Iran Analysis: The Economic Squeeze and the Real Sanctions Story (Colvin)

Ross Colvin writes for Reuters:

The Obama administration is waging a largely behind-the-scenes campaign to convince foreign companies that it is becoming too politically risky for them to do business with an increasingly isolated Iran.

On the world stage, the United States and its allies are aggressively pushing for new sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program. Out of the public eye, it has dispatched a top U.S. Treasury official to foreign capitals to talk to governments, financial regulators, banks and business leaders.

The Latest from Iran (14 May): The Meaning of the Strike?

Stuart Levey, the under secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, is armed with U.S. intelligence on how Iran's powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is controlling a growing swath of Iran's economy and is setting up front companies to try to evade sanctions.


His mission is part of a multi-pronged U.S. effort to tighten the screws on Iran, running parallel to the drive for fresh U.N. sanctions.

Levey, a silver-haired former white-collar criminal lawyer appointed in 2004, has been successful in persuading foreign banks to cut ties with Iran. Now, he is widening his focus to include service providers, insurers and manufacturers.

"We view the business community as an ally and we talk to them in that sense. We have information regarding Iranian illicit conduct that they might not have, and we provide them with the advantage of our viewpoint so they can better assess their own risks," Levey told Reuters in an interview.

Since March a spate of foreign companies have announced plans to cut, suspend or curb ties with Iran, including oil majors Eni, LUKOIL and Royal Dutch Shell, Indian refiner Reliance Industries, U.S. construction and mining equipment maker Caterpillar and luxury German carmarker Daimler.

Accounting giants KPMG, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, and Ernst & Young have also declared themselves free of any business ties to Iran.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office on Wednesday identified seven foreign companies involved in Iran's energy sector between 2005 and 2009 that had received U.S. government contracts. It had not probed whether any laws had been broken in their dealings with Iran.

ASSESSING THE IMPACT

"There is a tide setting in against doing trade with Iran and it is just becoming more difficult for everyone involved," said Philip Roche, London-based partner in the shipping disputes and risk management team with law firm Norton Rose.

It is hard to assess the economic impact of companies cutting their exposure. Experts say it depends on the type of business, but U.S. officials say the collective action is significant.

"As a result of our efforts to impose additional multilateral sanctions on Iran, as well as Iran's own defiance, international companies are increasingly coming to the correct conclusion that the risks of doing business with Iran are high and have announced that they are withdrawing from Iran," White House National Security Council spokesman Mike Hammer said.

The U.S. government claims no direct credit for the rash of company announcements, but a German equities analyst said he believed the decision by German engineering conglomerate Siemens in January not to accept further orders from Iran was at least partly due to government pressure.

Levey, however, portrays himself as a messenger and takes issue with any suggestion that companies have been pressured into doing Washington's bidding through threats of punitive action.

"Some people think it's a better storyline to say we twist people's arms. But we don't," he said.

"One of the things that is changing is a growing awareness of the role that the IRGC is playing in the Iranian economy."

Businesses, however, will also be mindful of the huge settlements that Britain's Lloyds TSB Bank and Switzerland's Credit Suisse agreed to in December after facing charges of violating U.S. laws on doing business with countries like Iran.

COMPETITORS CAN MOVE IN

The decision by companies such as Caterpillar to instruct non-U.S. subsidiaries not to sell goods to Iran will have a limited impact. As Caterpillar has pointed out, it cannot stop its products from being sold on in the secondary market.

Competitors can also move in to fill the vacuum left by the companies, said Fariborz Ghadar, an Iran expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

Ghadar said the decision by major oil companies to cut ties, however, was devastating. While Iran has the world's third-biggest oil reserves, it desperately needs foreign investment in its energy sector to improve refining capacity.

Levey is not the only one talking to business.

New York advocacy group United Against Nuclear Iran, which keeps a database of companies doing businesses with Iran, has waged a letter-writing campaign urging them to cut their ties.

"If we have 10, 15, 20 of these multinational companies pull out of Iran it will force that economy into the red zone," said the group's president Mark Wallace, a former ambassador under President George W. Bush.
Analysts warn that putting too much pressure on the Iranian economy could backfire, giving President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a scapegoat for Iran's current economic ills.
"The broad goal is not to completely squelch all Iranian business activity," Levey countered. "My job is to design measures that will have the desired impact on the government of Iran and minimize the impact on the average Iranian citizen."
But, he added: "It's hard to get it surgically precise."

Afghanistan: Obama & Karzai Split Over Talks with Taliban? (Porter)

Gareth Porter evaluates Hamid Karzai's visit to Washington for Inter Press Service:

U.S. President Barack Obama and Afghan President Hamid Karzai sought to portray a united front on the issue of a political settlement with the Taliban in their joint press conference Wednesday. But their comments underlined the deep rift that divides Karzai and the United States over the issue.

Karzai obtained Obama's approval for the peace jirga scheduled for later this month --- an event the Obama administration had earlier regarded with grave doubt because of Karzai's ostensible invitation to the Taliban to participate.

Afghanistan Analysis: Karzai 2, Obama 1 (Cole)

On the broader question of reconciliation, however, Obama was clearly warning Karzai not to pursue direct talks with the Taliban leadership, at least until well into 2011.


Karzai played down the Taliban role in a peace jirga, saying that it was the "thousands of Taliban who are not against Afghanistan, or against the Afghan people... who are not against America either..." who would be addressed at the conference.

But he also acknowledged that the jirga would discuss how to approach at least some in the Taliban leadership about peace talks.

Karzai said, "Those within the Taliban leadership structure who, again, are not part of al Qaeda or the terrorist networks, or ideologically against Afghanistan's progress and rights and constitution, democracy, the place of women in the Afghan society, the progress that they've made... are welcome."

The "peace consultative jirga", he said, would be "consulting the Afghan people, taking their advice on how and through which means and which speed should the Afghan government proceed in the quest for peace".

Karzai thus made it clear that he would be taking his cues on peace talks with the Taliban from popular sentiment rather than from Washington.

That could not have been a welcome message to the Obama administration, because of Karzai's well-known pattern of catering to views of the Pashtun population, which are overwhelmingly favourable to peace talks with the Taliban.

Obama endorsed the peace jirga, but he limited U.S. support to "reintegration of those [Taliban] individuals into Afghan society".

Obama pointedly referred to what had evidently been a contentious issue in their private meeting --- his insistence that moves toward reconciliation with the Taliban should not go forward until after the U.S. military has carried out Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal's counterinsurgency plan for southern Afghanistan.

"One of the things I emphasised to President Karzai," said Obama, adding "however", to indicate that it was a matter of disagreement, "is that the incentives for the Taliban to lay down arms, or at least portions of the Taliban to lay down arms, and make peace with the Afghan government in part depends on our effectiveness in breaking their momentum militarily."

Obama asserted that "the timing" of the reconciliation process was linked to U.S. military success, because that success would determine when the Taliban "start making different calculations about what's in their interests".

Neither Obama nor Karzai gave any hint that the Afghan president had agreed with that point. Karzai openly sided with tribal elders in Kandahar who were vocally opposed to the U.S. military occupation of Kandahar City and surrounding districts at a large shura Apr. 4.

An administration official who is familiar with the Obama-Karzai meeting confirmed to IPS Thursday that the differences between the two over the issue of peace talks remained, but that the administration regards it as positive that Karzai was at least consulting with Obama on his thinking.

Before the Karzai-Obama meeting, the official said, "A lot of people were jumping to the conclusion that [Karzai and the Taliban] are talking about deals. Now he is talking to us before making any back room deals."

Read rest of article....

UPDATED Iran Special: Executions, Politics, and the Attack on Nazila Fathi and The New York Times

UPDATE 14 MAY, 0640 GMT: The authors of Race for Iran have posted an attempted rebuttal of this column. As it is largely a misrepresentation of my analysis and a continuing assault on Nazila Fathi, I will not post a detailed response. There is no value in continued conversation with or even recognition of those who are void of information and deaf on ethics and morality.

I will note, however, how the authors met this challenge that I set on Wednesday: "1. Make their own critique of the material surrounding this case of the 5 executed Iranians and present that critique; 2. Alternatively, acknowledge that they have no concern with human rights, justice, and fairness within the Iranian system; 3. If they do so, disclaim any ability to assess the legitimacy of the Iranian Government since they are not concerned with issues — human rights, justice, fairness — which may affect the legitimacy of that Government in the eyes of the Iranian people."

The authors make no attempt to meet the first test, but they do tacitly accwept the second and third challenges: "[Race for Iran] is not focused on human rights; it is focused on Iran and its geopolitics."

UPDATE 14 MAY, 0630 GMT: The Iranian newspaper Kayhan has portrayed Sunday’s executions of “terrorists” as a test of “leaders of recent plots”. However, it regrets that those leaders refuse to “retreat” and “repent”.” (see today's updates).

I look forward to Race for Iran's denunciation of Kayhan, given its linkage of the executions and Government pressure on opposition leaders, for its "pro-Green bias".

The Latest from Iran (14 May): The Meaning of the Strike?

---
Let us assume, as their defenders claim, that the recent attack by the authors of Race on Iran on the reporting of Nazila Fathi was motivated solely by a concern over misleading journalism, with unsubstantiated links and unsupported claims. Let us assume that there was no wider motive of wiping away objections so "official justifications" for the execution of five Iranians could remain standing or of discrediting any attempt --- by labelling any critique as "pro-Green" --- to consider the legal and political context of the executions.


Let us assume that --- in contrast to the authors' claim of The New York Times' "agenda-driven, threat-hyping approach" and Fathi's "misleading reporting driven by an inflammatory agenda" --- Race for Iran has no agenda and no wish to hype any Government or institution.

Let us consider Race for Iran's narrow allegations:

1. Fathi has no basis for the link in the following paragraph:

"The Iranian government hanged five Kurdish activists, including a woman, on Sunday morning in the Evin prison in Tehran in what appeared to be an effort to intimidate protesters from marking the anniversary of last year’s huge anti-government rallies after the June 12 election."

The background to Fathi's story is that, two weeks before anticipated demonstrations on 22 Bahman (11 February), Mohammad Reza Ali Zamani and Arash Rahmanipour were executed. Many activists at the time saw this as an effort to intimidate the opposition, for Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, the head of the Guardian Council, had stated in Friday Prayers:

God ordered the prophet Muhammad to brutally slay hypocrites and ill-intentioned people who stuck to their convictions. Koran insistently orders such deaths. May God not forgive anyone showing leniency toward the corrupt on earth.

Fathi does not cite this background. Instead, she cites Hadi Ghaemi of the International Committee for Human Rights in Iran, who no doubt is aware of this background when he stated, “The executions show that this government resorts to any kind of terror and violence to put down any challenge to its authority.”

Now Race for Iran could have done its own research. They could have considered the background, they could have checked out not only ICHRI's release on the executions but their significant collection of material on cases leading up to those executing and considering Ghaemi's claim of numerous sources amongst "Iranian civil society analysts and activists", they could have even taken a look at the case, dating back to detentions in 2006.

They do none of this. They have no sources beyond the reference to "official justifications" (without actually considering those justifications). They have no context --- political or legal --- for their case.

(Consider how this failure to provide any information beyond the attack on Fathi undermines Race for Iran's limited analysis: "The New York-based human rights activist opines that [the hangings] could lay the ground for the execution of post-election protesters'. But, Ms. Fathi herself reports that the five people executed on Sunday were sentenced in 2008—well before the June 12, 2009 presidential election."

The salient point is that, having been detained for 2-4 years, the five prisoners were suddenly rushed on Saturday night towards execution with no legal process and no notice to lawyers or families. Thus, the question, "Why Now?" The possible --- possible, not confirmed --- answer is that there was a political motive, in the context of current and forthcoming events and developments, for public executions.)

However, that is immaterial for the authors, for they have a wider aim beyond any detailed examination of the case: "Ms. Fathi seems to have been intent on using the story of Sunday’s executions to 'keep hope alive' for a revival of the moribund Green Movement".

Now the authors, who have loudly criticised Fathi's unsubstantiated claims, have no evidence for their own. They have no confirmation of Fathi's political views. They have no evidence of her connections to the Green Movement. They have no proof that the story is being disseminated amongst Iranian activists, inside and outside the country, to whip up demonstrations on 12 June.

But proof, let alone journalistic enquiry or analytic rigour, is not their aim. Instead, they wish to establish guilt by assertion: Fathi and The New York Times have a "pro-Green political agenda".

Which means, of course, that the authors can dismiss any article in The New York Times which they do not like --- without having to resort to evidence or context or analysis --- as politically biased.

(Declaration: I write this wearing the badge, when I have been named by Race for Iran, not of professor, academic, or journalist but of "Green Movement partisan".)

2. Fathi is guilty of significant omission when she calls the Kurdish separatist movement PJAK an "armed Kurdish rebel group" and does not mention that it was designated as a terrorist organisation by the US Government in 2009.

Point taken. But if we are going to talk journalism and omissions, consider this omission from Race for Iran's critique.

Here is how the authors deal with the perhaps significant point that the four defendants accused of PJAK membership (the fifth was accused of connections with a monarchist group): "Ms. Fathi...notes that all five denied the charges of which they were convicted “in public letters posted on Web sites'. (She links to the website of the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran to document this claim, but the link takes a reader to a page briefly describing such a letter from only one of the five prisoners.)"

Now the authors could have examined this. They could easily have found letters from at least three of the defendants. They could have cited the testimony of the lawyer for three of the defendants because it was in the ICHRI document that they mention. They could have considered reports on the case by Fereshteh Ghazi, Rooz Online, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Human Rights Activists News Agency, Rah-e-Sabz, Kalemeh, and other outlets.

They did not none of this because, in my opinion, the fundamental issue of whether the defendants were actually members of PJAK was at best tangential to them. Instead, they want to dismantle the (pro-Green) "preferred narrative" with the possibility that "individuals convicted of terrorist crimes in Iran are members of a group that the U.S. government has designated as a terrorist organization".

So, yes, Fathi could have mentioned that PJAK is proscribed as "terrorist" by the US Government. What Race for Iran wants, however, is much more: they want that to be the dominant statement, not just part of the context. The real question here is not of omission but of priority --- does one, in reporting and analysis, privilege the political issue raised by Race for Iran or the legal and human rights issue raised by the PJAK claim in the trials and executions?

----

Nazila Fathi is not immune from criticism. No journalist should be. On occasion EA has challenged her reporting in these post-election months.

Nor should an author, simply because he/she takes a political position, be denied the legitimacy of critiquing a report. Race for Iran has its opinions;I have mine.

However, when that criticism is made, it should be done fairly, not only through a judicious reading of the journalism but by bringing other evidence and context to the table. In this case, Fathi's original article and analysis is based on two named sources, citation of an opposition website, and background material based on a range of unnamed sources.

Race for Iran's response is based on "official justifications" and precisely 0 sources, named or unnamed.

(Race for Iran has offered no comment on Fathi's follow-up article this week, considering the treatment of the families of the executed and the refusal to release the bodies of the prisoners, and its analysis, "The government’s refusal to hand over the bodies to the families appears to stem from a fear of antigovernment demonstrations during burial ceremonies in Kurdish areas.")

And when that criticism is made, it is not enough to deride the supposed "agenda" of one's target. One's own agenda and sources should be declared. If the authors of Race for Iran wish to turn Fathi's sources into her supposed membership of the Green Movement, then let us know the sources behind Race for Iran's commentary.  If the authors want to dismiss Fathi and The New York Times as "pro-Green", then --- in the context of this attack --- let us see the declaration that the authors are "pro-Iran Government", having defended the legitimacy of that Government since the June 2009 elections. Let us see the authors' declaration that, by tearing down Fathi and The New York Times, they may be bolstering the supposed legitimacy --- which has been questioned on issues such as justice, human rights, and fairness --- of that Government.

A final point: Race for Iran's last assault is to link Fathi to The New York Times' reporting, notably by Michael Gordon and Judith Miller, in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq War. I presume that is to make the connection that, as The Times prepared a false rationale for the invasion of Iraq, so its reporters with their "pro-Green" agenda are preparing a false rationale for the attempt to topple the Iranian Government.

Nazila Fathi is not Judith Miller. She did not report from Washington or New York in 2009; she reported from Tehran. She did so, even as journalists were being monitored, pressured, and in many cases detained (coincidentally, Maziar Bahari, detained from June to October 2009, wrote a powerful comment on the executions this week; Race for Iran seems to have missed this further example of "pro-Green" journalism). Fathi, as the post-election conflict, violence, and arrests escalated, continued to put out her reports. Finally, in summer 2009, she had to leave Iran.

This week, as other major "Western" outlets ignored the executions, simply repeated the account given by the Islamic Republic News Agency, or made glaring errors ("five demonstrators were killed"), Fathi considered the story in two articles.

Nazila Fathi is not Judith Miller. Her sources are not Ahmad Chalabi. And Iran 2009-2010, contrary to Race for Iran's attempted link, is not Iraq 2001-2003.

Iran 2009-2010 is Iran 2009-2010. And, rather than attacking any journalist who reports on Iran 2009-2010, simply because they do not like the news or the interpretation, it is high time that the authors of Race for Iran pursued journalism in addition to their political mission.

The Latest from Iran (13 May): Justice, Legitimacy, and a Strike in Kurdistan

2015 GMT: Kurdistan. ADN Kronos summarises, "Many shops, markets and public offices were closed in Kurdistan's main cities of Sanandaj, Saqqez, Kamiaran and Marivan. Most school and university students stayed away from school, according to the CyrusNews opposition website.

In Kamiaran, protesters gathered outside the home of Farzad Kamangar, one of five political prisoners executed on Sunday in Tehran's Evin prison."

2000 GMT: Iran and Iraq Troops Clash. From Agence France Presse:

Iraqi border guards exchanged fire with Iranian troops along the two countries' border on Thursday....

An Iraqi officer was captured by the Islamic Republic's forces in the 90-minute gunfight on the border with Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region, which was apparently sparked when Iranian troops mistook Iraqi soldiers for a Kurdish rebel group.

"Iranian forces thought that the border guards belonged to PJAK (the Party of Free Life of Kurdistan -- an Iranian Kurdish rebel group) and started to open fire," Brigadier General Ahmed Gharib Diskara, the head of Iraq's border guards in Sulaimaniyah province, told reporters.

"The border guards shot back and one officer of the Iraqi army has been captured. Negotiations are ongoing to free him."

NEW Latest Iran Video: Strike in Kurdistan (13 May)
NEW Iran Special: Executions, Politics, and the Attack on Nazila Fathi and The New York Times
NEW Iran Transcript: Mousavi “Do Iranian Mothers Have Rights?” (12 May)
NEW Iran Document: A Letter from Majid Tavakoli About the Executed (11 May)
Iran Update: The Aftermath of the Executions
Iran Document: Maziar Bahari’s Response to His 13-Year (and 74-Lash) Sentence
Iran Special: A Renewal of Protest for 12 June?
The Latest from Iran (12 May): Defending the Indefencible

1945 GMT: Kurdistan. Report --- Ajlal Aghvami, the spokesman of the Kurdistan Human Rights Organization, has been arrested in Sanandaj.


1540 GMT: Last Words from the Executed? Peyke Iran has posted what it claims is the last statement of Mehdi Eslamian, executed on Sunday, and footage from inside Gohardahst Prison in Karaj.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rv92USld_rY&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

1535 GMT: Investigation Complete? Mohammad Hassan Abutorabi-Fard, the Deputy Speaker of Parliament, has claimed that a report has been completed on last June's attack on Tehran University dormitories. Reformist members of Parliament had claimed that the supposed enquiry into the events had been set aside.

1525 GMT: Meanwhile...Where's Mahmoud? Khabar Online has pictures of President Ahmadinejad's visit to Yasuj in southwestern Iran, including a poster, "Sir, where is the gas you promised to the village of Kalous?"

And the President's message? "Be sure, Iran's next government will be 10 times more revolutionary....People all over the world, even USA and Europe, are disappointed by their leaders:their only hope is Iran! We should prepare the world for the arrival of the Mahdi."
1515 GMT: Kurdistan (Containing the Students). In addition to the 15 Kurdish student activists reportedly arrested in Marivan (five names have been published), Peyke Iran claims seven Kurdish students have been summoned to Evin court.

1500 GMT: The Kurdistan Strike. We are now featuring videos apparently showing widespread closure of shops and empty streets in cities in Iranian Kurdistan.

The strike was called for by the Kurdish Communist Party, the Democratic Party of Kurdistan, and Komeleh, including its Socialist branch.

BBC Persian have now posted a brief item on the events.

1455 GMT: A Rights-First Approach. Writing in The Washington Post, Roxana Saberi, who was detained in Iran from late January until early April 2009, begins with this story:

I received an e-mail from a human rights campaigner in Tehran who knew one of them, asking me to spread the word about the hangings. "We are truly helpless," she wrote, "and we feel lost."

Saberi argues:

As the international community focuses on Iran's nuclear program, it should also make human rights a first-tier issue. When the U.N. Human Rights Council meets in Geneva next month, Washington and the European Union should lead calls for a resolution setting up a mechanism to investigate human rights atrocities in Iran during the past year. A bigger push should be made to send a U.N. special envoy on human rights to Iran and to aid Iranians, including the many journalists forced to flee their country out of fear of persecution.

But perhaps even more important than government efforts is the outcry of ordinary people worldwide. When everyday citizens speak out against Iran's human rights violations, Tehran has a tougher time asserting that their calls have been masterminded by foreign governments.

1045 GMT: Kurdistan. An EA correspondent writes:

The point worth noting is the discipline and strong support evidently commanded by the Democratic Party within the population. The appeal for the strike was made over Kurdish satellite TV, and in contrast to the response of Iranian counterparts to calls for national strikes, the people of Sanandaj were immediately receptive. The photos have prompted congratulatory messages from people in Tehran, who commented on the efficacy of strike action in Iranian Kurdistan, as opposed to getting anything done elsewhere in the country.

1040 GMT: The Oil Squeeze. Financial Times Deutschland reports that Iran is having problems finding buyers for its oil, with supplies sitting on tankers.

1035 GMT: Kurdistan. Peyke Iran is claiming a heavy security presence and authorities' pressure on shopkeepers to reopen their shops in Sanandaj. The website claims that
two protesters were shot and injured in Sanandaj and that there have been clashes. Most Kurdish pupils and students reportedly did not show up at classes today.

1020 GMT: Streets are reportedly deserted in Sanandaj, Iranian Kurdistan's largest city.


1000 GMT: The Strike in Kurdistan. For three days, I have been following Internet chatter that there would be a general strike in Iranian Kurdistan, protesting the executions. However, as I could not hard evidence, apart from a statement from a Kurdish Communist Party (apologies to readers if I missed information), I held back on reporting.

Now, however, photos have emerged indicating that some shops are closed today. There are also claimed photos of clashes; we are trying to confirm.





0945 GMT: Apologies for limited updates. I have been occupied with writing an analysis, "Executions, Politics, and the Attack on Nazila Fathi and The New York Times".


0700 GMT: The Executions --- The Official Account. Yesterday we posted, without comment or criticism, Fars News' "further update" on Sunday's execution of five Iranians. This was based on the official statement of the public relations office of Tehran’s General and Revolutionary Public Prosecutor’s Office.

Having allowed time for readers to consider that account, we now have the queries of an EA correspondent over the failure to establish a justification for the executions, offer a credible defense that due process was indeed followed, or explain the timing:

1. Only four of the five are identified as members of the Kurdish separatist movement PJAK. One defendant was executed for a bombing in Shiraz although no claim is made that he was involved in the bombing and no evidence is offered that he knew about the intent to bomb before the operation. It is stated, based on the accused's confession, that he learned about the bombing after he became suspicious of a friend and persuaded that friend to admit that he was involved in the bombing. He then helped the friend flee.

2. The cases of two of the executed were never sent to the Supreme Court for final decision. The executions were performed with mere confirmation of the Appeals Court.

3. The Supreme Court decision to confirm the execution order of the other three was apparently rendered on 1 March 2009 after an Appeals Court decision that was rendered in February 2008. The delay in executions until May 2010 is not explained.

4. The evidence given in the statement regarding the PJAK membership of four accused is at best circumstantial.

The evidence given for Farzad Kamangar's membership in PJAK is that his brother was active in "party activities" in Sulaymanieh and has a "conviction record" for involvement with the PKK, the Kurdish movement active across Iran, Iran, and Iraq. The statement does not say if the record is in Iran, Iraq, or Turkey and does not explain why this blood relationship is significant in relation to alleged crimes.

The other evidence given for Kamangar's membership are the words of the other two executed men --- one of whom himself is alleged to be PJAK because of a coded note and PJAK booklet found in his house --- that they knew Kamangar, lived in the same neighborhood, and forged documents for him. They do not accuse Kamangar of being a member of PJAK and the statement does not say that they themselves admitted being members of PJAK.

If the Prosecutor's statement is accepted at face value, Kamangar was never involved in the actual bombing. Allegedly an explosive timer was found in his house and he was also accused of fabricating documents for two people, who intended to put together material for explosives found by police in a car.

0620 GMT: The Oil Squeeze. Kalemeh reports on the significant number of foreign companies who have suspended development of the South Pars and Assalouyieh oil and gas fields.

In recent weeks Iranian officials have issued "ultimata" to Royal Dutch Shell and Spain's Repsol to resume development or face eviction from Iran.

0615 GMT: The Executions. The Iranian Writers' Association has condemned the hanging of five Iranians on Sunday: "There are no words which could describe this bloodshed and bloodthirst"

0520 GMT: We begin this morning with two features. We have posted a letter from student activist Majid Tavakoli, detained in Evin Prison since 7 December, about three of the Iranians executed on Sunday. And we have put up the English translation of Mir Hossein Mousavi's wide-ranging comments on Tuesday about the Green Movement and the legitimacy of an unjust Government, "Do Iranian Mothers Have Rights?"

UPDATED Iran Video: Strike in Kurdistan (13 May)

Video claiming to be of strike and closures in Kurdistan in response to Sunday's execution of five Iranians, four of them Kurds:

Celebrating the Strike

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lx91prREiOs[/youtube]

The Latest from Iran (13 May): Justice and Legitimacy

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


Sanandaj

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvpLOWnVv8c[/youtube]

Mahabad

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZmFLG-4pJM&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ml6CAXKFQnI[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8k-Y7xAo_g[/youtube]