Iran: Senior Reformist Amani "We Have Not Decided to Remain Silent"

Shahrbanou Amani, the speaker of House of Iran's Political Parties (a supervisory body over all Iranian parties) and former lawmaker, interviewed by Khabar Online:

KHABAR: Why have the reformists had no voice? Their leaders do not comment on the latest problems raised in the country and do not take a transparent stance. Is it a strategy?

AMANI: We have not opted for that. You see, whenever the ground is prepared, the reformists show an enthusiasm to express their ideas. In my view as our society has become so tense, those who are prime firebrands of such tensions have even targeted sensible Principlists as well, the figures who have served the country but are under the threat of elimination. [They do this] since those who hold the power, do not bear any voice except the echo of their own voice.


Furthermore ,when the clashes are intensified, the toleration for hearing the voice of truth, logic, and ideas based on knowledge shrinks. Currently the universities are among the rare places where the reformists can articulate their ideas.

KHABAR: What is the key problem of the reformists in conveying their ideas?

AMANI: One of the key problems is that we don't have a mass media. What can the reformists do? They don't have access to visual and aural media. No TV and radio channel is allocated to voice their ideas; even among several TV channels, none will give them just one hour to make their suggestions.

One of the issues discussed among our reformist friends (and once more I underline that it's not an organizational option) is that we prefer to express our opinions by local media. When the spouses of the post-election detainees are interviewed by foreign media, they [the spouses] say we made our utmost effort to voice our concerns through Iranian media, but they didn't allow us to do so.

On the other hand, the media serving the rival group has adopted a selective approach, censoring parts of the interviews and articles. For example on the "2030" news program aired by state TV, the programmers broadcast the parts of the items which may serve their goals. They are not faithful to the entire material.

It's not a new tactic adopted by IRIB (Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting) and other state-funded media. In several consecutive years, they have tried to eliminate one of the main Iranian political currents, which ironically has played an important role in the Islamic Republic's campaigns and suffered many tortures in the course of the revolution.

KHABAR: You said you are not allowed access to the media. Actually the reformists say we are deprived of the public forum, but they convey their ideas through the international media including Farsi-language ones. The influence of such media is undeniable, since some accuse local media, including IRIB, of following a biased strategy against the government critics. For the same reason, some are under the influence of foreign media.

AMANI: Actually right now the Green Movement and reformists are deprived of a public forum. Even at the late presidential election in June, we didn't have access to that. Some say how people joined [us] for the election. I would say because the round-the-clock trips made by many reformists and Principlists who campaigned for the other candidates except Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad were greeted by people. Many of them [campaigners] are reputable people who selflessly devoted themselves to the country during the "sacred defense" (the eight-year Iraq-Iran war).

The key problem of the reformists was their limited face-to-face communication with people. Also their campaign was begun rather late. Mr. Mohammad Khatami [former President] walked out of the election and Mr. Mir Hossein Mousavi [former Prime Minister] accepted running for the Presidency rather late.

Israel-Syria: The War of Words Continues...

Responding to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's declaration that he was prepared to meet with Syrian President Bashar Assad immediately and without preconditions, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem told the pan-Arab newspaper al-Sharq al-Awsat that Israel must first declare its intention to withdraw to the 1967 borders before any Syrian-Israeli talks can take place.

Israel-Syria Dialogues: Hopes vs. Realities

The Syrian foreign minister said that there is no point in "putting the cart before the horse" and that "Israel must withdraw from the occupied territories before Syria and Israel can meet".

Despite the exchange of threats between Damascus and West Jerusalem last month and the trilateral meeting of Hezbollah's Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Assad in Syria on 25 February, Israel's training exercise "Firestones 12", which took place in northern Israel last week, conspicuously omitted simulations of war with Syria. Instead, the Israel Defense Forces fought mock battles in preparation for clashes with Hezbollah in Lebanon or Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The army also cancelled emergency call-up drills for large numbers of regular forces and reserves, fearing Syria might mistake such a move as mobilization for war.

But in line with Haaretz's Gideon Levy's article "Israel Does Not Want Peace," it can be said that Israel seeks no talks to resolve the problem; instead, it suspends this possibility while never missing any chance of upholding Damascus's hostility. At the end of the day, Syria is bound to play the "bad guy" for Israeli officials, isn't it?

The Latest from Iran (5 March): Re-aligning

2030 GMT: Academic Special. We've posted an entry noting how Iran's regime and America's self-proclaimed "Truthful Encyclopedia", Conservapedia, have allied against deviant professors.

NEW University Special: Iran & Conservapedia Ally Against Dangerous Professors
Death, Confusion, and Clerics in Iran: The Case of Mohammad Amin Valian
Iran Film Special: Watching Shrek in Tehran
The Latest from Iran (4 March): A Death Penalty Mystery

2015 GMT: Karroubi Watch. Iranian authorities have prevented the son of Mehdi Karroubi, Professor Mohammad Taghi Karroubi, from flying to Britain. Mohammad Karroubi's passport was seized at the airport.

Mehdi Karroubi's website, Saham News, reported, "[Mohammad Karroubi] was planning to fly to London for university related work, including the re-publication of his book 'Just or Unjust War?' and the completion of another book related to international law."


1915 GMT: The Valian "Mohareb" Case. The US Government, shifting its attention from the nuclear issue, has called on Iran to release Mohammad Amin Valian, allegedly condemned to death for protests between July and December: "We find this disproportionate punishment deplorable and urge his immediate release. If the Iranian government wants the respect of the international community, it must respect the fundamental freedoms of its people."

1905 GMT: Smoke Screen. In a letter to "Western" media, the editors of six Iranian websites associated with "principlist" politicians have complained about the presentation of post-election events, accusing the Western outlets of distorting events in Iran and acting “unprofessionally.”

The operators of Alef, Tabnak, Jahan, Khabar Online, Farda, and Hamshahri Online websites, asking the Western journalists to use “professional conscience" to review events, focus on the case of Neda Agha-Soltan, killed by a Basiji gunman:

Since the Iranian government was struggling to calm the public and the opposition sought to whip up excitement, in your opinion which side could expect to gain from murdering Neda?....How are the inconsistencies in remarks made by Arash Hejazi in the video clip that is available and the BBC interview where he provides details justifiable? And as a more general question, how credible is the story when an assassination on a quiet street prompts passersby to move closer to film the victim up close instead of fleeing the scene? Did you consider such skepticism before you publicized the story? Was your conduct professional?

The letter continues with the report of the rape and murder of Taraneh Mousavi, a claim which proved to be unsubstantied, accuse Western media of reporting on the news by resorting to an “obscure blog.”

1855 GMT: The Clerical Challenge (cont.).  Remember Mr Verde's column yesterday on how the Supreme Leader and the regime may have let themselves in for some religious trouble over the alleged death sentence handed out to 20-year-old Mohammad Amin Valian as "mohareb" (warrior against God)?

Well, Ayatollah Bayat-Zanjani has joined Ayatollah Sane'i in criticism of the "justice" in the Valian case: "Mohareb are those who attack people with arms and shed their blood, not protesters."

1630 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Reports claim that the head of Mir-Hossein Mousavi’s presidential campaign in Shahinshahr in Isfahan Province has been in prison since 11 February.

Prominent reformist Behzad Nabavi was released for five days on Wednesday night.

The sentence for journalist and economist Saeed Leylaz has been reduced to three years.

1500 GMT: Well, Here's a Surprise. The pro-Larijani Khabar Online prints a sustained attack on the foreign policy of the Ahmadinejad Government, notably its pursuit of Iran's nuclear case.

1455 GMT: Rafsanjani Watch. Rah-e-Sabz continues to press the line that Hashemi Rafsanjani is keeping his distance from the Government. The website claims that Rafsanjani, his ally Hassan Rouhani, and former Presidential candidate Ali Akbar Nategh Nouri are staying away from meetings of the Combatant Clergy Association because of their differences with the group.

1445 GMT: Another Warning to Mousavi. Iran's Prosecutor-General Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejeie has attacked Mir Hossein Mousavi: If a Government cannot pursue someone because of his attachments [Note: Attachments to whom or what?], that is a deviation. People expect Mousavi's public punishment.

0740 GMT: Yesterday's Top Statement. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced:

Our atomic bombs are our youth and athletic heroes. A nation that possesses determination, intellect, culture and civilization doesn't need to make atomic bombs. Those who suffer from inferiority complex and lack a historical background and civilization are the ones that claim they need atomic bombs.

0725 GMT: Washington Endorses A Nuclear Deal? Perhaps the most significant Iran-related signal that will be missed today....

US Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg met Japanese Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada yesterday on the Iran issue. Steinberg's media statement was bland:

Japan plays a very critical role on this question. It's a leader and a very strong voice in supporting a non-proliferation regime with a very strong commitment to dealing with the challenge of nuclear weapons.

But for those who can de-code diplomatic statements, the Deputy Secretary offered an important signal: "(Japan) is very influential with Iranians and can have a very big impact....(I am) grateful for the strong statements they made during a recent visit by Iranian officials here."

The significance is missed by Agence France Presse, which reports the statement. That "visit by Iranian officials" was the occasion for Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani to embrace a "third-party" deal in which Japan would enrich Iran's uranium stock to 20 percent.

So now what do you think Steinberg was discussing with Foreign Minister Okada?

0640 GMT: The Sanctions Dance. Outside Iran, a lot of attention will be expended on the continuing discussion of tougher sanctions on Tehran. Brazil's pointed rejection, made during US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's visit, has checked the momentum --- whipped up in the media --- for an American resolution in the UN Security Council. The Council on Foreign Relations has a useful analysis.

Clinton is now talking about "months", rather than "weeks", for a US initiative. That may not be a bad thing for Obama, who reportedly is sceptical of the impact of further economic measures, but the battle will now move to the US Congress, which continues to press for sweeping rather than gradual sanctions.

0625 GMT: And so the end of another week in Iran. Beyond the bluster of the regime, most of the daily news has concerned political prisoners: some released, usually on bail and commanded to silence or face a return to jail, others swept up and detained.  A case we had not noted before: Radio Farda reports that student Ali Kanturi has been sentenced to 15 years for "abduction" and "extortion".

The regime's heavy hand, despite all the tensions and confusions within the Government, does seem to have quelled public protest. Perhaps most notable is that there do not appear to be the university demonstrations that marked the period between 13 Aban (4 November) and Ashura (27 December). With the regime also continues to try and choke off the opposition media, the public face of resistance now comes primarily through the statements and interviews of figures like Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi.

Of course, that does not mean that resistance has been quelled. It is more a case that, in this period between 22 Bahman and the Iranian New Year, it lies smoldering. Another crisis or mis-step by the Government could bring it to the fore; more likely, however, is that the challenge to President Ahmadinejad and, indeed, to the Iranian system will come through erosion.
Not an erosion of legitimacy --- the point that should not be forgotten is that legitimacy has been beyond this Government for many Iranians --- but an erosion of authority as the economy stumbles and there is no visible sign of the "unity" that the regime trumpets again and again in its pronouncements.

That is why the curious "death penalty" case of student Mohammad Amin Valian raises interest. As the affair unfolds, with no confirmation that the Ashura protester has actually been condemned to die, the disquiet and now open opposition of clerics indicates that the Government will continue to face problems --- and the Supreme Leader will be pressured --- over the notion of "justice".

Israel-Syria Dialogues: Hopes vs. Realities

Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, who served in the CIA, the National Security Council and the State Department during the Clinton and Bush administrations, declare on their website that Syrian President Bashar Assad told them two weeks ago that the U.S. policy in the Middle East has been wrong for the past decade and has created a vacuum that improved the regional strategic standing for Iran, Syria, and Turkey.

Meanwhile, following Haaretz's report that Syria was prepared to make "gradual peace," the Israeli Prime Minister's Bureau said Wednesday that Benjamin Netanyahu is willing to meet with the Syrians immediately and without preconditions.

Haaretz columnist Gideon Levy responds: "Israel Does Not Want Peace":

Israel does not want peace with Syria. Let's take off all the masks we've been hiding behind and tell the truth for a change. Let's admit that there's no formula that suits us, except the ludicrous "peace for peace." Let's admit it to ourselves, at least, that we do not want to leave the Golan Heights, no matter what. Forget about all the palaver, all the mediations, all the efforts.

Let's face it, we don't want peace, we want to run wild, to paraphrase an Israeli pop song from the '70s. Don't bother us with new Syrian proposals, like the one published in Haaretz this week that calls for a phased withdrawal and peace in stages; don't pester us with talk about peace as a way to break up the dangerous link between Syria and Iran; don't tell us peace with Syria is the key to forging peace with Lebanon and weakening Hezbollah. Turkey isn't an "honest" broker, the Syrians are part of the axis of evil, all is quiet on the Golan - you know how much we love the place, its mineral waters, its wines - so who needs all the commotion of demonstrations and evacuating settlements, just for peace?

It's not only the current extreme right-wing government that doesn't want this whole headache, and it wasn't only all of its predecessors - some of which were on the very brink of withdrawing from the Golan and only at the last moment, the very last moment, changed their minds. It's all the Israelis - the minority that is really against it and the majority that doesn't give a damn. They'd rather pretend not to hear the encouraging sounds coming out of Damascus in recent months and not even try to put them to the test.

Everyone would rather wave the menacing picture of Bashar Assad alongside Hassan Nasrallah and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, his partners in the axis of evil, with the hummus and the bulgur. That on its own should have made Israel try 10 times harder to make peace. But in Israeli eyes, the picture of the banquet, as one Israeli paper termed the "modest meal," is worth more than a thousand words. After that, do you really expect us to give up the Golan? Don't make us laugh. We'll make peace with Micronesia, not Syria.

When the Syrians talk peace, it is all "empty words," "deception" and a wily way of getting closer to the United States. But when Assad poses with the president of Iran, that's the truth, that's Syria's real face. Even when he merely says, on the same occasion, that Syria must prepare for an Israeli attack, he is immediately accused of "threatening" Israel.

Do you want proof that we really don't want peace with Syria? Well, there has not yet been one Israeli prime minister who has said that we do. Because, after all, the order would have to be the opposite of the usual Israeli haggling. A prime minister who really wanted to achieve peace would have to say one terribly simple thing: We undertake in advance - yes, in advance - to hand back the entire Golan in exchange for a full peace. But no, not one prime minister has declared readiness to leave the Golan - right up to the last grain of sand, as we did in Sinai - in exchange for a peace like that which we have with Egypt.

Why on earth do we always have to hold onto this card so it can be played last? And what kind of a card is it, anyway? What kind of end does it ensure? After all, if the Syrian reply is negative, nobody will make us leave the Golan Heights. And what if the reply is positive? Why not start off with a promising, invigorating declaration, one that will give the Syrians hope and thereby at least put their intentions to the test.

But we are not the only ones who don't want peace. The United States has turned out to be a true friend that extricates us from every briar patch. It doesn't want peace enough either, praise the Lord. It's a fact: Washington is applying no pressure. Here's another marvelous pretext for doing nothing - America isn't pressing us and the redeemer will come to Zion, in the words of the prophet Isaiah. Yet we are the ones who have to stay in the dangerous and menacing Middle East, not the Americans; we should be more interested than anyone in preventing another war in the north, in creating a new relationship with Syria and then with Lebanon, and in weakening Iranian influence; in trying to integrate, at last. An Israeli interest, no? And what do we do to advance it? Half of nothing.

So what is there left to do? At least admit the truth: We do not want peace with Syria. That's all there is to it.

Iran Analysis: The Mousavi Strategy "We Are Still Standing"

My initial reaction, on reading the full text of Mir Hossein Mousavi's Saturday interview on the immediate past and immediate future of the Green Movement, was feeling let down. Mousavi had offered a lengthy dissection of the regime's "success" on 22 Bahman (11 February), mobilising the rally in Azadi Square and blocking any mass Green display. He had stated his determination, shared by others, to "express our emotions, aspirations, and concern as a nation".

Mousavi had declared, "The Green Movement has stood firm in its civil demands. The more people’s awareness of their rights increases, the bigger will be the force behind those demands."

Yes, I thought, but what would those demands be beyond the general assertion of freedom, justice, and rights? What endpoint for this people's force? In the end, was Mousavi's "Being green is a matter of behavior and morals" an evasion rather than a confrontation of the next phase of the post-election crisis?


Others shared this perception. Borzou Daragahi, one of the sharpest observers of the Iran situation, wrote over the weekend that not only Mousavi but Karroubi offered no measures for the way forward. Daragahi repeated this when he put forth Mohammad Khatami's Monday statement, "We should not retreat from our demands." Mahmood Delkhasteh writes in The Huffington Post of the "schizophrenic Green Movement".

But as Sunday gave way to Monday and then Tuesday, I looked back over the Mousavi statement and the Khatami declaration and, before them, Mehdi Karroubi's interviews with his website and with an Italian newspapers. I read them as I watched the regime scramble, perhaps coherently, perhaps not, between prisoner releases, suspension of newspapers, and propaganda.

And I realised I was very wrong.

My mistake, which I think is common, was to think in terms of a "grand strategy". Mousavi would lay out the Green Path not just as one of hope but as a well-marked political landscape on the future of the Supreme Leader, the institutions in the Islamic Republic, and indeed the Republic itself. He would offer a new set of tactics to replace the attempts at mobilisation on national holidays --- the opposition would not hijack the regime's occasions but come up with those which were solely Green. Mousavi's would liberate the detainees, free the press, silence the purveyors of untruths, remove Ahmadinejad and his cronies, and show Khameini that he was not above the Iranian system but one part of it.

My mistake was to forget that sometimes the way forward is just to ensure someone sees you are still standing.

On 1 January, Mousavi had put out a 5-point programme which is as close as he has come to a "grand strategy": Government accountability, free press, freed political prisoners, free assembly, new election laws. If the Government could not deliver this, it would be replaced. If the Supreme Leader could not assure this, his position would be questioned.

But conditions change, events intervene. 22 Bahman was a major disappointment for those in the opposition who thought it would mark the end --- maybe not on that day but soon, very soon --- of the regime. The Green movement had been present on that day but, with the confusion in tactics and facing the massed forces of the State, it had not been seen.

So Mousavi, while he referred to his 1 January in his interview, had more immediate tasks. He first took apart the idea of a "natural", overwhelming support for the regime, represented by the 22 Bahman turnout: these were "engineered rallies".

Where on the day, beyond Tehran, was the supposed effusive endorsement of the Government? Where, in the following three weeks, has that support been? Where, once the mobilisation for a few hours is over, is the "63%" that supposedly re-elected President Ahmadinejad last June?

Mousavi's harder job, however, was to assess his own camp, to find the rays of light amidst the "difficult conditions" and "damage" inflicted by the regime through detentions, violence, suppression, and abuse of laws? Re-presenting the tablets of his five points on 1 January would only bring the response: yes, and how exactly is this to occur?

So Mousavi's effort was not to elucidate the "civil demands", not at this moment, but to give the assurance that the the demands would continue to be made. Shut down the Green Movement's newspapers and journals, and we will work through social media. Berate us with propaganda, but we will persist in our "spread of awareness". Threaten us, jail us, bribe us with release for our silence, but we will not disappear.

And that is not just Mousavi's statement. It was Karroubi's last week, and Khatami's yesterday. Away from the headlines offered by those men, it is the message every hour of every day from those who continue to get word out that matters are not settled inside Iran.

So Mousavi and Karroubi made specific if not-so-limited demands to represent that persistence. You have crushed us? Then give us our freedom of assembly, since we are not that many. You have defeated us? Then give us a referendum on your supposedly respected institutions, let's say, the Guardian Council.

In his interview, Mousavi placed the key sentence, "If this crisis is not resolved, the legitimacy of the ruling establishment will plummet even faster."

At some point, having assured its survival, the opposition will need to make its resolutions over a strategy that goes beyond "We are still standing." But the lack of resolution at this moment and for the foreseeable future, is not "victory" for the regime. To the contrary, it is testimony that legitimacy has not been secured.

Just because the end of the path is not seen, does not mean that it has been obliterated....