The Latest from Iran (19 June): How Does Mahmoud Respond?

2115 GMT: Cyber-Shutdown. After the filtering of a number of Wordpress-based news sites, including EA, Iran has reportedly blocked Rapidshare and Hotfile.

2055 GMT: The Oil Squeeze. Iran acknowledged on Saturday that oil swap deals with Caspian Sea producers had stopped this month, but said it was seeking talks with some oil companies on new terms.

The swaps, in which Iran imports crude into Caspian ports and supplies the equivalent barrels of oil from the Persian Gulf, were reportedly supsended after Tehran steeply raised fees on operations to avoid an oil glut following lower sales of its own oil.

The four companies affected are Select Energy Trading, Dragon Oil (Emirates), Swiss Vitol, and Irish Caspian Oil Development.

NEW Iran: Working Together? The Women’s Movement & The Greens (Kakaee)
NEW Iran Analysis: Why the 2009 Election is Not Legitimate (Ansari)
Iran Request: Nonsense about “Twitter Revolution”. Please Stop.
Iran Analysis: How Europe Can Help (Mamedov)
Iran Document: The Tajzadeh Criticism and The Reformist Way Forward (Sahimi)
The Latest from Iran (18 June): Hardliners Criticise Ahmadinejad

2040 GMT: The Battle Within. Rah-e-Sabz sees more rifts within the establishment. Member of Parliament Jalal Yahyazadeh has complained that the radical positions of hardliners have isolated moderates, so the "hard-line" camp is not as united as it should be. Reza Akarami asserts that the economic situation is not good, and Ahmadinejad has not fulfilled vows made during his first series of provincial tours.

2030 GMT: The Day in Hijab. Hojatoleslam Ebrahim Raeesi has given assurances that Iran's judiciary supports the security forces in the enforcement of proper hijab.

According to Peyke Iran, Ebrahim Kalantari, the Supreme Leader's deputy in Tehran University, has said that there will be classes for relationships between girls and boys and that a think tank for hijab will be established soon

1910 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Ali Badragheh, dean of the Eslam Shahr campus of Azad University, has reportedly been arrested.

1905 GMT: Freedom of the Press Update. The economic daily Pool has suspended publication after being warned by the supervisory press authority for publishing "false material and accusing Iranian officials".

1900 GMT: Economy Watch. More than 400 workers of the Godeleh Sazi steel plant are on the sixth day of a strike. The walkout began when only 40 of 500 employees passed hiring examinations.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad opened the plant to great fanfare in April.

1855 GMT: Reformists Banned. The Iranian judiciary has upheld the ban on political activity of the two leading reformist Iranian parties, the Islamic Iran Participation Front and the Mojahedin of Islamic Revolution.

The IIPF had filed a complaint against the decision of the Political Parties Commission in March to withdraw its permit. Tehran Prosecutor General Abbas Jafari Dowlatabadi said that the Commission's request to dissolve the two parties has been sent to the Revolutionary Court.

1845 GMT: The Flight of the Journalists. The Committee to Protect Journalists reports that at least 29 Iranian editors, reporters, and photographers have fled the country in the past year, “the highest annual tally from a single country in a decade”.

At least half of those who fled Iran are currently in Turkey living in “precarious situations". They are reportedly threatened by individuals, believed to be working for the Iranian regime, saying that family in Iran will suffer if the journalists speak publicly about political issues.

As dire as this report is, the situation may be even worse. EA sources have reported that
the number of journalists who have left Iran is far greater than 29.

1700 GMT: Remembering. Daneshjoo News reports "thousands", watched by security forces and plainclothes agents, attended the memorial in Mashhad for protester Mostafa Ghanian. The service was held at Imam Reza's shrine.

Ghanian, 26, was killed by snipers on 17 June 2009 while he was calling Allahu Akbar (God is Great) from the roof of an eight-story building in the Saadat-Abad section of Tehran.

1630 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Reports come in that journalist and human rights activist Emaduddin Baghi will stand trial on Tuesday.

The father of student activist Salman Sima has confirmed that his son has gone on hunger strike in Evin Prison.

Sima was arrested on the anniversary of the election, 12 June, his third post-election detention. His father said that Sima was asked to pick up items at the Ministry of Information Followup Office and was stopped and taken away by a plainclothes agent on his motorcycle on the way.

1625 GMT: Threatening Khomeini. Back from a break to find that some hardliners have not given up on the assault on Seyed Hassan Khomeini, grandson of the late Ayatollah Khomeini. Member of Parliament Hossein Fadaee has accused the younger Khomeini of plotting to become the next Supreme Leader, supported by former Presidents Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami.

1150 GMT: Counter-Attack. Minister of Defense Ahmad Vahidi has accused the United States of "deception" and insisted Tehran's missiles are only for self-defence after US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates charged that the Islamic republic could rain missiles down on Europe.

"The Islamic Republic's missile capability has been designed and implemented to defend against any military aggression and it does not threaten any nation," Vahidi said in a statement carried by state media.

1145 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. University professor Rahmatullah Bastani has been acquitted.

0816 GMT: Admissions? We noted yesterday that Iran's police chief, Esmail Ahmadi-Moghaddam, may have been a bit too open as he tried to minimise the opposition and justify the actions of his forces.

Keep in mind that Rooz Online is an opposition outlet, but its summary of Ahmadi-Moghaddam's remarks, if close to accurate, is telling:

Speaking to the monthly Soroush, Iran’s police chief confirmed the validity of a video clip showing Basij forces and special guards attacking the Tehran university student dormitory in early morning hours of June 15, 2009. At the same time, he asked reporters not to focus excessively on the crimes committed at Kahrizak and the Tehran University dormitory. In his descriptions and presentation, he implied that it was the volunteer paramilitary Basij forces and not the police who were responsible for the attack on Tehran University’s dormitory. The request to enter Tehran University according to him was made by its president, Farhad Rahbar.

And despite the large number of casualties and arrests that have taken place in Iran since June 12, 2010, Ahmadi-Moghaddam gave his forces a mere “unsatisfactory” grade in handling the protests.

But, in perhaps his most significant remarks, the head of the Islamic republic’s law enforcement forces said that none of the ballot boxes were opened and counted until 11 pm on Friday, June 12.

However, the first reports of Ahmadinejad’s victory with claims of 24 million votes were released between 10:30 and 11pm on Friday, June 12 by website and news agencies such as Fars, IRNA (the Islamic Republic’s official news agency), and Raja News.

Similarly, the Islamic republic television announced its first results based on 11 million counted votes at 11:30pm the same night. In light of Ahmadi-Moghaddam’s remarks, it is not clear how the interior ministry officials were able to count 11 million votes in less than half an hour.

In another segment of his remarks, Ahmadi-Moghaddam said, “One week before the election, I gathered the provincial governors here and told them that you will face crises until at least the first week of summer. I said the election would end in either Mr. Mousavi’s favor, in which case we would have one kind of crisis under the name of a victory celebration and there would be attempts to capture the next targets; or Mr. Ahmadinejad would win, in which case his opponents would claim fraud. Of course, we couldn’t accurately predict the extent of the problem, but we thought that we would certainly have problems and you must definitely be prepared.”

0815 GMT: We've posted an analysis by Parisa Kakaee of the relationship between the women's movement and the Green Movement.

0655 GMT: We start this morning with a stroll down Memory Lane, as Ali Ansari reminds us why the 2009 Presidential election is still not legitimate.

0645 GMT: No doubt about it. On Friday, the big story from Iran came courtesy not of the opposition but of the "establishment", with the escalating fight between hardliners and the President.

Always buffeted by those in Parliament who don't like his economic plans, his advisors, or him, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad now faced the wrath of clerics and officials unhappy with his criticism last week of the "morality police". You know it's serious when Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, the head of the Guardian Council, used Tehran Friday Prayers to give the President a loud spanking.

We'll be watching for the fallout today. So far no response from Ahmadinejad. And Iranian state media? Well, it's trying to pretend the dispute does not exist: Press TV's summary of the Jannati speech closes its eyes under the headline, "New Sanctions Gave West Away", and the Tehran Friday Prayer does not show up on the front page of the Islamic Republic News Agency.

Iran: Working Together? The Women's Movement & The Greens (Kakaee)

Last weekend Gozaar published a set of seven articles, all of which deserve reading, on the state of the opposition, the Green Movement, and activism for civil rights.



I have highlighted this analysis by Parisa Kakaee because it is my impression --- reinforced by conversations this week --- that the relationship between the "Greens" and civil rights groups is one of the most important issues in the evolution of the post-election situation in Iran.

A year ago today Iran was on the verge of entering a new chapter in its history. During the days before the election, an ongoing dialogue among different factions about whether or not to participate in political decision making, and the enthusiasm and excitement in the streets and at election headquarters, particularly among the youth, placed Iran in a position to undergo some unexpected events.

Different groups inside the women’s movement merged together and came to an accord over some minimum demands as their communal requisitions, and under the name of “convergence of the women’s movement to set forth demands in the election” entered the stage of the electoral campaign.

Coalition members who were present at the election centers and assemblies distributed brochures and carried placards expressing, “we vote for the demands of women.” This approach presented a new way for women to participate in the electoral process and seemed somewhat unfamiliar and unexpected for those members of society who were targeted by these messages, to a point where at times their inquiry about the nature of this practice and its place in the electoral process opened the door for lengthy discussions.

After the election results were announced, most people and social groups who were disappointed after all their efforts became desperate. In an attempt to compensate for their dismay and to claim their rights, they began to voice their protests collectively and with unprecedented unity. This was only the beginning of many aftershocks that went against all equations and became a reminder of the need for a new vision suitable for a different setting.

The irony was that while the demands of the social groups did not materialize and their inherent right to political participation was not recognized, and because women were part of the people and were campaigning by their side, and most importantly because of their known activities, women were among the first ones arrested and forced to pay a higher price.

The question is did all these events and the high repercussions bring the women’s movement closer to claiming its demands, or on the contrary is public awareness of the women’s movement that was slowly gaining momentum in society now further away and the path to success now longer than before?

Journalist and women’s rights activist Asieh Amini has an answer to this question:

Our expectations of the issues, groups and movements must be based on reality. Before the election, social groups and movements, including the women’s movement, had their own character and behavior and their interaction with society depended on the circumstances of time and place. The election disrupted all the political and social equations inside the country.

This change was not limited to the relationship between the women’s movement and the people, but was quite noticeable in other areas. Consequently we cannot expect that one social group remain unaffected by such a great event.

The pattern by which the women’s movement acted changed after the election. There was confusion among many groups and movements about how to maintain the usual trend of their activities. However, I believe that if we analyze this issue from different points of view, we may be able to draw different conclusions from what seems to be an “unpleasant event” and a “halt” in the process.

As I witness how the role of the women’s movement is becoming the subject of many analyses, or how the protest movements are adopting the non-violence approach, I see an extension of the women’s movement in society, its development and success, and not its interruption.

Following the 2009 presidential election, many activist women, not all belonging to the women’s movement, were arrested. Some unprecedented verdicts were issued against them and some of them are still serving time for their charges. It seems that the prevailing atmosphere facilitated the harsh treatment against the One Million Signature Campaign. The members who were arrested, like many other social groups, were falsely accused and went through long interrogations. Many women activists were forced to leave the country and this was a high price paid by the women’s movement after the election. As Asieh Amini puts it:

Even though the intensity of the arrests, the exodus of many citizens, the dispersion inside the country, the underground getaway, closure of internet sites, and the disruption of many demonstrations planned by women may be considered as negative, those who responded to the ensuing social movements were more than the one million individuals we expected in our Campaign, and this by itself is another noticeable accomplishment. In spite of the heavy price paid, it would be an incomplete analysis if we don’t acknowledge that the demands of the women’s movement are now being pursued in our society more seriously than before.

Khadijeh Moghadam, another women’s rights activist, believes that the way people stipulated a main demand in their protest, “where is my vote,” was something that was experienced before in the Campaign: “People, while not all aware of the Campaign’s stipulation and function, brought up a specific and tangible demand. It was the unique experience of this movement that without any leadership, and quite peacefully, this demand became pivotal.”

The change of demands after the election

Even though the convergence of the women’s movement , which included a spectrum of both secular and religious members, happened before the election, another section of this body, including some members of the One Million Signature Campaign were not in agreement with the movement’s new approach. They believed bringing up the demands of the Campaign in a new format in order to participate in the election would only serve to politicize an ongoing civil movement and would disseminate the potential of its members.

However, the women’s coalition came to an agreement over “joining the convention to eliminate discrimination against women” and “changing discriminatory laws” and announced these as the demands of the women’s movement. The result of the election, and disregard for the votes of political and social groups along with that of the public, transformed the demands and changed them into a common discourse. According to Asieh Amini, "Women’s demands after the election were not merely to change the laws anymore, but rather to seek democracy, to refrain from violence, to promulgate civil relations, to propagate civil protest and to dare say NO.”

Non-violent campaign

The major point on which the One Million Signature Campaign insisted  was to find ways to establish a dialogue with the regime and to achieve a cultural refinement of the public. These are its similarities with the Green Movement, which many activists believe has been copied successfully from the women’s movement.

What happened after the election was an overt aggression by the government, while the people persisted in continuing the campaign without violence, except for some occasional defensive behavior. Asieh Amini believes, “No excuse must distract people from the goal they believe in. If non-violent behavior is the pattern and the expectation, a peaceful and secured society must not allow any group to cause any deviation from this goal.”

The question is how can we make this behavior institutionalized? This journalist [Amini?] believes:

One of the challenges of the Green Movement and other movements such as that of women is the lack of any plan as to how to continue defensive campaigning. A non-violent campaign needs some creativity. It seems as though the think tanks that were responsible for organizing coalitions and unions in other movements, such as the women’s movement, which led to collective decision making were absent in the Green Movement. This was a serious void in what the Green Movement copied from the women’s movement.

On the other hand, an oppressive regime is nothing new. It has been seen throughout history how some political groups chose to use violence in response to a government’s oppression and how its negative impacts lingered around for many years. The civil movements received positive responses from Iranian society for choosing the most civil approaches. Resorting to violence will take us further away from security, peace, and democracy.

Another factor is that women’s presence in protests contributes to less violence. As Khadijeh Moghadam, another women’s movement activist, states:

If it were not for the presence of mothers and women in general in the public protests, there is no doubt violence would have escalated. A week after Neda was killed, the mother participants of the Green Movement, using the experience of the women’s movement, especially the Campaign, showed up in Laleh park and adjacent streets, Behesht-e Zahra, in front of Evin prison, the Revolutionary court, and the Judiciary building and demanded the end of killings, the prosecution of those responsible, and the release of those imprisoned for their beliefs. This was an unprecedented move in the history of the women’s movement in Iran.

For aforementioned reasons, although the women’s movement is considered a model for the Green Movement in some cases such as the promotion of a non-violent campaign, in order to employ more practical solutions to institutionalize the non-violent campaign, the movement needs to seek more appropriate approaches compatible with the new circumstances of this society and offer it in a more effective manner. This is because admiring the philosophy of non-violence is not enough to address the questions of the young generation who, these days, are finding themselves alone and vulnerable facing the most serious types of oppression.