The "Other" Rafsanjani: Faezeh Hashemi Criticises Supreme Leader, Government, Khatami

The Latest from Iran (16 July): Waiting for Rafsanjani’s Prayers
Iran: How Friday’s Prayers Might Develop

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS- SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED

Yesterday a video emerged of Faezeh Hashemi, the daughter of the former Presdent Hashemi Rafsanjani, answering questions from an informal audience. A reader passed us the footage, which is from about two weeks ago, but before featuring it, we wanted to get a reliable translation of Hashemi's answers. A correspondent, to whom we are very grateful has evaluated the two-part video (second part follows on the jump page, with the rest of the analysis of Hashemi's answers:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSWuqRd_sGE[/youtube]

1) FH states the irregularities and fraud during the election:

a) there was a shortage of observers;
b) there were irregularities in providing adequate documentation for observers;
c) SMS system was disconnected so observers couldn't coordinate;
d) irregularities in the closing time of polls;
e) the ballot boxes were stuffed;

She concludes that the the foundation of this election is very shaky. She then comments about Khamenei and makes the following points:

1) Khamenei wants Ahmadinajad to be in office. He has never been the uncontested Supreme Leader until Ahmadinejad came to office.
2) Khamenei is supported by the Basiji, the Revolutionary Guard, Ansar Hezbollah, etc., and the interests of these groups are aligned with Ahmadinejad. Khamenei must maintain the interests of these groups or he will be replaced. Therefore Khamenei's behavior is self-preservation.

She concludes this section, "We have a weak democracy that is being crippled. we should not repeat our historical mistakes. Generally speaking we iranians make heros out of individuals but we kill legendary actions."

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0o41dXrQ8c[/youtube]

FH continued, "I consider that the main cause of all these dictatorships is Mr Khatami After [the election] he moved too fast and by doing so he exposed the game plan of the reformists and Khamenei became alert to the fact that if he does not react swiftly, things will get our of hand".

FH stated, "These protests must continue so that they [the Ahmadinejad and Khamenei factions] understand that the people will not countenance such horrific fraudulent behavior."

FH continued to attack Khatami for his incompetence in dealing with the hardliners allowing them to hijack the previous elections and criticized the reformers for not gathering behind the Rafsanjani Banner, "If all reformists had supported Hashemi things would have been different".

FH concluded the interview by defending her family against Iranian state media allegations, asserting that "they have no evidence against us", and informing the interviewers that the Rafsanjani family is suing Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting for defamation of character.

Iran: How Friday's Prayers Might Develop

The Latest from Iran (16 July): Waiting for Rafsanjani’s Prayers

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS- SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED

I was planning a full analysis, building on our morning update, of what might happen at the Friday prayers led by former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, but wiser minds have overtaken me. As we mentioned in the update, Maryam at Keeping the Change is outstanding in the assessment of a possible Rafsanjani move for compromise. Now an Enduring America correspondent has sent in a latest update with an equally convincing reading. (Some of this echoes the possibilities that Fintan Dunne and I discussed earlier this week: Rafsanjani, under the umbrella call for "unity", may set out possibilties through electoral reform, some "reformist" involvement in the Government, and the release of detainees.)


After reading these, my not-so-wise mind jumps ahead.  If this is the path that Rafsanjani takes, what will be the reaction of the opposition politicians and protesters? And is our correspondent right that, irrespective of the statement tomorrow, no compromise is possible?


The speaker giving the introductory lecture to the Friday prayers has been changed. Previously the Friday Prayers organization declared that the Minister of Economics was supposed to give this lecture, subsequently it has been declared that Hojattoleslam Taghavi, the former Chairman of the Parliamentary Culture Committee, is replacing the minister.

This change in speakers is an important issue.

The introductory lecture is not a ritual part of Friday prayers, in contrast to Rafsanjani's speech, the Khotbeh. After the revolution these introductory lectures were introduced as a political complement to the prayers. These introductions played a myriad of roles: one role was to strengthen the message of the Khotbeh; conversely, these lectures could also give a forum to present the viewpoint of a faction other than that of the khotbeh speaker.

This change may be:

1) A tactical retreat by the Ahmadinejad faction.(An introductory lecture giving veiled threats and insinuations would allow ample room for rebuttal in the Khotbeh. On the other hand, a tame lecture by the Ahmadinejad faction would be tantamount to accepting defeat).

2) A signal that Rafsanjani is in a strong enough position to demand that the introductory lecture not be given by an Ahmadinejad spokesman, the Minister of Economics.

3) This is some kind of compromise effected behind closed doors, signalling the begining of a detente between the factions.

Personally, I do not think that option 3 is viable in the long run, even if Rafsanjani gives a warm and fuzzy speech as Maryam of Keeping the Change suggests. The reformers must be convinced by now that the Ahmadinejad faction abides by no rules, plays for the kill, and takes no prisoners. Any compromise will just be be treated by the Ahmadinejad and Khamenei factions as an oppurtunity to carry out their agenda for stifling reform. Indeed Faezeh Hashemi, Rafsanjani's daughter, in her most recent statements harshly criticized Khatami's policy of seeking a detente with Khamenei.

The wave of green is a second chance given to reformist politicians to redeem themselves and the concept of the Islamic Republic in the eyes of the Iranian public. It is a responsibility that I am sure has disturbed the nocturnal rest of many politicians, far more than a lack of sleep caused by the fear of persecution by the associates of Ahmadinejad and Khameini.

The Clinton Speech: An Immediate Reaction

Video and Transcript: Hillary Clinton Speech at Council on Foreign Relations (15 July)

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS- SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED

On 15 July, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton offered a context for U.S. foreign policy, at the outset of the Obama Administration, at a conference held by the Council on Foreign Relations. Two neo-liberal pillars of interdependence and transnationalism support an American  soft power  in which "the ideal values" of the US, such as democracy, transparency, liberty, and freedom, become basis  for peaceful solution.

No need, therefore, to consider the prospect of a capitalism-led inequality. No reason to consider the issues that lay behind inter-state and intra-state disputes. No reference at all to the essence of today's problems, for there are God-given values of Americans which are "always appropriate" for others. Yes, if there are problems, it will clearly be because others --- from blindness or malice --- don't accept those values. As Clinton concluded:

More than 230 years ago, Thomas Paine said, “We have it within our power to start the world over again.” Today, in a new and very different era, we are called upon to use that power. I believe we have the right strategy, the right priorities, the right policies, we have the right President, and we have the American people, diverse, committed, and open to the future... Now all we have to do is deliver.

The Urumqi Violence: Chinese Actions and Overseas Responses

To recap: after the raid on a toy factory in Shaoguan, organized by thousands of Han Chinese, and the murder of young Uighurs while they were sleeping, protests took place on July 5. There were clashes between Uighurs and Han Chinese, and then China's armed forces intervened.

Since then, Chinese officials have stated that 184 people, many of whom are Han Chinese, have died and 1680 have been wounded. Uighurs claim that the death toll is at least 1000 and may be twice that number.

The second round of demonstrations and a flood of blood came after the statement of Wang Luquan, the special mayor appointed to East Turkestan on 12 July. Wang Luquan declared that those found guilty of provoking the demonstrations, out of thousands of Uighurs arrested by Chinese armed forces, would be executed. A day later, thousands of Uighurs protested, and two were killed. According to the East Turkestan Culture and Solidarity Association, China is not allowing non-partisan observers to enter the region. Houses are still being searched and people taking photographs or making recordings are arrested.

With Wang Luquan stating that “no Chinese should fear since armed forces are with them”, the Association is worried that the blood flood may continue. However, Chinese officials state that the situation in East Turkestan is under control.

Reactions around the World:

Four days after Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s “genocide” accusation on July 10, the China Daily reiterated the official number of deaths and asked Erdogan “to take those words back.” The Turkish PM may be unmoved, however. His opening to improve relations with the Middle East may now have another supportive pillar farther east with his support of Uighurs, who are relatives of the Turkish people.

Perhaps the most striking response is coming from Iran. Ayatollah Cafer Subhani said that “it is a humanitarian and Islamic duty to defend the ones imposed pressure and cruelty.” He added, “Muslims used to be oppressed only in Western countries but they are being oppressed in yesterday’s communist and today’s capitalist China as well.” Subhani, supporting the Uighur, saw an Islamic nation united under ‘the pathway of God” versus a Western bloc, including Beijing, united under ‘the temporary power of dollars". Ayatollah Ahmed Khatemi declared, “Our religious teachings order us to protect all aggrieved people, especially Muslims bullied by others….The constitution of the Islamic Republic sees the Islamic world as one and states the protection of aggrieved Muslims as a duty of the Republic.”

[Editor's Note: These statements may be set against others of the Iranian Government, noted elsewhere on Enduring America, offering support for the Chinese position.]

In the USA, Democrat Bill Delahunt and Republican Dana Rohrabacher introduced a bill in Congress accusing China of extremely violent oppression and supporting Rebiya Kadeer, the Chairwoman of the World Uighur Congress, who has been blamed by Chinese officials for instigating riots. Delahunt said, “Stop slandering against a woman who has been nominated as a candidate to Nobel Peace Prize three times." Rohrabacher added, “We are condemning everyone applying to force based on race, religion and other reasons. This conflict is a result of Beijing’s intended plan to destroy the lands of Uighurs. In the long-term, it is China’s policy of genocide against the Uighur people.”

UPDATED Iran: How Many Protesters Have Died?

The Latest from Iran (15 July): Chess not Checkers

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS- SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED



UPDATE (16 July, 0700 GMT): Internet chatter has been of 200-300 deaths in violence against protesters. Fintan Dunne offers the basis for the estimate, putting forth a figure of 245. This is based on news reports, unofficial hospital counts, and a series of assumptions.

I admire Fintan's work greatly, but I can't see this as more than speculation with asssertions like "allow around 35% of fatalities to enter hospitals; hide 65% of the bodies in IRGC morgues / cold-store locations". The percentage hidden could be higher, could be lower. Same for the total number of casualties.

We simply don't know.

We have been very cautious in reporting casualty figures from the post-election violence in Iran. Inevitably, given tension and concern, there are a swirl of rumours and partial information that can lead to inaccurate and misleading numbers.

On 25 June, we posted a list from the International Committee for Human Rights of "at least 27 fatalities in Tehran" with its note that "the true numbers are most probably much higher....There are also reports of fatalities in other cities but the Campaign has not been able to collect any reliable information." On 4 July, we noted the names of 12 people whose deaths had been confirmed. And there have been individual cases such as Sohrab Arabi, whose death on 15 June was only confirmed last week.

The situation is still unclear, but the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran has made another intervention, claiming that 34 people were killed in a single day, Saturday, 20 June, in Tehran. (This was the day that Neda Agha Soltan was killed by a Basij gunman as she watched the demonstrations.) The Campaign, noting that the Government only acknowledged 11 deaths, adds, "There are also several other major hospitals along the routes that could have received the dead and injured on that day."

What is even more striking, however, is the Campaign's assertion, "Information is accumulating suggesting that hundreds of protesters were slaughtered during the demonstrations."

That "information" appears to be based on a report in Norooz, the newspaper of the Islamic Iran Participation Front (strongly opposed to the current Government):

Authorities took [family members looking for missing relatives] to a cold storage facility in southwest Tehran made for storing fruits and dairy products. In their presence they showed pictures of hundreds of those that have been killed until they were able to find the picture of their loved one. It took nearly thirty minutes of searching for them to find the photo of their relative. As they were leaving, they saw hundreds of bodies piled on top of each other.

In addition, the Campaign cites "sources in Iran" that "hundreds of family members are desperately searching for their missing relatives".

Such reports need to be treated with caution. Amidst grief and panic, worries can be exaggerated into fact. At the same time, the Government has a clear motive in minimising the casualty figures as well as blocking any possibility of a comprehensive investigation. The outcome is that we are mostly likely to hear of deaths on an individual basis, as in the case of Sohrab Arabi.

The sad reality is that truth will be hindered and rendered impossible by the lack of any transparency over what has happened, both at the time and subsequently. Let it be said, however, that the claim of tragedy and loss does not need a specific number to be valid.