crusade was actually borrowed from none other than Islam. Now why would that happen? The simple answer is that the Crusades, while bloody and evil at times, was actually in response to over 500 years of Jihad in which 2/3's of the known Christian world was conqured by Islam.

4) Does not universally categorize non believers as the others and require seperate laws to govern them. While both faiths persecuted others again it was in contradiction to scirpture. Christians universally follow the belief of "love thy neighbor" that clearly does not distinguish by faith. The Iraq war, Afhganistan, and Israeli Arab conflict do contradict this belief but again these actions have no scriptural basis.

5) Both support secularism. In fact Christianity, along with Greek philosophy, is often credited with the rise of secularism. "Leave unto Cesar's what is Cesar's" is what Jesus said.

6) Neither directly name or attack a specific religion. While they claim superiority they do not go to lengths attacking other faiths but instead focus the core of their theology on the betterment of its followers. We do have some "wingnut" evangelists that do attack Islam though.

7) Thou shalt not lie. This is consistent within both Judaism and Christianity and is a bedrock principal. However way to many followers of both seem to have forgtten this. The Iraq war after all was built on a lie.

8) Respects freedom of religion and Universal Human Rights. One could argue we have failed at this because the West often places its value in the "dollar" instead of the people. But, on the other end unlike non Muslims in the Islamic world Muslims are growing in the West and can practice their faith with little to no restrictions.

Islam:

1) The golden rule in Islam is often note as: "None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." Some argue this means just Muslims and others it is for all. Frankly I have not found a consensus on it but most of the salafist declare it is only for Muslims. Thus I look to other areas to validate it. The foremost area I look to is the whole idea of a Dhimmi(protected people under Islam.) Look it up under wiki and you will find it is essentially a legal system for subjagated non Muslims that reduces them to second class citizens. You then only need to observe the conditions non Muslims in Islamic states to validate this as well. Islam may say it has a golden rule but they sure don't seem to observe it. In addition Islam aslo has the mandate that Muslims must "'Fight them until evil disappears and all religion becomes Allah's." To boot slavery is still legal under Sharia.

2) Islam is a prescriptive religion in which the Quran is viewed as the word of God. The Quran clearly states this and that it should not be questioned just followed because Allah knows best. This prescription is broken down mainly into what is permitted(halal), prohibitted(haram), recommended, and discouraged. Puritanically speaking Muslims don't have a choice. It is why we see liberal Muslims attacked so often when they propose things, such as democracy, that contradict scripture.

3) Islam unlike any other faith has a clear doctrine for war. One aspect of that doctrine is the ethical treatment of prisoners and combatants and should be appauled. However another aspect of it is the injunction to use force to spread faith. Scripture supports this in many places and the actions of Muslims over time clearly demonstrate this practice. The only reason we don't see it today in the Islamic world is they do not have the force to do it. For further perspecitve read up on the Ottaman empire and their numerous attempts to conquer Europe in their attempts to spread faith.

4) Clearlly divides the world amongst believers and non believers. In reading the Quran I was amazed to find over 60% of the text focused on me the infidel. While some was good the majority of it quite bad. This can best be demonstrated with again the concept of dhimmi and how islam Islam divides the world into the land of peace/Islam(Dar al Islam) and the land of war/infidelity(Dar al Harb.) In addition it also seperates based on gender.

5) Does not support secularism because it is man made law. Islam only respects God's law which has been laid out in Sharia. While many Muslims believe in democracy the fact remains the ones who control the ideology of the Islamic world are almost all dead set against true democarcy. They are against it because it contradicts God's law. It's why the majority of the world's seperatist movements happen to be Islamic--they want Sharia!

6) Islam does name and condem other faiths as "corrupted." As pointed out above the majority of their scripture specically speaks to "the other" and does attack his or her belief system. This point is actually central to those arguing in favor of Islam. You can go online and literally find thousands of youtube videos with clerics explaining how the other faiths are "wrong" and they are right. They cite numerous verses in scirpture to prove this point. Other fiaths do this as well but again none have a clearly laid out "arguement" like the Quran and Hadith provides.

7) In Islam you have the concept of Taqqiyaa and Kitman which clearly state a Muslim can lie/omit to protect his faith or person. In addition Allah is described as the "best deceiver", Mohammed said "war is deception", and you can lie to the enemy! Here is quote to ponder " By Allah, and Allah willing, if I take an oath and later find something else better than that. then I do what is better and expiate my oath." Wow and double wow because one can make a good arguement that Islam will be at war until all religion is for Allah!

8) Islam does not respect true freedom of religion nor universal human rights. Read the Cairo Decleration for Human Rights: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/cairodeclaration.html Note how the word "right" is often replaced with "dignity." The only mention of religion is to say no one can force another to change his relgion. It is also a well known fact Islamic states year after year are the worst abusers of human and relgious rights especially for those non Muslism.

Okay I can't beleive I just regurgitated all of that!! I would also encourage you to read the Quran, a Hadith source(ie Buhkari), and the Sira. Don't take my word because it is only my non politically correct view as I understand it. I could be wrong and if you trully want to understand Islam you need to do the digging yourself. You may reach some of the same conclusion I have or not. In conclusion I would like to stress this is a puritanical view of Sunni Islam being compared to Christianity/Judaism. While most Muslims don't subscribe to the views above (in fact many hundereds of millions are fighting them such as those of the green movement) the reality is they don't control the ideology of the Islamic world it is Islamists who do. These Islamists such as the Mullahs in Iran, the Wahhabis, Deobandis, and the Muslim Brotherhood do subscirbe to this intolerant/segregated world view I laid out above. Hope it helps.

Thx
Bill

[Catherine]

Bill,
It seems to me that you are comparing a very conservative strain of one branch of Islam with very mainstream Christianity in its entirety. Wouldn't that be like comparing conservative Evangelical Protestantism with all of Islam - Sunni (mainstream, traditional, conservative, fundamentalist, sufi), Shi'a (mainstream, traditional, conservative, fundamentalist, sufi)?

[Bill]

Catherine,

Thank you for your comments. I hope you noted that I did state my comments were from a "puritanical Sunni" view of Islam based on their scripture and I agree with your point on Evangelical Protestantism. I also mentioned the majority of ordinary Muslims do not buy into this ideology. From what I have seen in several articles the number who buy into this wholesale is about 15 to 20%. Having said that most of what I wrote is mainstream for the Islamists who do control most of the ideology governing the Islamic world. A case in point is the Cario Decleration of Human rights. I would encourage you to read the document it is a bit of an eye opener. Note at the bottom it lists the only source of the document is Sharia! We all know Sharia conflicts with Universal Human Rights on many levels--ie democracy, womens rights, and freedom of religions. If you don't know a Bahai from Iran I think talking to one and hearing their story will also shed some light on the subject.

My simple point is those who espouse intolerance(ie the regime in Iran, Wahhabis, Muslim Brotherhood, and Salafits) do have scriptural basis for their actions. This issue needs to be debated if we ever hope to see more Muslims like Grand Ayatollah Yousef Sanei who has declared:

1) women have equal status in Islam, and they qualify for being a Judge (Qazi), Head of State, or a Marja

2) non-Muslims (if they obey a holy religion) is that they are not najis and they equally deserve to go to Paradise if they follow their religion sincerely

3) suicide bombing as haram and a "terrorist act"

As great as these aforementioned statements are they are said not by those in power and that is why the subject in pertinent. As much as I want to skirt it the reality is the Islamists are the ones in power and they do cite scripture to ply their trade. To ingnore the issue is folly. We need to call them out on it and demand them to discard these beliefs even if they are supported in scirpture. Jews and Christians had their own mess but thankfully we had an event called the reformation that allowed us to relegate the majority of the "nastiness" in our religions to the dust bin! I just want everyone to treat each other as equals regardless of faith. Is that to much to hope for? All the best to you.

Thx
bill

[Catherine]

Bill,
Thanks for your response, which has made me better understand the point you wanted to make about those who espouse intolerance using scripture to justify the imposition of their values on others. I know about the Cairo Declaration - a shame really - it could have been a document for the good of *everyone*.

Yes, I think it's important when discussing the similarities and differences between the religions of 'the people of the book' to always distinguish between political Islam and mainstream Islam, and then again between the non-violent adherents of political Islam and extremists who don't seem to understand the precepts of the religion they claim to fight for in the first place. That, together with a good overview of the different denominations of the religions we want to compare, will give a better idea of where they converge and diverge.

I'm fascinated by world religions and mythologies (religions no one believes in any more!) and tend to, by nature, be struck by their similarities first (a la Joseph Campbell). Having been raised a Catholic traditionalist, I couldn't get over the similarities between Catholic and Shia religious emotions, expressions, rituals and obsessions when I fist visted Iran. I felt right at home lighting candles in niches, covering up "extra" before entering certain mosques and shrines, visting shrines to saints, martyrs and holy people in the first place, touching and kissing their relics and tombs, seeing people dress in black and beat their breasts, hearing tales of martyrdom and seeing rather gorey pictorial representations of the same on the walls of mosques, shrines and prayer houses, etc., etc. :-) I attended a for-women-only mourning ceremony for Fatima (Ya Zahra!), and the way the leaders of the ceremony focussed morbidly on recounting every detail of the physical agony and death of everyone in the story reminded me of the years I spent listening to priest-led meditations on the passion and multiple agonies of Jesus Christ every Easter week or stories of gruesome martydoms of the early Christian apostles and saints. This feeling of familiarity and quasi-normalcy was the last thing I was expecting!