US Politics: The Tea Party and the Dangers of a "Leader" (Haddigan)

Lee Haddigan draws a lessons from this week's primaries for the US Congress:

On Tuesday night Rand Paul, the son of Congressman and former Presidential candidate Ron Paul, won a stunning victory in the Republican Party's primary for a US Senate seat from the state of Kentucky. By Wednesday morning, there were mutterings in the US press that the win marked the emergence of a potential national leader for the Tea Party movement. And by Thursday Paul --- like his father, a staunch libertarian --- was the target of a Democratic-led campaign to discredit him and, by association, the Tea Party.

Paul’s experience, and the example of conservative leaders of the past, are a warning for the Tea Party not to unite behind one "leader".

Paul got into hot water on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show on Wednesday night (part 1 and part 2 of video)  when asked to explain comments he made to a Louisville, Kentucky paper last month. Paul had explained to the Courier-Journal why he would have opposed one of the ten provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, specifically the clause that allows the federal government to enforce anti-discrimination laws on private property.



Paul's position is based on libertarian principles. For most libertarians, private property rights override the rights of any government in all circumstances. Thus in this case, a restaurant owner has the right to serve, or not to serve, any customer.

In a series of interviews Thursday Paul was at pains to insist he is no racist and supported the nine provisions of the Act that enforced anti-discrimination regulations on public property. But, as Paul recognized in an appearance on the Laura Ingraham show, he had made “a poor political decision”. The Democratic National Committee immediately seized upon the mistake by sending out nearly 30 emails on Thursday to the media attacking Paul and, by association, the Tea Party.

Haven’t We Been Here Before?

In 1964, conservatives backed the Presidential candidacy of Barry Goldwater, a Republican Senator from Arizona. Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act and voted against it.

Like Paul, Goldwater was no racist, and he disagreed with the Act over the principle that anti-discrimination laws were a matter for the individual states to decide. But that principled stand/"poor political decision" allowed the Democrats to flesh out their portrayal of the Senator as the representative of "extremism" in America (The iconic image of that extremism, although it was not seen widely at the time, was the Democrats' commercial of a small girl and a daisy, which linked Goldwater to the use of nuclear weapons.)

For those who don’t know:  Goldwater lost by a landslide to Lyndon Johnson.

The conservative campaign that ended with the defeat of Goldwater shares many similarities with the current Tea Party movement. His candidacy was the result of several years of grassroots campaigning to get a President who supported free markets, less taxes, a limited Constitution, and the prevailing liberal orthodoxy (of both parties) in Washington.

Even the symbol of the tea bag is not new. In January 1959, Willis E. Stone reported in his column, "Organized Tax Protests", that a group in New Orleans, “headed by Kent Courtney, is using the Boston Tea Party theme in their tax protest, sending teabags with their protest to members of Congress and the State Legislatures”.

In the vanguard of that grassroots effort to see conservative values reestablished in government was the John Birch Society, led by Robert Welch. They disavowed any connection to the Republican Party and took no position on partisan issues. Their focus was to educate the public in the reasons why America needed “less government and more responsibility in which to create a better world.” The John Birch Society called for the election of politicians, Democrat or Republican, who believed in those principles. And their primary tactic was the mass mailing of letters and postcards (the ancestor of the Tea Party's faxes and e-mails) to politicians in Washington.

The relevance of the John Birch Society to the Tea Party? Both offer warnings about the dangers of becoming identified with a national leader. In March 1961, Time magazine revealed to the nation that Welch had claimed a few years earlier that President Eisenhower was “ia dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy”. It was a revelation (along with some falsehoods in the article) that crippled the effectiveness of the Birchers. It also helped establish the validity of Democrat depictions of conservatives as "paranoid" members of a "lunatic fringe".

(How the letter became public is another caution for Tea Partiers.Welch made his statement about Eisenhower in a private letter to several hundred individuals he wanted to contribute to the John Birch Society. Frederick C. Schwarz of the Christian Anti-Communist Crusade, nominally committed to the same principles as the Birchers, made a copy of Welch’s letter available to the press. Welch believed Schwarz did so from resentment at the popularity of the new organization, which continued donations to Schwarz’s Crusade.)

A last consequence of the controversy that erupted as a result of Welch’s indiscretion was the infighting it provoked within the conservative movement. Welch and his Society polarized Goldwater supporters. Many defended him, but many, notably William F. Buckley, attacked him.

Risks of mutating into a unified national organization are widespread within the Tea Party movement. Shelby Blakely, Executive Director of the New Patriot Journal, advised readers in February, "Tea Party Not Interested In Media Appointed Leaders" (especially if that leader was to be Sarah Palin). Blakely’s opposition to a national leader rests on the conviction that from the beginning, “Those opposed to tea party ideas have tried to bait our movement into becoming something they could destroy: a top-down group with a visible (and therefore reachable) leader to focus on.”

The example of Rand Paul –-- and Goldwater and Welch before him –-- suggest that Ms. Blakely was correct.

Iran Analysis: Four Perspectives on the Uranium-Sanctions Dance

Amidst the ongoing reaction on the uranium front, Dissected News offers a provocative reading, working through and around four partial viewpoints to argue:

The Obama administration was given the opportunity to eliminate the myths and start a new chapter in U.S. foreign policy. Instead, [the President] scrambled to defend the old policy.

Lack of change domestically [can] be blamed on predecessors or legislatures, but Obama owns his own foreign policy legacy.

Roger Cohen of The New York Times is even sharper in his criticism of Washington, calling for a negotiation between the caricatures of US-Iranian relations but concluding:

Last year, at the United Nations, Obama called for a new era of shared responsibilities. “Together we must build new coalitions that bridge old divides,” he declared. Turkey and Brazil responded — and got snubbed. Obama has just made his own enlightened words look empty.

EA's Ms Zahra offers a far different perspective:

The only language the Iranian system understands is power (zaban-e zoor). Accepting the Iran-Brazil-Turkey declaration as a first step would create another delay of several months. Rejecting it may appear as unwillingness to negotiate, but only from a very superficial perspective. The regime made this diversion on purpose, and Clinton replied, "Who do you think you're fooling?"

Well, let's see, if Tehran finally realises that it has crossed all red lines. If Turkey was really tacitly supported by the US, then it certainly was not for this mockup of treaty. I have the impression that [the Turkish and Brazilian leaders] Erdogan and Lula weren't able to push the Supreme Leader further.

Farideh Farhi, in a wide-ranging interview on the Iranian internal situation and US-Iranian relations, adds this incisive point:

It is very interesting to watch and see the different reactions to this nuclear agreement in the past few days and compare that to the kind of reaction that occurred when the previous agreement was announced last October. This time there is the sense to me that a very large sector of the Iranian elite are being called upon to support this deal. The kind of disagreement that manifested itself last time I do not see. There have been important voices that have objected to this deal, but, for example, 200 of the 290 members of the parliament say they support the agreement. And last year, for example, the Speaker of the Parliament Ali Larijani strongly opposed the deal. This time he told the
people to be united. Even some important individuals considered to be more reform-oriented have written editorials talking about these being very critical times for Iranian history. You get a real sense that a high-level decision has been made to push for an agreement and to try to resolve the nuclear issue.

Afghanistan & Pakistan Analysis: Obama on a Road to Ruin? (Englehardt)

Tom Englehardt writes for TomDispatch:

On stage, it would be farce.  In Afghanistan and Pakistan, it’s bound to play out as tragedy.

Less than two months ago, Barack Obama flew into Afghanistan for six hours -- essentially to read the riot act to Afghan President Hamid Karzai, whom his ambassador had only months before termed “not an adequate strategic partner.”  Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mike Mullen followed within a day to deliver his own “stern message.”

Afghanistan-Pakistan Revealed: America’s Private Spies

While still on Air Force One, National Security Adviser James Jones offered reporters a version of the tough talk Obama was bringing with him.  Karzai would later see one of Jones’s comments and find it insulting.  Brought to his attention as well would be a newspaper article that quoted an anonymous senior U.S. military official as saying of his half-brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, a reputedly corrupt powerbroker in the southern city of Kandahar: “I'd like him out of there... But there's nothing that we can do unless we can link him to the insurgency, then we can put him on the [target list] and capture and kill him."  This was tough talk indeed.


At the time, the media repeatedly pointed out that President Obama, unlike his predecessor, had consciously developed a standoffish relationship with Karzai.  Meanwhile, both named and anonymous officials regularly castigated the Afghan president in the press for stealing an election and running a hopelessly corrupt, inefficient government that had little power outside Kabul, the capital.  A previously planned Karzai visit to Washington was soon put on hold to emphasize the toughness of the new approach.

The administration was clearly intent on fighting a better version of the Afghan war with a new commander, a new plan of action, and a well-tamed Afghan president, a client head of state who would finally accept his lesser place in the greater scheme of things.  A little blunt talk, some necessary threats, and the big stick of American power and money were sure to do the trick.

Meanwhile, across the border in Pakistan, the administration was in an all-carrots mood when it came to the local military and civilian leadership --- billions of dollars of carrots, in fact.  Our top military and civilian officials had all but taken up residence in Islamabad.  By March, for instance, Admiral Mullen had already visited the country 15 times and U.S. dollars (and promises of more) were flowing in.  Meanwhile, U.S. Special Operations Forces were arriving in the country’s wild borderlands to train the Pakistani Frontier Corps and the skies were filling with CIA-directed unmanned aerial vehicles pounding those same borderlands, where the Pakistani Taliban, al-Qaeda, and other insurgent groups involved in the Afghan War were located.

In Pakistan, it was said, a crucial “strategic relationship” was being carefully cultivated.  As The New York Times reported, “In March, [the Obama administration] held a high-level strategic dialogue with Pakistan’s government, which officials said went a long way toward building up trust between the two sides.”  Trust indeed.

Skip ahead to mid-May and somehow, like so many stealthy insurgents, the carrots and sticks had crossed the poorly marked, porous border between Afghanistan and Pakistan heading in opposite directions.  Last week, Karzai was in Washington being given “the red carpet treatment” as part of what was termed an Obama administration “charm offensive” and a “four-day love fest.”

The president set aside a rare stretch of hours to entertain Karzai and the planeload of ministers he brought with him.  At a joint news conference, Obama insisted that “perceived tensions” between the two men had been “overstated.”  Specific orders went out from the White House to curb public criticism of the Afghan president and give him “more public respect” as “the chief U.S. partner in the war effort.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton assured Karzai of Washington’s long-term “commitment” to his country, as did Obama and Afghan War commander General Stanley McChrystal.  Praise was the order of the day.

John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, interrupted a financial reform debate to invite Karzai onto the Senate floor where he was mobbed by senators eager to shake his hand (an honor not bestowed on a head of state since 1967).  He was once again our man in Kabul.  It was a stunning turnaround: a president almost without power in his own country had somehow tamed the commander-in-chief of the globe’s lone superpower.

Meanwhile, Clinton, who had shepherded the Afghan president on a walk through a “private enclave” in Georgetown and hosted a “glittering reception” for him, appeared on CBS’s “60 Minutes” to flay Pakistan.  In the wake of an inept failed car bombing in Times Square, she had this stern message to send to the Pakistani leadership: "We want more, we expect more... We've made it very clear that if, heaven forbid, an attack like this that we can trace back to Pakistan were to have been successful, there would be very severe consequences."  Such consequences would evidently include a halt to the flow of U.S. aid to a country in economically disastrous shape.  She also accused at least some Pakistani officials of “practically harboring” Osama bin Laden.  So much for the carrots.

According to the Washington Post, General McChrystal delivered a “similar message” to the chief of staff of the Pakistani Army.  To back up Clinton’s public threats and McChrystal’s private ones, hordes of anonymous American military and civilian officials were ready to pepper reporters with leaks about the tough love that might now be in store for Pakistan.  The same Post story, for instance, spoke of “some officials...weighing in favor of a far more muscular and unilateral U.S. policy. It would include a geographically expanded use of drone missile attacks in Pakistan and pressure for a stronger U.S. military presence there.”

According to similar accounts, “more pointed” messages were heading for key Pakistanis and “new and stiff warnings” were being issued. Americans were said to be pushing for expanded Special Operations training programs in the Pakistani tribal areas and insisting that the Pakistani military launch a major campaign in North Waziristan, the heartland of various resistance groups including, possibly, al-Qaeda.  “The element of threat” was now in the air, according to Tariq Fatemi, a former Pakistani ambassador, while in press reports you could hear rumblings about an “internal debate” in Washington that might result in more American “boots on the ground.”

Helpless Escalation

In other words, in the space of two months the Obama administration had flip-flopped when it came to who exactly was to be pressured and who reassured.  A typically anonymous “former U.S. official who advises the administration on Afghan policy” caught the moment well in a comment to The Wall Street Journal.  “This whole bending over backwards to show Karzai the red carpet,” he told journalist Peter Spiegel, “is a result of not having had a concerted strategy for how to grapple with him."

On a larger scale, the flip-flop seemed to reflect tactical and strategic incoherence --- and not just in relation to Karzai.  To all appearances, when it comes to the administration's two South Asian wars, one open, one more hidden, Obama and his top officials are flailing around.  They are evidently trying whatever comes to mind in much the manner of the oil company BP as it repeatedly fails to cap a demolished oil well 5,000 feet under the waves in the Gulf of Mexico.  In a sense, when it comes to Washington’s ability to control the situation, Pakistan and Afghanistan might as well be 5,000 feet underwater.  Like BP, Obama’s officials, military and civilian, seem to be operating in the dark, using unmanned robotic vehicles.  And as in the Gulf, after each new failure, the destruction only spreads.

For all the policy reviews and shuttling officials, the surging troops, extra private contractors, and new bases, Obama’s wars are worsening.  Lacking is any coherent regional policy or semblance of real strategy -- counterinsurgency being only a method of fighting and a set of tactics for doing so.  In place of strategic coherence there is just one knee-jerk response: escalation.  As unexpected events grip the Obama administration by the throat, its officials increasingly act as if further escalation were their only choice, their fated choice.

This response is eerily familiar.  It permeated Washington’s mentality in the Vietnam War years.  In fact, one of the strangest aspects of that war was the way America’s leaders -- including President Lyndon Johnson -- felt increasingly helpless and hopeless even as they committed themselves to further steps up the ladder of escalation.

We don’t know what the main actors in Obama’s war are feeling.  We don’t have their private documents or their secret taped conversations.  Nonetheless, it should ring a bell when, as wars devolve, the only response Washington can imagine is further escalation.

Washington Boxed In

By just about every recent account, including new reports from the independent Government Accountability Office and the Pentagon, the U.S. mission in Afghanistan is going dreadfully, even as the Taliban insurgency gains potency and expands.  This spring, preparing for his first relatively minor U.S. offensive in Marja, a Taliban-controlled area of Helmand Province, General McChrystal confidently announced that, after the insurgents were dislodged, an Afghan “government in a box” would be rolled out. From a governing point of view, however, the offensive seems to have been a fiasco.  The Taliban is now reportedly re-infiltrating the area, while the governmental apparatus in that nation-building “box” has proven next to nonexistent, corrupt, and thoroughly incompetent.

Today, according to a report by the International Council on Security and Development (ICOS), the local population is far more hostile to the American effort.  According to the ICOS, “61% of Afghans interviewed feel more negative about NATO forces after Operation Moshtarak than they did before the February military offensive in Marja.”

As Alissa Rubin of The New York Times summed up the situation in Afghanistan more generally:

Even as American troops clear areas of militants, they find either no government to fill the vacuum, as in Marja, or entrenched power brokers, like President Karzai's brother in Kandahar, who monopolize NATO contracts and other development projects and are resented by large portions of the population. In still other places, government officials rarely show up at work and do little to help local people, and in most places the Afghan police are incapable of providing security. Corruption, big and small, remains an overwhelming complaint.

In other words, the U.S. really doesn’t have an “adequate partner”, and this is all the more striking since the Taliban is by no stretch of the imagination a particularly popular movement of national resistance.  As in Vietnam, a counterinsurgency war lacking a genuine governmental partner is an oxymoron, not to speak of a recipe for disaster.

Not surprisingly, doubts about General McChrystal’s war plan are reportedly spreading inside the Pentagon and in Washington, even before it’s been fully launched.  The major U.S. summer “operation” --- it’s no longer being labeled an “offensive” -- in the Kandahar region already shows signs of “faltering” and its unpopularity is rising among an increasingly resistant local population.  In addition, civilian deaths from U.S. and NATO actions are distinctly on the rise and widely unsettling to Afghans.  Meanwhile, military and police forces being trained in U.S./NATO mentoring programs considered crucial to Obama’s war plans are proving remarkably hapless.

McClatchy News, for example, recently reported that the new Afghan National Civil Order Police (ANCOP), a specially trained elite force brought into the Marja area and “touted as the country's best and brightest” is, according to “U.S. military strategists[,] plagued by the same problems as Afghanistan's conventional police, who are widely considered corrupt, ineffective and inept.”  Drug use and desertions in ANCOP have been rife.

And yet, it seems as if all that American officials can come up with, in response to the failed Times Square car bombing and the “news” that the bomber was supposedly trained in Waziristan by the Pakistani Taliban, is the demand that Pakistan allow “more of a boots-on-the-ground strategy” and more American trainers into the country.  Such additional U.S. forces would serve only “as advisers and trainers, not as combat forces.”  So the mantra now goes reassuringly, but given the history of the Vietnam War, it’s a cringe-worthy demand.

In the meantime, the Obama administration has officially widened its targeting in the CIA drone war in the Pakistani borderlands to include low-level, no-name militants.  It is also ratcheting up such attacks, deeply unpopular in a country where 64% of the inhabitants, according to a recent poll, already view the United States as an "enemy" and only 9% as a “partner.”

Since the Times Square incident, the CIA has specifically been striking North Waziristan, where the Pakistani army has as yet refrained from launching operations.  The U.S., as the Nation’s Jeremy Scahill reports, has also increased its support for the Pakistani Air Force, which will only add to the wars in the skies of that country.

All of this represents escalation of the “covert” U.S. war in Pakistan.  None of it offers particular hope of success.  All of it stokes enmity and undoubtedly encourages more “lone wolf” jihadis to lash out at the U.S.  It’s a formula for blowback, but not for victory.

BP-Style Pragmatism Goes to War

One thing can be said about the Bush administration: it had a grand strategic vision to go with its wars.  Its top officials were convinced that the American military, a force they saw as unparalleled on planet Earth, would be capable of unilaterally shock-and-awing America’s enemies in what they liked to call “the arc of instability” or “the Greater Middle East” (that is, the oil heartlands of the planet).  Its two wars would bring not just Afghanistan and Iraq, but Iran and Syria to their knees, leaving Washington to impose a Pax Americana on the Middle East and Central Asia (in the process of which groups like Hamas and Hezbollah would be subdued and anti-American jihadism ended).

They couldn’t, of course, have been more wrong, something quite apparent to the Obama team.  Now, however, we have a crew in Washington who seem to have no vision, great or small, when it comes to American foreign or imperial policy, and who seem, in fact, to lack any sense of strategy at all.  What they have is a set of increasingly discredited tactics and an approach that might pass for good old American see-what-works “pragmatism,” but these days might more aptly be labeled “BP-style pragmatism.”

The vision may be long gone, but the wars live on with their own inexorable momentum.  Add into the mix American domestic politics, which could discourage any president from changing course and de-escalating a war, and you have what looks like a fatal --- and fatally expensive --- brew.

We’ve moved from Bush’s visionary disasters to Obama’s flailing wars, while the people of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq continue to pay the price.  If only we could close the curtain on this strange mix of farce and tragedy, but evidently we’re still stuck in act four of a five-act nightmare.

Even as our Afghan and Pakistani wars are being sucked dry of whatever meaning might remain, the momentum is in only one direction -- toward escalation.  A thousand repetitions of an al-Qaeda-must-be-destroyed mantra won’t change that one bit.  More escalation, unfortunately, is yet to come.

Turkey Inside Line: It's Not Baykal in Video!; Kilicdaroglu Steps In; A UN "Well Done" to Turkey

It is Not Baykal: On Thursday, the National Criminal Bureau released the findings of their enquiry into a video clip allegedly showing the former leader of the Republican People’s Party (CHP), Deniz Baykal, having sex with a party deputy, Nesrin Baytok.

The representative of the Bureau, Uğur Kurtulan, said that the man in the clip is not Baykal and the woman is not Baytok. He added that the head of Baykal in the first part of the clip was produced through a montage and that the man in the second part is thinner and taller than the one in the first part.

Turkey Inside Line: Latest War between Government and Opposition; New Era in Turkish-Greek Relations

Baykal's lawyer said: "It is clear that a victimhood is constituted after a video clip in which even the colours of socks and ties do not match. What is the aim of the person who released it? The duty of the government is to investigate who, with which purpose and why wanted to end Mr Baykal's political life in Turkey."


Kilicdaroglu as the Strongest Candidate: Obtaining overwhelming support from Republican People’s Party provincial chairpersons Tuesday, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu announced his candidacy for CHP leader at the party conference on 22-23 May. However, Kılıçdaroğlu said he wants to see the former head Deniz Baykal as honorary leader. He also added that if the circumstances permitted, he wanted to see Baykal as the president of Turkey.

Baykal refused the offer of honorary leader since it is Kemal Ataturk who formed the party.Speaking to the media after the meeting Baykal, acting CHP leader Cevdet Selvi said: “Baykal seemed dynamic and in high spirits. However, he was angry with his fate.” Selvi also said Baykal had no problem with the candidacy of Kılıçdaroğlu.

Kilicdaroglu, in an interview with Milliyet, said Wednesday he would work closely with the poor if elected as the new party leader. He would support youth and those who produce, invest and create employment opportunities.

According to a poll conducted by A&G Public Opinion in 39 provinces and districts, CHP’s share of a national vote would reach 32.3 percent if Kılıçdaroğlu took the leadership. If Deniz Baykal returned, the votes would go down to 18.6 percent, and another leader appointed by Baykal would return 21.7 percent.

Turkish Military Shows Flexibility: Following a series of agreements between Athens and Ankara, Chief of General Staff Gen. İlker Başbuğ told reporters Wednesday that he has proposed stopping flights of armed jets over the Aegean to his Greek counterpart in a move to end potential unwanted incidents. The response he received was, “I will consider this.”

A "Well Done" to Turkey: On Wednesday, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon praised Turkey’s efforts in the Cyprus talks, the uranium swap deal signed in Tehran, the Somalia conference in Istanbul, the mediation role in the Middle East, the EU membership process, indirect talks between Syria and Israel, Alliance of Civilizations initiative,and rapprochement between Turkey and Armenia.

Ban added that he hoped Cypriot leaders would meet soon to continue the talks. "As I understand, they will meet at the end of this month." He continued:

I have extended strong support to negotiations, and I continue to do so. More than 70 talks have taken place between the two leaders in the past 18 months. This is an extremely positive development.

The Latest from Iran (20 May): Back to Business

1955 GMT: Former Vice President Abtahi Attacked? Reformist and Green sites are circulating the claim of Mohammad Ali Abtahi, Vice President during the Khatami Government, that he was attacked by plainclothes militia today as he was attending a memorial service in the south of Tehran.

Abtahi wrote on his Facebook page that a vehicle suddenly blocked the route of his car, and he was attacked by motorcyclists with knives, cables, and tear gas. He reported, “I can say that I left the area with the broken glass and tear gas in a miraculous way. It was a very violent attage. No one came to help. They were very confident and dreaded nothing”.

Abtahi, who was detained for months after the June election and reportedly forced to make a public "confession", has published photos of the incident.

Iran Document: Simin Behbahani’s Poem for the Executed
Iran Videos: Former Diplomat Heidari Reveals the Regime
Iran’s Uranium: Why Can’t the US Take Yes for an Answer? (Parsi)
Iran’s Uranium: Washington “Can’t Afford to Look Ridiculous”, Makes Ridiculous Move (Emery)
Iran’s Uranium: US Shows a Middle Finger to Tehran…and Turkey and Brazil and… (Gary Sick)
Iran Document: Iranian Labour Unions “This is Not 1979″
The Latest from Iran (19 May): Fallout

1610 GMT: Film Corner. While two directors (Jafar Panahi and Mohammad Nourizad) are on hunger strike in Evin Prison, the film-meets-reality story of actress Kiana Firouz --- which EA featured on Tuesday --- continues:

A young Iranian actress named Kiana Firouz will attend the London premiere tonight of a film in which she plays a lesbian seeking asylum in Britain because the Iranian authorities are pursuing her. The Home Office rejects her application and sends her back to the Islamic republic, where homosexuality is a crime punishable by death.


Unfortunately for Kiana Firouz the film is not make-believe. It is based on her life. The Home Office has denied her asylum and she now faces the prospect of deportation to Iran followed by flogging, execution or both.

1400 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Kalemeh claims that journalist and filmmaker Mohammad Nourizad has been severely beaten by guards at Evin Prison. According to the website, Nourizad was taken from his cell by five security personnel and has suffered concussion and vision problems. He has now started a complete hunger strike in protest.

Nourizad was detained for writing letters to the Supreme Leader and the head of the judiciary, Sadegh Larijani, criticizing their approach to the post-election confrontation of protesters. He has been sentenced to 3 1/2 years in prison and 50 lashes.

1230 GMT: Larijani Takes a Side. Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani has declared that the response of the US and "Western" countries to the Iran-Brazil-Turkey agreement "proved that they are not sincere in the [discussion of] a fuel swap" over Iran's uranium stocks.

The significance of the statement is more internal than external: some Larijani allies, like Ahmad Tavakoli, had criticised the Ahmadinejad Government for agreeing to let Iran's uranium go outside the country. The Western response allows Larijani to focus on the perfidy of foreigners rather than engaging in that internal debate.

1220 GMT: The Executions. We've posted a poem by Simin Behbahani for the five Iranians executed on 9 May.

0915 GMT: Not Kahrizak. Alireza Avaee, the Chief Officer for the Ministry of Justice, has announced that a "new" and "good" prison has opened near the Kahrizak facility, infamous for post-election abuses and killing of detainees.

0855 GMT: The Detained US Trio. Press TV is carrying the "breaking news" that the mothers of three detained US nationals, arrested when they walked across the Iran-Iraq border last summer, have met their children in a hotel in north Tehran.

0845 GMT: Beating the Oil Squeeze? An article in The Wall Street Journal claims that tankers of both Royal Dutch Shell and France's Total, who claim to have restricted activities in Iran, are secretly shipping Iranian oil.

0835 GMT: Today's All is Well Statement. Minister of Intelligence Heydar Moslehi puts out the assurance that security forces have managed to quell post-election disturbances: “Sedition has been brought to an end by suppression.”

Moslehi's accuracy in reporting may be judged by his subsequent statement that he had not been informed of the story that the head of Mir-Hossein Mousavi’s security had been arrested. And his political line may be ascertained by his insistence that an arrest warrant had been issued for Mehdi Hashemi, the son of Hashemi Rafsanjani, who will be detained upon entry into Iran.

0830 GMT: Clerical Warning. The "conservative" Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi has put out another unsubtle message for the Government and possibly the clerical regime: "if we have no mercy for the people, God will inflict political, cultural and social evils upon us".

0715 GMT: Corruption Watch. First Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi, who has been under pressure over alleged fraud and mismanagement, has issued a threat: the use of Government funds by some newspapers and websites must be stopped.

0710 GMT: Uranium Deal --- The Discussion Within. Member of Parliament Elias Naderan, who has led the campaign against the Ahmadinejad Government over "corruption", has given his support to Monday's Iran-Brazil-Turkey agreement. Naderan said, "A positive outcome would be paving the way for the cooperation of Iran and IAEA which makes the international situation a win-win scene for the Islamic Republic. It means that the deal both provides the necessary security and guarantees our rights in nuclear fuel swap, and provides the ground for international economic cooperation which has been blocked by the sanctions imposed."

0705 GMT: Sanctions. The New York Times is featuring briefings from American and European officials that a "passing" reference in the sanctions resolution, introduced to the UN Security Council on Tuesday, gives a legal basis in the future for choking off financial transactions between Iran and banking centers in Europe and elsewhere.

However, to get Russia and China to even accept the introduction of the resolution, the US had to give up any specific reference to Iran's central bank. Instead the American and European officials are saying that there will be a call for "extreme vigilance" in dealing with Bank Melli.

0700 GMT: A New Campaign and a Suggestion. Rah-e-Sabz reports that Green supporters have founded the "National Campaign of Mousavi's and Rahnavard's Children".

Ebrahim Nabavi, warning of rising pressure on the Green Movement, calls for the spread of information to the people, from outside and inside Iran and especially via the Internet.

0530 GMT: With just over three weeks before the anniversary of the 2009 Presidential election, a good time to let others fuss over sanctions and Tehran's uranium enrichment and to look inside Iran....

Reviewing the Election

Dissected News carried out a detailed dissection of the "official" Presidential results and of the political context before, around, and beyond them. It concludes:

Within even a few days of the election, the Green Movement had become bigger than the June election; it had become a referendum on the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic itself, and the place in the world occupied by the educated Iranian youth. It had become about human rights, freedom of speech, the rights of women, and establishing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for a 21st century Iran.

And no rigging of an election can stop that.

And For This Year....


United for Iran carries the news that almost 40 cities have already scheduled events to mark 12 June (22 Khordad) and its significance for rights and justice.

Political Prisoner Watch

Alireza Ezzabad, a student at Allameh Tabatabei University, has been sentenced to one year and 74 lashes for participation in demonstrations.