Iran Election Guide

Donate to EAWV





Or, click to learn more

Search

Sunday
Jul042010

EA's 4th of July Special: Man Who Fought For Americans' Rights Demands Americans Stop Exercising Their Rights

A special report from The Onion (and best wishes from EA to US readers for Independence Day):

Speaking before the U.S. Senate Tuesday, Herbert Macallum, a retired Wichita, KS, insurance salesman and Navy veteran who fought during World War II to protect the inalienable rights of all Americans, demanded that U.S. citizens stop exercising those rights.

"As someone who risked his life for this country, I am infuriated when I see protesters exercising their First Amendment rights by burning the U.S. flag," Macallum told legislators during a Senate debate over a proposed anti-flag-burning amendment. "I didn't fight the Japanese at Midway to save democracy for a bunch of long-haired jerks who want to freely express their views."

"I love the Constitution, and I nearly lost my life defending it," Macallum added. "That's why it angers me so much to see malcontents exploiting it for their own purposes."

Macallum is president of the Kansas Veterans' Council for Liberty & Restraint, one of a number of veterans' organizations calling upon Congress to pass anti-rights-use legislation. Under the provisions of the proposed legislation, any U.S. citizen convicted of exercising his or her Constitutional rights in a manner deemed controversial would face a fine and/or imprisonment.

Said KVCLR member Walter Mickleson, 81: "Wherever you look today, you see people using the First Amendment to openly criticize or protest the U.S. government. I don't think that's what the framers of the Constitution had in mind. And I, for one, didn't storm the beach at Normandy so I could see America dragged through the mud."

Read rest of article....

Sunday
Jul042010

The Latest from Iran (4 July): Who's in Charge?

1500 GMT: Economy Watch. According to the Central Bank of Iran, the country's  annual inflation rate was 9.4% in the year 22 June, a fall from 9.9% in May.

1350 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. RAHANA writes that women's rights and human rights activist Narges Mohammadi has been hospitalised after her recent release from detention.

1345 GMT: The Universities Crisis. One to Watch: Rah-e-Sabz is claiming that the dispute over control of Islamic Azad University has been resolved after a meeting between former President Hashemi Rafsanjani --- whose family are in key leadership positions at the university --- and the Supreme Leader.

The alleged deal is that Khamenei told the Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution to stop the fight between Parliament and Government over the university. In return,  Rafsanjani will offer public praise of the Supreme Leader.

NEW Iran Special: The Green Movement, the Regime, and “the West” (Nabavi)
NEW Iran Thought: Maybe The Robot Can Be President
Iran Special: The Escalating Crisis Within (Verde)
The Latest from Iran (3 July): Fussing and Feuding


1245 GMT: Fashion Watch. Rah-e-Sabz claims that more than 60 female students of Azad University in Qom have been summoned for "bad hijab".

1240 GMT: Mir Hossein Mousavi and Zahra Rahnavard have visited Emaduddin Baghi, the journalist and human rights activists recently released after six months' detention.

0920 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Artin Ghazanfari, detained on Ashura (27 December), has been sentenced to one year in prison.

0905 GMT: Remembering. Fereshteh Ghazi interviews the father of Meysam Abedi, one of the first protesters killed after the election.

Abedi's father claims that his son tried to save a girl beaten by Basiji militia but was killed by a bullet in his stomach. He claims that the culprit was seized but then released.

0845 GMT: More on Parliament and Nukes (see 0730 GMT). The head of the National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, has put forth the defiant line over Iran's enrichment programme: "If the five permanent members of the UN Security Council --- Russia, China, France, Britain and the US --- plus Germany tighten the UN Security Council Sanctions Resolution 1929, they should not expect Iran to continue talks."

However, there may have been an opening for a resolution in Boroujerdi's remarks,"If the fuel for the Tehran research reactor is given, Iran will not insist on continuing the production of the fuel domestically."

0835 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Rooz Online claims that, in Evin Prison's Ward 350 for political prisoners, a 35 square-metre cell holds 40 detainees.

Kurdish detainee Khalil Mostafa Rajab is reportedly in serious condition from a lung infection.

0730 GMT: We begin today with a special analysis from Ebrahim Nabavi assessing "The Green Movement, the Regime, and the West". And Scott Lucas offers a quick thought, in light of yesterday's developments, "Maybe the Robot Can Be President".

Meanwhile....

Parliament v. President

The current dispute between the Majlis and President Ahmadinejad simmers, with reports that a plan to "supervise" the Parliament is being re-appraised.

On one issue, however, the Majlis is in step with Ahmadinejad. The Speaker, Ali Larijani, continues to hammer away at the manipulations and deceits of the West over sanctions, a position echoed by another leading MP, Esmail Kowsari, in Iranian state media.

Just a bit of speculation, however. Is the apparent side-by-side approach by the Parliament on the nuclear issue also be an attempt by some to re-assert the power of the Majlis, showing that it can be even more vigilant than Ahmadinejad in standing up to Iran's foreign oppressors?

Khomeini's Defence

Hossein Anvari, of the Imam Khomeini Relief Committee, has tried to draw a line against regime pressure on the Khomeini family by declaring, "Our people were not present in uprisings."
Sunday
Jul042010

Iran Thought: Maybe The Robot Can Be President

A possible breakthrough in post-election Iranian politics this morning. From the Associated Press:
Iranian officials have unveiled a human-shaped robot that can walk like a person, although at a slower pace.

Iranian state television says the Surena 2 robot weighs 99 pounds (45 kilograms) and is 4.76 feet (1.45 meters) tall. It was developed by more than 20 robotics experts at Tehran University.

State TV said engineers were still developing vision and sound capabilities for the robot, but did not elaborate. It also did not say what tasks the Surena 2 can perform or what it was developed for.

Now I'm not saying the robot should be President. I'm just pondering, given the technological advance v. the statements and actions of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whether it could be.

Here's the latest from the current President:
Four years ago you sanctioned Iran and our industrial export was $6 billion. How much is it now? It's $18 billion. I have faith in your capabilities; I want to tell them again, do you want to sanction Iran again? I promise you that this $18 billion will be $60 billion by the hands of people sitting here, and it will be a slap in their face.

The robot's position on sanctions and Iran's economic progress is, as yet, unknown.
Sunday
Jul042010

Afghanistan: Republican Chairman Steele Stumbles, "Progressive" Reaction Fumbles (Mull)

EA correspondent Iosh Mull is the Afghanistan Blogging Fellow for The Seminal and Brave New Foundation. He also writes for Rethink Afghanistan:

It shouldn't be breaking news to anyone that the Chairman of the Republican Party, Michael Steele, said something stupid. His silliness is well known. Pretty much every time he opens his mouth in public, something bad happens to Republicans.

Only this time, his bumbling was somewhat relevant to us. Here's Chairman Steele on Afghanistan:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIRmkef2wZo[/youtube]


The [General] McChrystal incident, to me, was very comical. I think it's a reflection of the frustration that a lot of our military leaders has with this Administration and their prosecution of the war in Afghanistan.

Keep in mind again, federal candidates, this was a war of Obama's choosing. This was not something that the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in. It was one of those areas of the total board of foreign policy [where] we would be in the background sort of shaping the changes that were necessary in Afghanistan as opposed to directly engaging troops.

But it was the President who was trying to be cute by half by building a script demonizing Iraq, while saying the battle really should in Afghanistan. Well, if he is such a student of history, has he not understood that you know that's the one thing you don't do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan? Alright, because everyone who has tried over a thousand years of history has failed, and there are reasons for that. There are other ways to engage in Afghanistan...

That's a mess of a statement. Steele's decision to Rethink Afghanistan is very much appreciated, especially since he's joining the majority of Americans on that point of view, but unfortunately I'm not sure his comments are particu,larly helpful. They likely won't change a lot of minds, if any at all on his side of the political aisle.

What is of far more concern, however, is the reaction from the Democrats, and I'm sorry to say it isn't any better. If anything, it's worse than any of Steele's stumblings.

Steele's dialogue is a little unclear, but here are the points he made:

  • The war in Afghanistan is Obama's choice

  • Previously, the US had not "actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in" the war

  • Obama campaigned against Iraq, while threatening to escalate in Afghanistan

  • History teaches that engaging "in a land war in Afghanistan" is unwise and/or impossible

  • There are alternatives to engaging in Afghanistan


With the exception of his "land war in Afghanistan" assertion, what he said was true.

Obviously, the war is Obama's choice. He's the Commander in Chief, and for the last several years Congress has all but abdicated its role in the use of military force, so any decision to remain or escalate in Afghanistan is entirely President Obama's. No, Obama did not personally begin the invasion --- that was President Bush --- but the idea that Obama had no choice in the matter is simply ridiculous.

Was the US actively prosecuting or engaging in a massively bloody and expensive counterinsurgency war in Afghanistan before President Obama's decision to escalate? No, it was not. The US under Bush began with around 12,000 troops in Afghanistan, and even as the situation deteriorated year after year, they only reach a max of around 32,000 in 2008. What happened next? President Obama took office, and the number of troops doubled. Now it is triple what it was when he came into office, almost 100,000.

And yes, he campaigned on that, just as Steele said:
As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO’s efforts against the Taliban. As we step up our commitment, our European friends must do the same, and without the burdensome restrictions that have hampered NATO’s efforts. We must also put more of an Afghan face on security by improving the training and equipping of the Afghan Army and Police, and including Afghan soldiers in U.S. and NATO operations.

We must not, however, repeat the mistakes of Iraq. The solution in Afghanistan is not just military – it is political and economic. As President, I would increase our non-military aid by $1 billion. These resources should fund projects at the local level to impact ordinary Afghans, including the development of alternative livelihoods for poppy farmers. And we must seek better performance from the Afghan government, and support that performance through tough anti-corruption safeguards on aid, and increased international support to develop the rule of law across the country.

Above all, I will send a clear message: we will not repeat the mistake of the past, when we turned our back on Afghanistan following Soviet withdrawal. As 9/11 showed us, the security of Afghanistan and America is shared. And today, that security is most threatened by the al Qaeda and Taliban sanctuary in the tribal regions of northwest Pakistan.

Finally, was Steele right about there being alternatives to the war in Afghanistan? Yes. We talk about them all the time here, ranging from development aid to a free press to engagement with regional governments. There are many, many options besides the disastrous war policy, covering all of the US' national security interests including counter-terrorism and stable governance.

Steele's comment about not engaging in a land war in Afghanistan? Yeah, this is just stupid.  I'm guessing that Steele is trying to riff on the advice of a British general to the House of Lords in the early 1960s, "Do not go fighting with your land armies in China." Or maybe he is a film buff and took in the line from The Princess Bride, "Never get involved in a land war in Asia." Throughout the period of de-colonisation of east Asia (and much of the rest of world) during the 20th century, indigenous militant movements defeated European colonists and gained independence. The obvious example is the war in Vietnam, devastatingly lost first by the French and later by the Americans.

You don't get involved in a "land war" because the natives will beat the crap out of your modern tanks and planes. It's not pretty, so don't even try it.

I get Steele's sentiment: military adventurism is definitely not a smart policy for the US. But that doesn't really have anything to do with Afghanistan in this context. Yes, Afghanistan is hard to invade, but so is Helsinki, Finland or Fresno, California. Nobody likes an invading army. The insurgents are not fighting us because they are in Afghanistan, they're fighting us because we are in Afghanistan. That's not our country.

Yet even if his comments weren't especially helpful, Steele still comes out on top. At least he was honest, right?

Match him up with the supposedly critical "progressive" commentators. We'll use Spencer Ackerman as our example.

Now we all love Ackerman; he's a smart guy and a clever writer. Everyone reads him, and even though he's a stout progressive, his readership spans the political spectrum. Ackerman has a clear understanding of the topics he covers, and for that reason he's a must-read far outside progressive circles.

But more than occasionally he says something that goes off-line. Maybe it's that he downplays the civilian horrors of war, or his position too closely mirrors that of the comanders in Afghanistan. For me, it's his creepy obsession with the military executing American citizens.

This is one of those times when he's not exactly doing the left, or himself, any favors.
Hey Michael Steele: there was this thing that happened on September 11, 2001 that you might have read about. Long story short: it resulted in the U.S. invading Afghanistan.

Hey Spencer Ackerman: remember how that mission was a complete and total failure? You might have read about it. Long story short: we didn't catch Osama bin Laden, as a Senate Commitee report pondered:
Bin Laden expected to die. His last will and testament, written on December 14, reflected his fatalism. “Allah commended to us that when death approaches any of us that we make a bequest to parents and next of kin and to Muslims as a whole,” he wrote, according to a copy of the will that surfaced later and is regarded as authentic. [...]

But the Al Qaeda leader would live to fight another day. Fewer than 100 American commandos were on the scene with their Afghan allies and calls for reinforcements to launch an assault were rejected. Requests were also turned down for U.S. troops to block the mountain paths leading to sanctuary a few miles away in Pakistan. The vast array of American military power, from sniper teams to the most mobile divisions of the Marine Corps and the Army, was kept on the sidelines. Instead, the U.S. command chose to rely on airstrikes and untrained Afghan militias to attack bin Laden and on Pakistan’s loosely organized Frontier Corps to seal his escape routes. On or around December 16, two days after writing his will, bin Laden and an entourage of bodyguards walked unmolested out of Tora Bora and disappeared into Pakistan’s unregulated tribal area. Most analysts say he is still there today.

Yep, the guys responsible for the 9/11 attacks "walked unmolested" into Pakistan. Nine years ago. 2001. What does that have to do with occupying Afghanistan with 100,000 troops right now in 2010? Since I'm sure Ackerman would appreciate a Simpsons reference, let's note, "The opportunity to prove yourself a hero is long gone." The guys responsible for funding and supporting the 9/11 attacks haven't been in Afghanistan for nearly a decade. Our occupation there has nothing to do with capturing bin Laden, or even Al-Qa'eda as whole (they're gone).

Well, maybe Ackerman means we have to stop Afghanistan from being a safe haven for Al-Qa'eda. Too bad, that's also in Pakistan. We've known that for years, too.
Thus, as the Pentagon was making preparations for launching Operation Enduring Freedom, it was known even to its own experts in its intelligence community that the Pakistan army and its ISI were the creators and sponsors of not only the Taliban, but also of al-Qaeda, which emerged as the most dreaded jihadi terrorist organization of the world after bin Laden shifted from the Sudan to Jalalabad in Afghanistan in 1996, from where he subsequently moved to Kandahar.

Despite this, the US chose to rely on the Pakistan army and the ISI for logistics and intelligence support in its operation to wipe out the Taliban, al-Qaeda and the IIF. The army and President General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's military dictator, who had sponsored and used jihadi terrorism in an attempt to achieve Pakistan's strategic objectives against India (destabilizing India and annexing Jammu and Kashmir) and Afghanistan (strategic depth), were sought to be projected as the US's stalwart ally in the "war against terrorism" and rewarded for their ostensible cooperation through the resumption of generous economic and military assistance, which had remained curtailed since the Pressler Amendment was invoked against Pakistan in 1990 for clandestinely developing a military nuclear capability and further cut after the Chagai nuclear tests of 1998 and the overthrow of the elected government headed by Nawaz Sharif, the then prime minister, by the army in October, 1999.

See? We know Al-Qa'eda and the Taliban are in Pakistan; we know they're supported by the Pakistani state. So why are we in Afghanistan? Are we planning on occupying it forever, just to make sure that we "molest" the hell out of bin Laden when he crosses the border next time? What's the decade-long hold up?

To be fair, Ackerman is only spinning another variation of the Al-Qa'eda excuse. We expected that. The real travesty here is this:
Now, if you want to say that “the one thing you don’t do is engage in a land war in Afghanistan,” congratulations, hippie! You’re now part of the antiwar movement in this country, so you might as well argue forthrightly for the Obama administration to pull out before Gen. Petraeus — who arrives in Kabul any minute now — has an opportunity to do whatever he can. [...]

You can criticize Obama’s decision to escalate that war. But you’ll also have to explain why muddling through or pulling out better serve U.S. interests against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. And maybe you can make that case. But your fantasy of the Afghanistan war doesn’t inspire confidence.

Got that? If you question the US policy in Afghanistan, you're a "hippy!" You're not serious, just some jerk who doesn't want to give General  David Petraeus a fair shake. I mean really, what is the peace movement's strategy for Afghanistan? "Muddling through or pulling out." That it's, absolutely nothing more, just those two things.

This kind of bullshit is just outrageous. Surely Ackerman is aware of the beating the war is taking in congress.
The vote in the House last night was complex, involving amendments, self-executing rules, budgets and statutory and non-statutory caps. David Dayen has some of the rundown, though more of the story keeps coming out. However, the big news of the night to me and others organizing against escalation in Afghanistan was the vote on the McGovern amendment.

The McGovern amendment, if it had passed:

  • Would require the president to provide a plan and timetable for drawing down our forces in Afghanistan and identify any variables that could require changes to that timetable.

  • Would safeguard U.S. taxpayer dollars by ensuring all U.S. activity in Afghanistan be overseen by an Inspector General.

  • Require the President to update Congress on the progress of that plan and timetable


If it had passed, that amendment would have been the beginning of the end of our war in Afghanistan, forcing the President to commit not just to a start of the drawdown – perhaps 2011 – but to and end of the war.

Does that sound like "muddling through or pulling out" to anyone? No, it's clearly a responsible timetable for ending the war as the conditions merit, with the addition of new regulations and benchmarks to ensure that any progress made during this timetable is sustainable for the long-term, to include the responsible use of taxpayer funds. Muddling through? Are you crazy?

It gets better. The McGovern amendment got 162 votes in the House, an incredible number of members going on the record in support of ending the war. That 162 includes such notable hippies as Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Jane Harman, and Rep. Bart Stupak.

And just what exactly is the new US commander, General Petraeus, supposed to do when he arrives in Kabul? Will he make Karzai less corrupt? Will Karzai become more legitimate? Will Pakistan end its national security strategy of support terrorists and militants? Will Afghans stop being killed by NATO forces, or will they just learn to love it? Will Petraeus personally ensure that every dollar goes to the right place, nothing is wasted or funneled to the Taliban? All of our troops will stop dying? How will Petraeus do this? OK, so he arrives in Kabul any minute now. Then what?

So what do we get out of all of this, from Steele's awkward comments to Ackerman's inexplicable reaction? Easy: The war in Afghanistan has nothing to do with the left, the right, liberal, conservative, socialist, fascist, Republican, Democrat, Independent, Green, Labour, Hawk, Pacifist.... These political concepts just don't mean anything in the context of this war.

If we go by the definitions of these ridiculous political terms, these nonsense buzzwords created and fueled by our media and politicians, then the entire field of US foreign policy becomes completely unintelligible. Put bluntly, it's gibberish. Baby talk.

Ending the war is just smart policy. The United States has absolutely nothing to gain from a war in Afghanistan. Nothing. There's no Al-Qa'eda there, we're not going to magically turn it into a thriving democracy and stalwart regional ally just because we send in a few more guys with guns. There's just nothing there for us. We could bring those troops home, so we're not scrambling around like idiots every time there's a wildfire in California or a hurricane in the Gulf. We could be spending much less than the trillions we're spending now, and we could use it to buy things we actually need. Jobs, infrastructure, energy, education, whatever it is you can think of, the US desperately needs it.

Ignore the partisan bickering. The facts show that the war is ruining the country, it is ruining Afghanistan and it is ruining Pakistan. It has to end, whether you're a progressive like Ackerman or a conservative like Steele.
Sunday
Jul042010

Iran Special: The Green Movement, the Regime, and "the West" (Nabavi)

Journalist and satirist Ebrahim Nabavi writes for Rooz Online:

More than a year has passed since the beginning of the Green Movement. Today, I would like to tell you things about the Green Movement that you might be less aware of.

Firstly, the Green Movement is not a religious movement, but it cannot be called a secular movement either, yet it can be called a non-religious movement with religious leaders. This is one of the ways for the growth of democracy in the Islamic world. The Green Movement is occurring in a religious society, not because we are in love with religion, no, we are not at all fond of a religious society, but we live in reality and whoever tells you that Iran’s future will be a secular society, do not take their comment seriously for the next fifty years. Even after fifty years, only Henry Kissinger will be able to predict tomorrow.

Secondly, the Green Movement has a distinct leadership. Mir Hossein Mousavi is the leader of this Movement, but he and other leaders of the Movement such as [Mohammad] Khatami and Karroubi have never claimed to be the leaders of the Movement, because the leaders of the Movement have a completely reciprocal relationship with its supporters.

Fifty percent of content of Mir Hossein Mousavi’s thoughts, demands, language and words have changed in the past year, not because he lacks a structured thought, but because he has maintained his interaction and dialogue with the supporters and especially the mid-ranked leaders of the Movement.

Thirdly, the Green Movement is a peaceful. If in the past year, thousands of Iranians have been imprisoned, wounded, exiled, tortured and more than a hundred people have been killed on the streets, it is all because of the regime’s fear of the Movement’s expansion and its widespread use of violence against the people. This year on the 12th of June, the people had planned to take to the streets on the anniversary of the coup, but despite article 27 of the constitution, the government did not grant authorisation.

The Green Movement’s goal is not to bring a ten-thousand strong crowd to the street and thus bring about tens of casualties and hundreds of prisoners. When three million people take to the streets, even a great army is incapable of controlling them, but when five thousand people take to the streets, they can be controlled using five hundred people.

Fourthly: The regime is currently faced with many conflicts. After the anniversary of Ayatollah Khomeini’s death which resulted in a dispute between Khomeini’s grandson and Ahmadinejad, a dramatic loss has been occurring in the pro-government camp. A great number of parliament members will return towards the people and sizeable portion of diplomats will probably not return to Iran. Right now, the regime loses between two to five of the leader’s most important aides and on the other side, the Green Movement is able to find more cohesion and is transforming from a chaotic crowd, to a distinct organisation. For a month now, the atmosphere for activity within Iran has opened up and particularly in the cities; there is a chance for the Green Movement to spread the word, especially using graffiti on walls and distributing fliers. All of this is because of an intense dispute among the conservatives themselves. We pray for their disputes to continue.

Fifthly, I said all this to bring the discussion to the issue of media. In Iran, seven channels, tens of radio stations, hundreds of newspapers and thousands of websites working under the supervision of the government, the conservatives, the leader and Ahmadinejad, tell tens of lies every minute. In addition, thirty Persian speaking television stations based in Los Angeles obstruct the people’s thinking by repetitively broadcasting old movies.

On the other hand, the government attacks the internet via filtering and forming the Internet Cyber Army and prevents TV images and radio waves to be reached to the Iranian people through jamming, while independent newspapers have long been shut down. Our main concern is launching a channel for transferring the breath of freedom into the country. For a while now, the Americans have talking of creating a censorship-free internet environment in Iran: Mr [Senator John] McCain is trying very hard in this regard, each time he mentions this, a few more Iranian journalists are arrested, and of course, nothing important happens.

Sixthly, a great constraint for us in launching independent media outside the country is that we cannot receive funds from outside Iran. Using foreign money here is like releasing gazelle into a field with thousands of hunters, some of whom might use tanks to hunt the gazelle. Receiving financial aid from Europe or the United States is like firing a bullet to the head of our colleagues in Iran. Also, my bitter and personal experiences with BBC Persian, VOA, Radio Zamaaneh and Deutsche Welle show that all Persian-language media take into account considerations with respect to their governments.

At times, the damage brought about by a TV station such as the BBC is a thousand times more than its benefits. They have taken away two hundred of our best writers who had hundreds of thousands of readers and turned them into the employees of an organisation which for many years has been viewed with suspicion by those Iranians that believe that the English are responsible for all the evil that occurs in Iran. Besides, the constant intervention of the Europeans in media affairs that are run with European money causes the practical destruction of this media. One those examples are Radio Zamaneh, which has collapsed. After months of efforts, Euronews has still not reached any point and it seems that it has yet to find Persian translators for its employees.

Seventhly, unfortunately, because of using Iranian advisors from previous centuries, many western governments harm the current pro-democracy movement instead of helping it. Three or four years ago, we faced problems for transferring a thousand Euros from France to Belgium because we worked for an opposition website. At the same time, in Europe, millions of Euros of Iranian funds belonging to the regime and the Revolutionary Guards were being used for various purposes that went against legal treaties of the UN. For many years, we have explained that we are not terrorists and in fact oppose terrorism, but the bank’s representative had focused on the word “Iran” which caused us to remove “Iran” from the name of our company.

As we speak, thousands of dollars in Canada and the United States are given to individuals in the name of “helping Iranian journalists”. Nevertheless, not only do these individuals not do anything for the Freedom Movement in Iran, but they effectively create legal dossiers against journalists inside the country. Some right-wing newspapers in Iran are being fed by money provided by you.

Eighthly, the Iranian state uses three methods for preventing any political activity: censorship, causing a lack of trust and obstructing the formation of organisation. These are the three most important measures taken by the Intelligence Ministry. However, our great chance is the internet. In practice and especially under the right conditions, the internet makes up for our three information and intelligence limitations and works for us like an organisation; it eliminates censorship and paves the way for mutual trust.

But the danger of the internet and is our great problem is the penetration of intelligence elements who access our data and are become aware of our plans. This is easier when it come to social networks and more difficult with main inboxes and p websites. Some of the best weapons at the disposal of the Green Movement in Iran are the Balatarin website, Facebook, and Twitter. Despite the fact that the Balatarin website was also used by radical supporters of the government and the radical supporters of a military strike against Iran, it was a powerful source for quickly spreading information and news across the country. In reality, in the past year, the following websites, Balatarin, Facebook, Rooz Online, and Jaras [Rah-e-Sabz] have acted as news websites and have been able to make up for the lack of organisation and to break the atmosphere of censorship. When we took to the streets, we had already spoken our minds on Facebook.

Ninth, despite all the problems that we are facing right now, our work is being followed in Iran because of our use of converting media. Many of our television and internet messages are sent to those lacking access to the internet, via paper fliers and video CDs. Following Ahmadinejad’s 12 June coup, we tried to speak with the media that was close to the people’s ears and through such means; we are currently successful to a certain extent

Tenthly, it might be useful to note that the belief a great number of our friends in the west is based on the belief behind the Islamic Republic’s propaganda. Contrary to the Iranian regime’s propaganda, it is not true that all villagers support Ahmadinejad. Half of them are, and nevertheless, our rural areas account for less than twenty percent of the population of Iran.

Contrary to the prevalent notion, the Freedom Movement of Iran is not a Movement of middle class; it is a completely widespread Movement. Most of the Movement’s casualties and prisoners are from the poor and most of the Army’s commanders are millionaires and billionaires. Mostly because of the current regime in the country, most of the educated are considered as relatively poor by others and the rich class of the country belong to a class of rulers and military and religious figures. Contrary to the prevalent propaganda, the most important group that fight against the regime and struggle for the separation of religion and politics are the moderate religious and Islamo-democratic groups, while a great segment of the government’s supporters’ ties with the state is based on their dependence on government money and they have no religious tendencies.

Eleventh, based on what has been said, we would like to ask those Europeans who think they wish to help us, “Think more about yourselves.” If the bomb that threatens the livelihoods of us as Iranians explodes, it will place the whole planet under threat.

The main problem for Iranians today, is information. We must reflect accurate news inside Iran. In doing so, we might be able to give this news to the entire world too. We do not ask money from you, but try to provide the possibility for breaking free from tyranny. From you as Europeans, we would like to ask you to give us permission to have a television station. We would like you to respond to us a little sooner. We do not want you to have a troubled conscience by asking us “What do you require?” and then abandon us in a cloud of uncertainty. The main requirement for Freedom Movement in Iran is awareness and, specifically, a television channel for conveying the news accurately and completely.

You have experienced the bitter taste of fascism during the Second World War. You know what danger is. We are in the same position as you. Within Iran, the sphere of life is more lively, everything is more dynamic and millions of people want to get rid of the Satan. The mere getting rid of the Satan will suffice, and then, they themselves will choose if they want to enter hell or heaven.