The Latest from Iran (31 May): Mousavi & Karroubi Call for 12 June Demo

1800 GMT: Because of our attention to Gaza events today, we are going to "stack up" some incoming items on Iran and run them as our initial update on Tuesday --- this will enable us to get renewed focus on what is happening inside the country.

Thanks to all readers for your patience today.

1415 GMT: Claimed video of today's meeting between Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_8z9GtUWTg[/youtube]

NEW Iran Document: Rahnavard “Honour Women, Release Political Prisoners”
Iran Report: The Fight on the Cultural Front (Erdbrink)
The Latest from Iran (30 May): Pressure, Counter-Pressure, & a Letter from Majid Tavakoli

1300 GMT: Preparing for 12 June. Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, after a meeting, have jointly signed a request for a permit for a march on 22 Khordad.


1025 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Journalist Bahman Ahmadi Amoui has gone back to prison after 72 days on temporary release.

Amoui and his wife Jila Bani Yaghoub were arrested on the night of 20 June and were immediately sent to Evin Prison. Amoui was initially sentenced to 7 years and 4 months in prison; the term was reduced to 5 years after appeal.

Before going back to Evin, Amoui and his family took this picture:



0720 GMT: We open this morning with apologies for a limited service, as we are also LiveBlogging the stunning development of the Israeli attack on ships carrying aid to Gaza.

This morning opens with the English translation of yet another statement from opposition figures in the run-up to the 12 June anniversary of the election. Zahra Rahnavard, on the eve of the birthday of Fatemeh, the daughter of the Prophet Mohammad, and Women's Week, has issued a statement calling on all to honour the rights of women and the Iranian authorities to release political prisoners. We've posted the text in a separate entry.

The Latest from Iran (30 May): Pressure, Counter-Pressure, & a Letter from Majid Tavakoli

1800 GMT: Academic Corner. HRANA reports that 15 students at Shahid Beheshti University have been suspended for criticism of the Supreme Leader.

1755 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. The sentence of Zia Nabavi, a member of the Right to Education Council, has been reduced to 10 years from 15 years on appeal.

1750 GMT: Economy Watch. Reformist member of Parliament Darius Ghanbari has warned that if disinvestment, excessive imports and loss of domestic production continue, Iran will have 60 million (out of a population of 75+ million) below the poverty line. MP Nasrullah Torabi has called on the Government to be "accountable" to the 40 million he says are already below that line.

NEW Iran Report: The Fight on the Cultural Front (Erdbrink)
Iran Document: Mousavi “Greens Will Not be Stopped by Arrests, Prisons, or Killing”
Iran: A Poem for Executed Teacher Farzad Kamangar
The Latest from Iran (29 May): Statements for 22 Khordad/12 June

1745 GMT: A Clerical Slapdown. Ayatollah Amini, the leader of Friday Prayers in Qom, asked yesterday, "How is it possible to administer for the underprivileged with temporary relief?"

Amini leveled the allegation at the Government that Ayatollah Khomeini's ideas were not considered by persons in charge. Noting that other underdeveloped countries have managed to overcome their difficulties within 30 years. he said an adequate plan should have been established to create work, to develop the cities, and to support universities.


1735 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch --- Inside Version (cont.). Human Rights Activists News Agency carries a story on the alleged aftermath of two videos, released by the agency earlier this week, with accounts of torture and rape by detainees who were in Rajaiee Shahr Prison.

On Saturday, two agents from the Intelligence Ministry transferred twenty prisoners to the Security Office in Rajaiee Shahr prison where they were interrogated and threatened. They also moved Mohsen Beikvand, the victim in one of the videos, to solitary confinement. Unknown men reportedly contacted Bahram Tasviri, the other victim from the videos, and told him that his image and reputation have been shattered outside of prison with the publication of these videos.

(Note: we have not posted the video, which is available in the HRANA story, because we feel it is vital to confirm the authenticity of the story given the serious allegations. Feedback from those who view the video is welcomed.)

1730 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch --- Inside Version. We return from a break to find a purported account of conditions at Evin Prison from detained journalist and filmmaker Mohammad Nourizad. The account includes Nourizad's meeting last week with Tehran Prosecutor General Abbas Jafari Dowlatabadi, who allegedly promised Nourizad's release if the political prisoner and his family gave no statements to the media.

Nourizad, in the letter to the Supreme Leader, calls Evin "the second Kahrizak", a reference to the notorious facility that was closed by Ayatollah Khamenei after revelations of abuses and killings of detainees.

0855 GMT: Earthquake Alarm! Khabar Online reports that women have been seen taking off their hijab, allegedly for sporting activities, in several parks and public spaces in Tehran.

0850 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Bahram Chagini, a university student and a member of the Mousavi presidential campaign, was reportedly arrested by intelligence agents in Arak in mid-May.

0840 GMT: Another Political Prisoner List. Rah-e-Sabz has published another set of names and details of 100 political prisoners in Block 350 of Evin Prison. About 70% are students.

There is one additional name of a journalist, Khashayar Jahanzad Farrokhi, to add to our running total. We estimate that 93 journalists remain in detention or are under threat of heavy bails.

0835 GMT: And Another Cleric is Summoned. Rah-e-Sabz reports that Ahmad Montazeri, the son of the late Grand Ayatollah Montazeri, has been summoned to and interrogated in a special clerical court.

0830 GMT: Cleric Responds to "Lies". Ayatollah Sane'i has expressed his regret, "Five years ago I said lies were spreading, but I didn't know they were to become a culture."

0820 GMT: Reformist Responds to "Lies". We reported on Friday about  Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting's distortion of the words of reformist activist Fatemeh Haghighatjoo, turning her into a traitor declaring, "Do not accept Iran."

Haghighatjoo has now threatened to file a lawsuit against IRIB and the Supreme Leader, as the head of the broadcaster. She explained that the Green Movement, with its initial slogan "Where is My Vote?", did not want regime change; however, after killings and imprisonments, many doubted that reforms could occur within the system. Haghighatjoo concluded, "I believe that the Constitution must be replaced by a secular system."

0815 GMT: Rafsanjani Watch. Hashemi Rafsanjani's daughter Faezeh Hasemi has responded to the attack on her office with an unsubtle swipe at the Government. This was not carried by common thieves; it was like a "Mongols attack" to incite terror.

0805 GMT: Parliamentary Moves. Following this week's election of leaders in Parliament, with one Deputy Speaker (Sadr) seen as pro-Ahmadinejad and another (Bahonar) criticised by "hardliners" --- Speaker Ali Larijani and his allies are pushing the line of "Parliamentary unity".

Larijani, quoted by his supporting website Khabar Online, declared that political divisions are not compatible with the Supreme Leader's ideas. Elyas Naderan, a leading critic of the Ahmadinejad Government, predicted that the "political alignment" of pro-goverment and anti-government factions will not persist.

Not all proceeded smoothly for Larijani's move, however: his press conference started 20 minutes late, suffered a blackout, and was suddenly cut off.

0800 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. The scholars of the Middle East Studies Association have written to the Supreme Leader, calling for the release of Majid Tavakoli (see 0645 GMT) and other political prisoners.

0700 GMT: The Cultural Front. We have posted, in a separate entry, a report from  Thomas Erdbrink, the Washington Post correspondent in Tehran, on cultural resistance to the Iranian regime.

0645 GMT: A Letter from Tavakoli? There was a lot of chatter yesterday about a purported message from Majid Tavakoli, the detained student leader.

The letter has not been translated into English, but an EA reader wanted to get a sense of Tavakoli's analysis and objectives. So, over to EA correspondent Ms Zahra:

Tavakoli's statement reads like a mix of [prominent Iranian expatriate opposition figure] Mohsen Sazegara's daily lessons about non-violent struggle, parts of Mousavi's statements (esteqamat, perseverance), and expatriate demands for an end to the Islamic Republic.

As I never heard more than short statements by him, no idea if he is the author. If it is not by him, it could be a collective text, written by a reformist theoretician in prison --- I doubt this, however, because in my opinion reformists would never give up the Islamic Republic. It could also be the result of discussions in prison about future strategies for the Green Movement. In any case the phrasing is coherent, i.e., written by a single person.

An excellent text, insisting on the positiveness of the leaders, necessity of positive criticism, unity, fundamental demands like individual freedom and pluralism (to prevent a new dictatorship), clearly defined goals, and strategies of non-violence, along the lines of those set out by the scholar Gene Sharp.

It could also be an implicit reminder to Mousavi and Karroubi to be more definitive in their demands, but it is only advice and does not condemn them.

0630 GMT: We return from a Saturday night break to assess this morning's political situation, five days before the anniversary of the death of Ayatollah Khomeini and less than two weeks before the birthday of the 2009 election.

The regime made a big political move with the announcement that the Supreme Leader, introduced by President Ahmadinejad, will lead Tehran Friday Prayers from Khomeini's mausoleum. Can't be much clearer than this in a bid for legitimacy.

It's the first major regime rally since 22 Bahman (11 February), with Ayatollah Khamenei speaking at Friday Prayers for the first time since 19 June, when he reaffirmed Ahmadinejad's victory, warned the opposition not to challenge, and tried to keep Hashemi Rafsanjani in the fold.

So what were those various actors doing yesterday? Well, opposition figure Mir Hossein Mousavi had made another challenge with his statement to former political prisoners (again, can't get much more pointed in the symbolism than talking with those who had been unjustly detained under the Shah), and reformist groups and activists --- despite the Government's attempt to silence them --- continued to put out declarations of intent before 12 June.

Even more interesting,  however, were the manoeuvres around Rafsanjani. The former President's website issued its own response to the Government by re-issuing Rafsanjani's criticisms of President Ahmadinejad and the Iranian system, both in a letter to the Supreme Leader before the election and in Rafsanjani's 17 July Friday Prayer address (the last time he took the podium).

But the regime was putting out its own message for Rafsanjani this weekend: the office of his daughter Faezeh Hashemi was raided, soon after security forces moved upon the campus of Islamic Azad University --- established by the Rafsanjani Government and led until recently by Rafsanjani's son Mehdi Hashemi --- and seized computers and documents.

What does it all mean? Well, at this point I'll take the easy way out: too soon to tell....

Friends or Obstacles?: Iran, Human Rights, & US "Concern"

There was a time --- say, six months ago --- when I wrote often about US "experts" who offered analysis and advice on Iran. But, taking the advice of readers, I walked away from those pieces: I found myself getting frustrated and involved in diversionary battles which were more about pundits striking public postures than about the complexity of the issues in Iran.

What matters, not just in the end but from the beginning, is not the pronouncements and priorities of broadcasters and columnists but the hopes, concerns, and fears of Iranians.

Forgive me, but I am going to break the pledge of silence over US commentary for a moment today.

I am prompted to do so not by another one-dimensional portrayal of Iran or by the deceitful words of those invoking sensitivity for the Iranian people to justifying bombing the Iranian people. I do so because of two pieces, by two intelligent and thoughtful writers, which start from the premise that we need to review the approach to Iran.



Writing in Foreign Policy, Stephen Walt criticises "Sleepwalking with Iran":

I can't figure out who is actually directing U.S. policy toward Iran, but what's striking (and depressing) about it is how utterly unimaginative it seems to be....We continue to ramp up sanctions that most people know won't work, and we take steps that are likely to reinforce Iranian suspicions and strengthen the clerical regime's hold on power.

I think Walt is an excellent analyst and, even if you disagree with his position on sanctions and the nuclear issue, his critique of the US Government's tactics is incisively realistic:

The Obama administration's approach to Iran is neither feasible nor consistent. To begin with, our objective --- to persuade Iran to end all nuclear enrichment -- simply isn't achievable. Both the current government and the leaders of the opposition Green Movement are strongly committed to controlling the full nuclear fuel cycle, and the United States will never get the other major powers to impose the sort of "crippling sanctions" it has been seeking for years now. It's not gonna happen folks, or at least not anytime soon.

What got my attention, however --- especially given Walt's normally sure-handed evaluation --- was not the clarity in that paragraph but the resignation and confusiion in one later in the piece:

The first [problem] is the mindset that seems to have taken hold in the Obama administration. As near as I can tell, they believe Iran is dead set on acquiring nuclear weapons and that Iran will lie and cheat and prevaricate long enough to get across the nuclear threshold. Given that assumption, there isn't much point in trying to negotiate any sort of "grand bargain" between Iran and the West, and especially not one that left them with an enrichment capability (even one under strict IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] safeguards). This view may be correct, but if it is, then our effort to ratchet up sanctions is futile and just makes it more likely that other Iranians will blame us for their sufferings....Maybe our focus ought to shift from our current obsession with Iran's nuclear program and focus on human rights issues instead (though it is harder for Washington to do that without looking pretty darn hypocritical).

I think --- although I have to admit that I am trying to put this on paper after reading the above paragraph for the 20th time --- that Walt is saying: well, if we have to put pressure on Iran's nuclear programme and aspirations in the region, let's use rhetoric on human rights rather than sanctions as our weapon of choice.

Wrong. So wrong. I'm all for putting human rights up-front but it should not be picked up as an instrument simply because you don't like other tools in your foreign-policy box. Human rights should be acknowledged as an end, not a means. To do otherwise does not sweep away the hypocrisy that Walt notes, it reinforces the reality as well as the impression of deceit.

Which brings me to the latest intervention of Roger Cohen in The New York Times.

Cohen has been an important US voice on Iran for some time and, to his credit, he has tried to bring the internal situation to the attention of readers, having spent time before and after the 2009 election in the country.

And, to his credit, the starting point of Cohen's latest column is well-intentioned. He highlights and draws from the recent publication of Death to the Dictator!, the account of a protestor detained, abused, and raped by security forces.

Human rights, not just in this story but in thousands of others, not as a rhetorical device but as an important objective. Right?

Not quite. For Cohen uses his story for a personal goal: to set himself up as arbitrator between two viewpoints that he dislikes:

Since June 12, U.S. realists and idealists have had an Iranian field day. The realists have dismissed the Green Movement, proclaimed a stolen election fair, and urged President Obama to toss aside human rights concerns and repair relations with Tehran in the American interest.

The idealists have rained renewed fury on Ahmadinejad, called for his overthrow and urged Obama to bury outreach and back Moussavi.

Leave aside, for the moment, that Cohen's portrayal of "idealists" (not one of whom he names) is a caricature. My experience is that those who have criticised the Iranian Govenrment on "idealistic" grounds, i.e., human rights, have not called for a burial of outreach. To the contrary, if one wants to acknowledge the Iranian people, one has to reach out and establish connections: to learn, to understand, to disseminate information, and to discuss. Some, indeed many, may wish to see the back of President, but they do not necessarily advocate "overthrow" (which Cohen is using to imply military action or US-supported regime change).

Here's my problem, which goes far beyond Cohen's ploy of setting himself up as the centrist voice of reason.

When Cohen declares that we should "pursue engagement because isolation only serves the horror merchants", his "engagement" is --- ironically --- not on human rights concerns. It is a call for a resolution of the nuclear issue: "[Iran's] renewed interest in Brazilian-Turkish mediated talks is worth skeptical consideration".

I respect the position that, whatever our perspective, on the political and legal issues inside Iran, the priority must be on a resolution with the current Iranian Government. I understand the geopolitical reasons: not only taking the destabilising dispute over Iran's nuclear programme off the table but also furthering an accommodation over Afghanistan, Iraq, and regional issues in the Middle East.

What I find objectionable is the justification of that approach through distortion and mis-representation of the situation inside Iran. Now that the authors of Race for Iran, pushing for a "grand settlement" with Tehran, have finally publicly declared that human rights plays no part in their calculations, then let them stick to that position by offering no deceptive comment on developments over those rights.

And I'm just as opposed to using human rights as a sleight-of-hand to push a nuclear-first approach. Just because Roger Cohen, who has raised awareness of the situation in Iran and has a concern for those rights, is the perpetrator in this case does not affect that opposition.

Here is Cohen's concluding sentence in full: "[Iran's] renewed interest in Brazilian-Turkish mediated talks is worth skeptical consideration....if you believe Mohsen [the abused detainee in Death to the Dictator!]--- in the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate --- deserves a future."

I have no idea of Mohsen's position on the Iran-Brazil-Turkey declaration on uranium enrichment. I doubt Cohen knows. However, I think I have a good idea of what Mohsen, and many others who have suffered in the post-election period, think of the Ahmaidinejad Government. A President and a Government who are using the nuclear game as a distraction from internal issues. A President and a Government which, it must be appreciated, will present any agreement on uranium enrichment as a "victory" for their policy and, thus, as evidence of their legitimacy.

So it is a bit presumptuous for Mr Cohen to use (I would say "manipulate" had this come from a less benevolent commentator like Charles Krauthammer) Mohsen's story not for Moshen's interests but for Roger Cohen's agenda.

It is still deceitful --- irrespective of whoever carries out the act --- to use human rights as his/her instrument of the moment to seek a settlement which is far removed from human rights.

UPDATED Iran: Full Text of Karroubi Interview "Aligning the Green Movement"

Our gratitude to Masih Alinejad, who interviewed Mehdi Karroubi for Rah-e-Sabz and provided this translation for EA. Khordaad 88 have also posted an English version of the discussion:

Mr Karroubi, a year has passed since the eventful month of Khordad 1388 (22 May-21 June 2009). Yet this month is considered to be a historic one in Iran: the epic election victory of Mohammad Khatami on 2 Khordad 1376 (23 May 1997), the brave resistance that led to the liberation of the southern city of Khorramshahr on 24 May 1982, the 15 Khordad Movement (5 June 1963), and the much disputed and controversial election of 12 June which led to the formation of the people’s Green Movement. Is it possible to find an explicable link between these events? 

Iran Analysis: When Allies Co-ordinate (Mousavi & Karroubi)
The Latest from Iran (27 May): Cooperation and Feuds

The root and foundation of this [Islamic] Revolution was the 15 of Khordad which was referred to by its founder [Imam Khomeini] as the beginning of the [Islamic] Revolution and unforgettable. Khordad is an eventful month. But what is of more importance for us is that these events must be examined. For instance, even the presidential election of 2005 must be re-examined. An election during which we, as reformists, had control of government, but for reasons I do not wish to discuss here, we lost everything and the outcome was that the country fell into the hands of these people and this group, and as a result the people and country are faced with its consequence and the hardships that have followed.


You say that in 2005 when Ahmadinejad and Hashemi Rafsanjani succeeded in reaching the second round of the elections, certain events unfolded that caused the reformists to lose everything. But last year and before the election, when I asked you during an interview whether according to the hypothesis that ‘revolutions eat their own children’, you considered yourself as the eaters or the eaten, after which you responded with a smile: “I am not among the eaten and I would never like to see a child of this revolution be eaten.” Do you still have the same beliefs or did you believe at the time that despite the controversial 2005 election, one could hope for a yielding on the part of radical forces?

Following the death of Imam Khomeini, we anticipated that we would be isolated by certain individuals. But we never foresaw such circumstances. However, the current conditions are not only hard on us, but on the rest of the country too. Despite the fact that I have anticipated these conditions, we are witnessing that these (the children of the revolution being eaten) have occurred for most of the people among the [Islamic] Revolution’s first generation, and it because of a person who is currently leading the country’s executive branch. But if this person had been appointed by the people, they wouldn’t be troubled by the situation as he would be both legitimate and legal.

As we enter the second year of the Green Movement, what do you think are the points of strength and weakness of the Green Movement?

I am completely satisfied and happy about my own behaviour, comments and actions. If according to them [the authorities], I have acted radically, it was the outcome of their own actions. I have never acted radically as I have never distanced myself from my revolutionary ideals. Within the past year, I have always proceeded, according to my responsibility towards a people whose rights had been neglected. During one of the televised debates last year, I mentioned that I had come forth prepared for Jihad and I am ready to pay any price in this path. The first night after I became a [presidential] nominee, I knew this would be a bumpy ride, but out of necessity and in order to prevent the dissolving of different parties, I had to take part in the elections.

What about the others? You, Mousavi and Khatami, you each make speeches and issue your statements separately. Do you think we can expect to see joint statements by two or three people in the Green Movement’s second year?

I believe that each of us must play his own role and to maintain and continue the individual activities. However, when there is a need for a joint statement, this should be the case. For one particular issue, I made a proposal which was welcomed too, however it was not turned into action and therefore I acted independently.

Having said that, do you see a reason to form a leadership core for the Movement? What is your strategy for the Movement’s leadership?

First of all, this is a popular Movement and its leaders are the people and the Movement is moving towards a direction which the people desire. The people control the pulse of the Movement. If this Movement has a leader other than the people themselves, the opposing side will quickly eliminate that leader. When Mr Mousavi and I formed a four-person committee—Mr Beheshti and Moghaddam appointed by Mr Mousavi and Mr Alviri and Amini appointed by me—to attend to the needs of post-election victims, three of these four men were quickly arrested and sent to prison and their activities were brought to a halt. Under such circumstances, only the people can lead the Movement.

Critical newspapers have and political parties have been shut down, as the chairman of a political party, what is the future you foresee for the Movement? With the total control and dominance of the military and security forces, what opportunities does the Green Movement have for making its presence and its continuation felt?

The first part of this question is related to the previous question. These gentlemen [the authorities] did not even tolerate a single party office. They did not even tolerate a party newspaper. They did not tolerate it when people came to meet with me at my office. They did not tolerate the few newspapers and magazines which they refer to as “outsiders”. The authorities have become so preposterous and fearful that they force people who visit me to give written assurances that they will not visit me ever again. They can’t even tolerate a weekly magazine. They can’t tolerate our presence in public and official gatherings and appoint individuals to disrupt the ceremony or to attack us.
In answering the second part of your question, I must say that the very fact that the Movement announces its presence before every ceremony or event is in itself a sign of struggle and a continuation of its path. The Movement’s desire for change is a sign of life and its presence. On the other hand, we must stand firm with respect to what we say and must act accordingly and we should also be ready to pay the price involved. The fact that authorities are planning for the anniversary of the passing of Imam [Khomeini] or the tight security measures in ceremonies and exhibitions are in fact signs that the Movement is alive. Just as they prevented me from taking part in a religious ceremony for the martyrdom of Zahra PBUH [daughter of Prophet Mohammed]. A great number of armed forces had been prepared with clubs, daggers, bricks, etc, just to prevent me from taking part in the ceremony. All of these actions mean that we are present and the Movement is alive and will stay alive.

Until what point are you going to continue to issue statements and avoid routing for certain necessities of struggles?

Our Movement is a civil one. Our Movement is not an armed or violent one. In which statement have I said something that I did not act upon? Haven’t I been present among the people whenever I had the chance? They have banned my sons from leaving the country. They have attacked my house twice. They have closed down my personal office, my party and my party’s newspaper. They banned the Irandokht publication which belonged to my wife’s institute. They intended to assassinate me in Qazvin. They attacked one of my sons and severely wounded while in detention. They have attacked me and my bodyguards during different demonstrations. Are these not actions in your opinion? They have arrested many of those close to me. Those currently in power must know that Mahdi Karroubi is prepared to pay any price for this cause.

One of the demands constantly mentioned in these statements is holding free elections. Is there any hope that one day party-based parliamentary or presidential elections will be held? Do you think that the notion of “party” will have a place in the future of Iran? When we speak of political parties do we mean a party with the ability to influence the state based on the votes it receives from the people?

This is what we should be seeking but there are two difficult obstacles ahead. The first one is the regime which does not wish such a thing, and the second is that the political groups are not used to organisational work and I have said many times that these groups are either oppose party-based activity or evade it. Party-based action is quite difficult in Iran and we need time to learn how to approach a party in the country.

You have been credited with the use of the term “boat of the regime” in the Green Movement’s literature, but some believe that it is you who has left this ship. Where is this boat or ship of the Islamic Republic moving?

It is indeed a boat and its capacity it has the capacity of a boat and cannot contain 75 million people. This boat cannot withstand the mildest storm or clouds. I hope that one day, this boat is transformed into a ship which can carry and accept the entire Iranian people.

You were imprisoned during the previous regime. Frankly speaking, has the situation of the prisons and courts in Iran improved or declined since then?

The problem with the previous regime was corruption. A revolution has occurred and new revolutionary forces have risen. Yet since this revolution has turned into a boat and has become exclusive and the people on this boat want it for themselves and their own interests. They have confronted the people in order to keep them out of this boat. A small group of people have control of the country’s management and as they lack of the ability to run the country, they are trying to exert pressure on the people and are increasing the pressure. The situation has become worse. Back then [pre-revolution era], no one gathered outside the house of any of the revolutionaries or treated prisoners like they treat Mr Nourizad now, this is the start of further digressions. As the group currently governing the country have no base of support among the people, they want to increase the pressure on the people in order to gain legitimacy. The same chain killings [in the 90s] have gradually spread out over time, such that [true revolutionary] fighters such as Dariush Farouhar were killed by these same people [who are in power]. Many others may well have been murdered at their hands, had they not been confronted. There needs to be an end to these radical actions. During the Shah’s era, there was not republic. In the Islamic Republic, everyone is considered equal. According to the Iranian constitution, even the leader is considered to be equal to the rest of the people. But now, certain impulsive actions are starting to take place.

You say that under the constitution, even the leader is equal to the rest of the people, so what is the Council of Expert doing? Are they doing anything for the people and their constitutionally designated responsibilities besides just talking? Why did the Assembly of Experts and its head remain silent after a portion of the Assembly critical of the leader and were met with threats and even attacks by plain-clothed militia?

During Imam [Khomeini’s] time, the Assembly of Experts had a certain path and mechanism. During its first term, prominent figure and qualified clerical authorities were in the Assembly. This same Assembly elected Ayatollah Khamenei as leader after the death of Imam Khomeini. In the following year, due to narrow-mindedness and in an attempt to prevent the election of certain figures into the Assembly, the task of carrying out the vetting process was taken from teachers of religious schools and handed over to the Guardians Council whose members were appointed by the leader himself. The fate of a Guardians Council, whose observers have to pass through the filters of individuals such as Mr Jannati, is clear. The strongest point in the constitution is article 108 which has turned into one of the weakest points because of the actions of these individuals [in the Guardians Council]. It is not a question of individuals or the time, but it is about the true standing of a body. A while ago I also wrote a letter to Mr Hashemi Rafsanjani regarding the responsibilities of the Guardians Council.

In one sentence, please describe how you felt during the night of each of these critical demonstrations:

15 June: I was joyful because of the great wave and presence of the people. But at night when I heard that a great number of people had been killed, I couldn’t believe that such mistreatment of the people was taking place in the Islamic Republic and I was quite saddened.

20 June: I was extremely saddened because of the killings that took place on that day.
Jerusalem Day (18 September): I was quite happy about the people’s massive presence in the demonstrations on that day.

4 November: On that day, I went out to participate in the rallies and they blocked our way and used pepper spray against us. One of my bodyguards was injured as a result of the substance thrown at us. When we got home, I learned that a number of people had been killed and arrested. I could not believe the continuation of this harsh treatment of people and I asked myself why they were being mistreated in such a way.

Ashura (27 December): I was concerned from the morning. I went to a religious ceremony on that day, but heard while I was there, that one person had been thrown off a bridge and a police car had run over some of the people, this saddened me very much and the feeling grew by the moment. However, I was more saddened because of what had happened on Ashura which is a religious ceremony, they were killing people on a day when everyone morns the martyrdom of Imam Hussein (PBUH), a day whose sanctity must always be respected.

22 Bahman (11 February): I had braced myself for everything. When I joined the crowd, we were attacked brutally. The used pepper spray against us, as a result I could not open my eyes for hours. For a week, I was suffering from pains in my eyes as well as respiratory problems. When we returned home, I heard that clashes had taken place a number of people had been arrested and I was informed that my son Ali had been detained. I was very saddened by what had happened and could not believe that such violence was used against the country’s own children.

Mr Karroubi, you pay visits to many well-known political prisoners and sympathise with their families. For instance, you have met with the families of Jafar Panahi, Mohammad Nourizad and other prisoners who have gone on strike. What are your plans regarding the many unknown students and prisoners such as Majid Tavakkoli who was neither a politician nor an artist?

Unfortunately, the situation for unknown prisoners is very worrying. As I have said before, we had previously set up a committee to investigate the status of the prisoners, but even this, was not tolerated and they imprisoned the members of the committee which was to assist other prisoners. I have always been concerned about prisoners whose families are faced with great hardship. I have spoken to the family of student activist Mr Tavakkoli. A student, whose criticism is within the framework of the constitution, does not deserve imprisonment in response. I have spoken to the families of some prisoners from smaller cities via phone. People do not deserve to be treated this way. But I am sure that the pain that the families and mothers of unknown prisoners endure makes them worthy of great praise.

In your statements, you have referred to the photos and videos taken as a result of the people’s sense of responsibility and citizenship, as evidence of violence used against ordinary people. These images and thousands more pictures and footages were never shown on national television, but were the result of efforts by ordinary citizens who recorded them on their mobile phone cameras and posted them on websites, weblogs and social networking websites such as Facebook and Twitter. Have you seen those videos for yourself or are you aware of the wave of protests in cyber space against the restrictions faced by your bodyguards? The youth voluntarily launched a campaign saying that they were willing to be the bodyguards of Mahdi Karroubi or Mir Hossein Mousavi. I would like to know your overall opinion about the Movement formed by citizen journalists to inform everyone about the street violence and to shape a symbolic solidarity.

Yes, I became saddened and felt ashamed of the violent treatment in the Islamic Republic, because even during the corrupt Shah’s reign they people were not treated this way. I have mentioned this countless times in my letters and at the time we made videos of people who had been tortured, but before filming them we asked them not say something just for the sake of our liking and to always consider God and to know that nothing was concealed from him and that each person was responsible and would be held accountable for their own actions. When I saw their black-and-blue bodies, I felt very sorry and was saddened that the people were treated this way only for protesting against an election result. We were not trying to construct evidence or to hand them over to anyone. We made two copies of the videos, kept one copy for ourselves just in case the tortured would be placed under pressure to deny their own previous claims. And their terrorising was affective too, because some of them were placed under such torture that they had to deny their own words, some were even forced to flee the country and others decided not to pursue [the torture claims] any longer after they felt a sense of insecurity in their lives.

With regards to what happened for my bodyguards, I became happy when I heard that the youth had come up with such proposals, but I never wished to trouble anyone, and wherever I went, I was accompanied by my sons. I would also like express my gratitude towards the youth for their efforts in the country’s path towards greatness and wish prosperity and good health in their lives.

My next question is about the opposition movement created among Iranian outside the country. Do the leaders of the Green Movement have any agendas for organising the forces inside and outside the country? Why do you not make use of the great assets of all Iranians in this struggle?

A Movement has started within the country. Iranians outside the country have also come forward and have supported this Movement. The efforts and actions of Iranians outside the country are praiseworthy, but we must consider the conditions inside the country too. I would like to ask Iranians abroad to take into account certain issues in their demands, expectations and slogans. Unfortunately, sometimes certain radical actions outside the country are reflected inside the country and unfortunately the regime uses this as a tool to oppress the forces within. Iranians outside the country are conveying the message of the people inside the country to other nations and countries and I hope that the slogans coming from both inside and outside the country move towards convergence. We must also be aware of infiltrations by individuals who chant radical slogans which give an excuse to the authorities to crack down on the people’s movement. This Movement will persist and people both inside and outside the country will gradually become more in tune with each other, and we must know that this victory requires time.

Certain liberal wings of the Green Movement ask about the 1979 Islamic Revolution and would like to candidly know why totalitarianism and interest-based oppression reappeared in the words of the revolutionary leaders from the very outset of the revolution. In exposing the post-election crimes, you bravely stepped forward and did not sacrifice the truth for interest. You had previously been outspoken against the illegality of certain restrictions such as the Guardians Council’s vetting process, but these are not all the injustices that the revolution has brought about in Iran with the promise of making an ideal heaven on earth. You will be asked about the first decade of the revolution and about Imam Khomeini’s leadership and its different aspects. If you respond with candidness and liberty, certain supporters of the Movement will be discontented (the same who lack thought and are not yet able to break free from the chains of character idolisation and are still not able to practice self-criticism) and if you do not act fairly and take into account certain considerations and attempt to sanitise the discourse of Imam Khomeini and the events of the first decade of the revolution, it will be to the dismay of another wing of the Green Movement (this wing consists of at least two groups: a group that still holds past grudges and cannot see anything but the darkness of that era, and might not even put up with a fair recall of the good as well as the bad of those days, and another group which tries to be even-handed in favour of shedding light and moving towards breaking free from passing judgements). Moderation under such circumstances is quite difficult and can only be carried out by brave leaders. With this explanation, I’d like to ask how you assess the first decade of the revolution and Imam Khomeini’s leadership and to what extent do you see the Iran’s current problems as rooted in the political action and thinking of that era?

We must examine the problem and see which ones are rooted in the past and which ones have been created recently. The first decade of the revolution was a decade of resistance, sacrifice, etc. I think the serious problems that we are facing now, came about after the death of Imam Khomeini. For instance, the sessions of the Assembly of Experts was always held in the same location as the former Majlis. But following the death of Imam Khomeini and against previous norms, their sessions were held at a mosque. Or for instance, we saw that during the mid-term elections, the Guardians Council disqualified many political and religious figures in the name of the monitoring the election. The revolution which was founded by Imam Khomeini has been derailed from its path by a few people. After the death of Imam Khomeini the frauds began. During this recent presidential election—which was an appointment rather than a real election—an estimation of the votes had been determined prior to the election and the votes had been rationed in a rather interesting way.

Further study is needed in this regards.

In any case, many are critical of your views, what do you think are the most important common grounds between you and the generation which seems to have difference tastes, beliefs and even appearance from you, considering that they have all come together under the banner of the Movement and even feel close to you, a cleric?

Seeking justice, fulfilling citizen rights as well as dignity and greatness for Iran.

Thank you for your time

Iran Analysis: When Allies Co-ordinate (Mousavi & Karroubi)

As non-Iranian media were focusing on the public Tehran-Moscow dispute on Wednesday, Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi were ensuring that internal politics were not going away. Mousavi made his latest statement in a meeting with the youth and student branch of Karroubi's Etemade Melli party, and Karroubi was putting forth his views on the opposition website Rah-e-Sabz.

The statements were not the most dramatic of the post-election period. While Mousavi pointed to the "chaos" of the Government's mismanagement of the economy, neither he nor Karroubi focused on strident denunciations.

Iran Document: Karroubi “Aligning the Green Movement Inside and Outside Country”
Iran Document: Mousavi “On the Importance of Political Parties” (26 May)
The Latest from Iran (27 May): Cooperation and Feuds

Instead, these were tactical declarations. Mousavi's appeal was to support and work with reformist political parties and activists groups, and Karroubi's intent was to put a priority on the internal Iranian opposition, ensuring that Iranians abroad supported rather than led the movement.



Not exciting but important, especially in the run-up to 22 Khordad (12 June) and beyond that anniversary of the election. Many in the opposition believe that the "failure" of 22 Bahman (11 February), when the opposition could not mobilise a visible mass movement, was due largely to errors in tactics and organisation rather than lack of numbers.

So the significance is not just that Mousavi and Karroubi met this weekend to make the call for a march on 12 June and, if the Government refuses a permit for the rally, to find other means to express dissent. It is that, in their first statements after that meeting, they are trying to make the links for an effective show of opposition.

That is not an easy task. An EA reader shrewdly noted yesterday that Mousavi and Karroubi have to be careful about their alliance. When the two established a joint committee last autumn to investigate Government abuses, three of the four advisors they appointed were detained.

So the dance of protest has to be co-ordinated without being formally announced. Note the signal in Mousavi's Wednesday statement: it was made to Karroubi's people. And note that Karroubi's call for alignment of Iranian forces inside and outside the country was in an interview on a high-profile signpost for the opposition.

None of this means success, any more than it points to failure. What it does signify is that, 3 1/2 months after --- for some observers --- the opposition crumbled in Iran, the efforts not only to ensure it is present but that it is effective continue.

But it cannot be only Mousavi and Karroubi. So, alongside and beyond the statements, now to the harder task --- given the Government repression --- of watching the reformist parties, the student movement, the labour movement, the women's movement, the human rights organisations, those who fight against abuse and for justice....