Iran Exclusive: The Escalating Battle With Ahmadinejad

Last month two leaders of the Motalefeh (Islamic Coalition) Party, Habibollah Asgarowladi and Mohammad Nabi Habibi, requested a meeting with President Ahmadinejad. The discussion soon went beyond polite regards: Asgrowladi and Nabi Habibi told Ahmadinejad that he was "the biggest cause" of the improved position of the Green Movement in Iranian society.

The leaders of Motalefeh --- which has been a conservative mainstay of the Islamic Republic since its formation --- went further. They asked Ahmadinejad, "Who was the first person to chant, 'Marg bar Velayat-e-Faqih' (Death to Clerical Supremacy)?"

The President said nothing. Asgarowladi and Nabi Habibi continued, "You." In Ahmadinejad's televised debate with Mir Hossein Mousavi in the 2009 campaign, they explained, the President had equated the fate of the Revolution with his own. Ahmadinejad had put himself above everyone, even the Supreme Leader, and the Islamic Republic.

The meeting might seem extraordinary, but it is only one more incident in the battle against the President --- a battle that, at the moment, is not being led by the Greens or the reformists but by conservatives who are disillusioned with the state of Iran and with Ahmadinejad's personal approach to politics.

Since January, we have documented the escalation of that battle, to the point where key conservatives such as Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani and 2009 Presidential candidate Mohsen Rezaei have been involved in discussions of how to limit or even replace Ahmadinejad, on a daily basis. Defenders of the President, inside and outside Iran, will argue that this is only the normal rough-and-tumble of politics and that the Government as well as the regime is secure.

We're not so sure. From sources inside Iran, we get the picture of rising rather than falling difficulties.

Prices are now increasing, in some cases soaring, across a range of essentials. This week it was reported that electricity bills have risen for some consumers in Tehran by five times. Water has become more expensive. Lamb, which sells for about £10 per kilogramme ($7 per pound) in Britain, is £15 per kilogramme ($10.50 per pound) in Iran, with its lower level of wages.

Sources report that the cultural atmosphere is increasing turning against the "Islamic Revolution". The disappointment and anger is not translating into open political activity. Instead, amidst the repression and sense of crisis, there is a lethargy. Young people are looking to emigrate, and university students are seeking visas to study abroad.

This summer, the rift had opened not only between the President and Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani but also between Ahmadinejad and the head of Iran's judiciary, Sadegh Larijani. In separate meetings with the Supreme Leader, Ali and Sadegh each said that the President was not popular and continued, "Please believe it. Don't support him."

Ayatollah Khamenei insisted, "No, this is not the situation." He told the Larijanis that there must be co-operation and said that he would hold a meeting at the start of Ramadan.

Ali Larijani replied, "My heart is not in it." Khamenei responded, "This is a religious duty."

As we noted in detail at the time, the Supreme Leader did chair that discussion with Ahmadinejad and the two Larijanis, following this with a public speech invoking "unity". A few days later, Ali Larijani and Ahmadinejad gave a public show of reconciliation.

Soon, however, that display broke down. Ahmadinejad's appointment of special envoys for international affairs led to dispute with Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, who had previously kept quiet over the political tensions, and opened up the space for renewed criticism by the President's opponents in Parliament and the conservative media. The fragile economic situation offered the platform for a gradual renewal of criticism by Ahmadinejad's foes.

And so it was that, only a few weeks after his dramatic intervention and loud proclamation of "unity", the Supreme Leader was once more --- at the behest of his officials and politicians --- having to rebuke Ahmadinejad. This was not only over foreign policy but over the President's economic management, including privatisation and handling of imports.

Is that enough to hold the Government together for some more months? Another story....

Last month Mohsen Rezaei --- former commander of the Revolutionary Guard, Secretary of the Expediency Council, 2009 Presidential candidate --- met the Supreme Leader. Rezaei requested, "Please let us carry out the unity plan," by which he meant support of a combination of leading politicians and officials that would curb and possibly put aside Ahmadinejad.

The Supreme Leader asked, "Will this include [opposition figures Mir Hossein] Mousavi and [Mehdi] Karroubi?"

Rezaei paused for a very long moment and then said, "Maybe."

Khamenei was quicker in his response, "No."

So, as our sources summarise, "Iran is in a cul-de-sac." Most of the population is dispirited and apathetic about politics; they see no care for them from the Government, no benefit in the Republic, no use in pursuit of "reform".

Meanwhile, the establishment is increasingly fragmented. Ahmadinejad is in political difficulties, facing heavyweight challenges from the Parliament and possibly from Iran's judiciary, but he can still rely upon the security services and his allies still dominate the Ministry of Intelligence.

Perhaps most importantly, the Supreme Leader still has not pulled the trigger on his President. There have been times when it appeared Ayatollah Khamenei might do so. for example, last summer in the dispute over Ahmadinejad's power play for Iran's ministries and his insistence on keeping Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai, now Chief of Staff, by his side. It appears, however, that Khamenei is still acceptingalbeit without satisfaction and with a great deal of concern --- "the devil he knows" rather than the devil he doesn't. He cannot accept a political coalition which --- without Ahmadinejad --- might have to reach out to reformists and the opposition to bring a semblance of stability.

I suspect Ahmadinejad and his allies not only know that but are playing upon that. For the Supreme Leader's rebukes of his President have not brought the downfall of the controversial Rahim-Mashai. They have not brought a retraction of the President's foreign policy move with his appointment of special envoys, including the same Rahim-Mashai. They have not even brought a shift in Ahmadinejad's economic approach.

This is turning into quite a contest. For at the end of the day --- assuming that the conservatives who dislike the President do not put the white flag --- both the President and the Supreme Leader cannot emerged unbloodied. Either Ahmadinejad must be publicly limited or the weakness of Khamenei's claim of a "velayat-e-faqih", as the Motalefeh leaders foretold in their meeting with the President), will have been exposed.

On to the next round....

Iran Special: Abdollah Momeni Writes Supreme Leader About His Detention & Torture

Abdollah Momeni is a student activist who was detained and taken to Evin Prison within days of the June 2009 Presidential election. Last November, he was sentenced to eight years in prison; the term was reduced on appeal to 4 years and 11 months.

Momeni is currently in Ward 350 of Evin, maintained for political prisoners. This letter to Ayatollah Khamenei was written in August and smuggled out of the prison. It has been published in Persian and in English by the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran.

In the Name of God

Ayatollah Khamenei

The Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran

During one of my days in detention at Evin Prison, I had the opportunity to hear a televised speech by you.  You spoke of the importance of opposing injustice and the need to observe fairness and justice (23 June 2010). That day, I decided to write a letter addressed to you, thinking that perhaps the news about detention centers does not reach you.  So you may not know that besides Kahrizak [the site of abuses and killings just after the 2009 elections], at Evin Prison too  prisoners are not given even minimal rights, and are subjected to the severest forms of physical and psychological abuses, which are exerted with the aim of character assassination and coercing false confessions.

Further, given that I heard that during the time when I and others like myself were facing the worst kinds of torture intent on forcing us to confess to crimes we had not committed, you took the opportunity at the Prayers on the occasion of Eid al Fitr [September 2009] to say, “Whatever accused persons say about themselves in court is credible.” This is why I decided to write a letter and describe the torture, illegal, and un-Islamic treatment which I have received in prison, so that perhaps I can receive an answer to this question: “Are confessions extracted through the use of such inhumane and unethical methods valid in your view or not?” And so, in the hopes of establishing a truth commission to investigate what I have faced during my incarceration, interrogation, and court hearings, and as a person accused and imprisoned by the Islamic Republic of Iran during your rule, I will recount my experiences.  At the same time, I hope that the recounting of these experiences will not end in increased pressures and difficulties during my stay in prison.

Supreme Leader

Today I am in Evin Prison, because I have been identified as someone who is critical of the Islamic Republic of Iran.  As such, it is not irrelevant for me to recount my political views and activities over the last decade. I entered university in 1996 and in the same year joined the Islamic Student Organization and then was elected to Office to Foster Unity (Daftar-e Tahkim-e Vahdat) and was a member of the Central Council and served as the Secretary of Tahkim until 2005 when I completed my Masters studies in Sociology at Allameh Tabataie University.  From 2005 to the present I have served as a member of the Central Council of the Alumni Organization of University Students of the Islamic Republic (Sazeman-e Danesh Amookhtegan-e Iran-e Islami—Advar-e Tahkim-e Vahdat).  I was the spokesperson for this legal organization, which works toward the advancement of democracy and human rights.

During my time as a university student, my colleagues and I were most concerned with the independence of the institution of higher education from the centers of power and political parties and  groups, as well as providing criticism of the state in an effort to support the people.  My friends and I at the Office to Foster Unity believed that the mandate of the student movement was to facilitate the development of an environment where the historic demands for freedom of the people could be articulated  and civil rights defended, despite one’s political and ideological beliefs and leanings.   As such, we believed and continue to believe that the student movement should not sing the praises of the power structures and those in power, rather it must offer criticism of those who take advantage of their power, no matter what their background, and it must defend the rights of the people, including women’s rights and the rights of ethnic and religious minorities.

For this reason over the past decade, I have been targeted by those in power and security forces and as a result have experienced prison and solitary confinement on several occasions.  Taking into account this arrest, I have spent nearly 200 days in solitary confinement.  While my previous incarcerations were not free of pressure and torture, this recent arrest was a different experience, I believe that informing the public and officials about the atrocities of this latest experience is of greatest importance.

Supreme Leader

Beatings, verbal abuse, and degradation and illegal treatments started at the very moment of my arrest.  During my arrest, tear gas was used, which prior to this had only been used in the streets and open air.  Breathing tear gas in a confined space made me feel as if I were choking and rendered me unable to move. Still, the security officials did not stop at that. With great spite and hostility they began to beat me, punching and kicking me, so that they could turn me over to their superiors at Evin Prison with a bloody nose,  mouth and bleeding teeth and shackled arms and legs. Interestingly enough when I objected to the treatment I received by vowing to launch a complaint against the approximately 20 security officials [who had come to arrest me], they responded with profanity and vile curses against myself and the judge.

Of course this was just a warm-up for the start of my interrogations, where interrogators targeted my body and spirit.  From the very beginning, I was faced with this constant proclamation that “the regime has suffered a crack” and the constant promise that “you will all be executed”.  The anticipation of the realisation of this promise haunted me for some time and kept me wondering when and if my life would come to an end,   especially on the many occasions either during the day or in the middle of the night when, without any explanation, I would be taken from one cell to another or from one ward to another. During the 86 days I spent in solitary confinement I never saw the color of the sky. During the 7 months of my  detention in the security wards of 209 and 240 I was only allowed to go into the courtyard on 6 occasions. After my time in solitary confinement and the end of my interrogations and my court hearing, I was only allowed to contact my family every two weeks—calls that lasted only a few moments and during which my interrogator was present.

Allow me to describe the first days of my detention.  After being arrested in the manner described above, I was transferred to solitary confinement–cell 101 in Section 209 of Evin prison. Upon entry into the cell I noticed that there were feces under the carpet in the room, so I objected.  I was told,  “You are not worthy of anything better than this.”

After two days in Section 209, I was taken to Section 240 and transferred to the charge of the Ministry of Intelligence .  After this, the conditions of prison became even more difficult and increasingly inhumane. Contrary to the regulations adopted by the Sixth Parliament, and the orders of Ayatollah Hashemi Shahroudi, which required that two solitary confinement cells be combined into one to allow for extra space for prisoners, it seemed that in this Section each cell was divided into two cells reducing space and measuring 1.6 meters by 2.2. The width of the cell was shorter than my height and I could only lay down in one position. There was a metal bucket placed over a sewage hole, to make a makeshift toilet where we could relieve ourselves.  A water faucet was placed over this makeshift toilet so that the prisoner would not have to be brought out of his cell for basic needs.  Unfortunately, the positioning of this tomb-like cell, which benefited from the deathly silence of the ward, was such that the Qiblih [the direction of prayer] was in the same direction as the makeshift toilet and the distance between this toilet and my prayer position was only a few inches. There was also a light projector which was on 24 hours a day, so as to prevent prisoners from even imagining a good night’s rest. Enduring solitary confinement and difficult and lengthy interrogation sessions was something I had to become accustomed to. But along with solitary confinement, repeated sleepless nights resulting from lengthy interrogation sessions, being forced to stand on one foot for lengthy periods, enduring beatings and being slapped repeatedly were the preferred options in our Section during those days. The pressure and being taunted by interrogators for having refused their demands was so great that at times I would pass out during interrogation sessions.

The iron fist of interrogators would also result in my passing out.  On several occasions the interrogator in charge of my case strangled me to the point of me loosing consciousness and falling to the ground. For days following these strangulations, I suffered such severe pain in the neck and throat area, that eating and drinking became unbearable. Of course, the negative impact of torture is not something which prisoners such as I have to contend with alone. At times, the interrogator himself suffers as a result of inflicting torture.  I remember during one of my interrogations, after receiving repeated blows to the mouth, the interrogator, who would hit me with the back of his hand, noticed that his fingers had suffered cuts as well.

Interrogators even used my screams and cries which resulted from the beatings I was receiving to taunt other prisoners. Later I heard from some prisoners that during their interrogations, which were purposefully scheduled at the same time as mine [in a different room], they could hear my squealing. It seems that my screams were used to inflict emotional pressure on others.

Based on this account, it is inevitable that the interrogations had only one aim: to break the prisoner and force him to confess to what it was the interrogator wished.  When we asked why it was that they used such methods to extract such confessions, we were told, “According to the founder of the Islamic Republic the preservation of the Regime is the foremost obligation".

In the first month my interrogators would constantly say that “blood has been shed, the regime has suffered a crack, and many of you will be executed” and “ the regime is the plaintiff against you”. During interrogations, whenever I did not respond in accordance with the “ will of the interrogator”, or as he put it “in line with the interests of the regime”, I was told that either I had “to respond as we want you to, or you have to eat and swallow your interrogation form”.

This was not a threat. After refusing these demands, they would force feed the interrogation forms into my mouth. Interestingly enough, once during the month of Ramadan I was forced to eat the interrogation form while I was fasting. Well, when beatings and cursing are routine during the holy nights of Qadr and these nights are not honoured, then it is no wonder that all other behavior is to also be expected.

Ayatollah Khamenei

From the start of the interrogations, I was forced to write against my friends and those close to me and when I resisted, besides being beaten and slapped repeatedly, I was given this response by the interrogator, “You have to write against others so that your own notorious personality is demoralised. ” Perhaps this logic, which was intent on demoralising and breaking me, justified their insistence that I confess to sexual relations and indiscretions which I had not had. When I objected that these accusations were not true, and insisted that I could not implicate myself in a false confession, I would receive beatings and insults and would be told, “We will bring a prostitute to your court hearing to confess against you and say that she had illegitimate sexual relations with you.”

Witnessing the expertise of the interrogators of the Islamic Republic, who are referred to as the unnamed soldiers of the Mahdi (the Messiah), in their use of vulgarities which I could never bring myself to repeat within this letter and some of which I had never heard before, was indeed a painful experience for me. In the continuation of these same interrogation sessions, the interrogator would say, “We will do something to you so severe, that when you hear the name of Section 240 outside of prison, your body will begin to convulse.” I would ask myself, how can a security agency utilize such strategies intent on inflicting fear and such threats to ensure the security of a nation, and what will be the end result of such strategies and tactics? How can you reach justice, by relying on the tactics intent on character assassinations of prisoners as a link in a cycle of torture and repression? How do the standards of forcing false confessions through any means possible in the behavior of law enforcers, correspond with religious, human rights or ethical standards?

In the entire process of interrogation, my interrogators took several opportunities to use derogatory terms and vile language in addressing my late mother, who was a believer and the mother of a martyr.  They  addressed my wife as a – - – - -, despite the fact that she has sacrificed much, is devoutly religious and was formerly married to  my brother who was martyred in the War [and whom I married in line with tradition and custom]. They addressed my sisters and other female relatives in the most vile of manners, by calling them – - – - – -, and insulted them on numerous occasions.  The constant use of these derogatory terms and foul language by those who present themselves as the defenders of the Islamic Regime also targeted my martyred brother --- our families sacrifice for our nation– whom they addressed as a hypocrite and enemy.

Not only are interrogators disrespectful toward ordinary prisoners, they disrespect former and current government officials. On many occasions I witnessed how they used insulting and derogatory terms to address officials such as Hojatoleslam Seyed Hassan Khomeini (as a cheeky child, with morality issues) Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani (as corrupt), Mir Hossein Mousavi (as the imposter and Islamic Anti-christ), Hojatoleslam Mehdi Karroubi (immoral and corrupt) and Hojatoleslam Mohammad Khatami (immoral and, by naming some pious women, they would claim that he was involved in relations with  them), and Ayatollah Mousavi Khoiniha (seditious).  Despite the fact that I had not even met some of these officials, they wanted me to speak against them in court.  With respect to Mr. Karoubi and Mr. Abullah Nouri, they wanted me to use foul language against them in court. With respect to Ayatollah Mousavi Khoiniha, they told me to mention in my court hearing by name and say that he had played a central role in the recent unrest and had served as the main coordinator and director of these developments.

It should be noted that in the most polite of references to these individuals and figures, the interrogators would still address them disrespectfully. For example, they referred to Mr. Hashemi (Rafsanjani) as “Akbar Shah” and vowed to imprison these former and current officials as well. It seems as if the desire of the interrogator pre-empts the wishes and will of the judiciary as well and is more powerful than the law. Interrogators claimed that they were in fact the ones who issued court rulings. Perhaps it is important to note that the judge in charge of my case (Judge Salavati) had explained to me that “if the interrogators are satisfied with you, we will free you”.  This statement in and of itself reflects the level of independence enjoyed by judges and court officials.

I pointed to pressures intent on forcing me to confess to sexual relations and crimes implicating myself. In order to be precise, I will describe one of my interrogation sessions focused on such issues, which was conducted in a cell. Perhaps this vile example of the pressures I faced can be measured and compared to ethical standards, standards of fairness, and standards of religious piety and the path of Islam. On one occasion interrogators came to me in a small cell and asked, “Have you decided to confess?”

“In relation to what issue?” I asked.

“Your sexual indiscretions,” they replied. “Tell us about all of these indiscretions, and take the pressures off yourself, and also tell us about all the indiscretions of others you know about.” They told me untruths about the sexual indiscretions of some of the other prisoners, including former government officials, and claimed that some political activists had confessed to having illegal sexual relations. Later I found that this was a dirty tactic which the interrogators greatly relied on.  These tactics were especially used after the election and, in particular, in efforts to pressure the better known figures they had arrested. For example, they claimed that one the leading reformist figures repeatedly had relations with married women.

Under those conditions, where there was intense pressure on me to confess to having illegitimate relations, so that I could help myself, I kept insisting that I had been faithful to my wife.  I explained that I had told the head interrogator that these tactics would not resolve any problems and that you should not enter into these types of allegations in interrogations. They replied by claiming that they wanted me to confess so that I could demonstrate my honesty and willingness to be cooperative. If I write these confessions down on paper, they claimed, I would receive a reduced sentence in court. Otherwise, they insisted “we will intensify pressures.” They further claimed that my confession in this respect was of no use to them because “we know everything already and this confession will only help your own case”.

They said that they would leave me be for a while, but that they would return, and advised me to use the time to give their demand some thought while keeping in mind the consequences of not complying and to therefore write what is being requested of me. I explained that my response was clear and so they slapped me forcefully several times. They left the cell, and during my time alone, I vowed to God that I would not succumb to these pressures and would not write anything  in contradiction but the truth.  I wrote, “I have not had any sexual indiscretions” on the interrogation form they had left behind.

With great anxiety I waited for their return.  After a while they returned and asked if I had written what I was asked to write. I explained that I had written what I had previously told them I would write. They took the interrogation form and read it.  They stormed toward me and began kicking, punching, and repeatedly slapping me. They cursed at me and my family and after a good beating, while cursing at me and belittling me, they said, “We will prove to you that you are a bastard child and that you are the result of illegitimate relations.”

These words made me angry and I responded by fighting.  They forced my head down the toilet. They shoved my head so far down the toilet that I swallowed feces and began to choke. They pulled my head out of the toilet and said that they would leave and come back at night and that I had been provided this time to confess to my sexual indiscretions. They claimed that I had to “explain fully who I had had sexual relations with, when, how and where”. They even demanded that I falsely confess to being raped as a child.  On many occasions I was threatened with the prospects of being raped with a bottle or a stick.  This was so extreme that, for example, the interrogator of the Ministry of Intelligence of the Islamic Republic would vow that he “we will shove a stick in your rear so far that even 100 carpenters won’t be able to extract it”. He would also claim that: “we have informed some web-based sites about your sexual indiscretions and these details will be widely distributed via Bluetooth and CDs”.

In this description of what I have endured lies a regretful truth, which demonstrates that the officers and law enforcers of a regime that claims to be based on religious principles, have indeed lost their moral compass. Remembering the details of all of this is indeed a tormenting exercise for me in and of itself and I will not delve further into these details. I only want to demonstrate what kind of pressures a prisoner in Evin must face before he agrees to confess to crimes that he has never committed. I only want to ask, given these tactics and treatments, haven’t the law enforcement officials and the rulers of the current government of the Islamic Republic failed the test of justice, morality, and humanity?

This is not the first time such things have happened, and public opinion had understood these realities when the tactics used in the interrogation of Saeed Emami’s wife were revealed. [Saeed Emami was a Deputy Minister of Intelligence who was charged with the murders of dissidents in 1999 and supposed committed suicide in prison.] These latest incidents, however,  and the methods used in the interrogation of political prisoners following the elections in 2009, demonstrate that what Saeed Emami’s wife endured in interrogation was not an isolated event [by the security system], rather they demonstrate the lack of intent in stopping and ending these illegal actions in our nation. My interrogators would constantly insist, “With the support of the Supreme Leader we are intent on using any means for achieving our goals and we recognize no limits in reaching our aims. We will use all strategies to force critics to accept what we tell them, and we are doing this toward the aim of defending the regime. Not only are these tactics legitimate, they are obligatory.”

Supreme Leader

....It is clear for me that these interrogators do not adhere to any ideology or religion, and it is only their own presence in the power structure and the benefits derived from this presence that motivates them, as well as the hatred they harbuor within, which justifies their commitment to carrying out such inhumane assignments.

Leader of the Islamic Republic

Lies have become customary in our society and they are in service to the rulers.  In prison too they are used as tools by the interrogators.  Lies and deception serve as the basis for all strategies employed by interrogators. For example, with respect to the situation and atmosphere in society [following election unrest], the interrogators would feed lies and false analysis to prisoners intent on demoralizing them and their spirits.  For example, after the Qods Day demonstrations [September 2009] they came to us and claimed, “Only 50 people had come to the demonstrations and that Mr. Khatami had been beaten up by the public only to be rescued by security officials.” Or they would claim that the public was so angry with Mousavi that his security detail had to be expanded that the public would not take to murdering him. In my own court hearing for example, it was mentioned that I had traveled to Germany to take part in a training on how to bring about a velvet revolution designed to overthrow the state. This claim was made despite the fact that my passport had been confiscated by the Ministry of Intelligence several years ago and I have never travelled to any countries in the West.

The interrogators worked hard to claim that the solitary confinement cell was indeed Paradise and their courts  were the court of divine justice, and they would insist that we should confess to our crimes like we would on Judgement Day and in the presence of God.  The difference is that on Judgment Day others speak against the person, but in solitary confinement and under the pressure of interrogation and under physical and emotional pressure it is the prisoner who is forced to falsely confess against themselves so that perhaps they could free themselves of the iron fists of the interrogators.  To recreate such a paradise, the interrogators would on many occasions beat prisoners in adjoining cells, so that besides our own pressures and beatings and tortures, we would have suffer through the painful screams of those being assaulted—and in this way they wanted to remind of divine suffering in this paradise of theirs.

These are the treatments that are doled out to those who are critical or opposed to the regime.  All this treatment is carried out in the framework of a religious regime, justified by claims of protecting the state. And such a regime, with this type of religious interpretation, does indeed not leave any space for the expression of objection or opposition --- even opposition or criticism expressed within the limits of what the law allows. This is happening despite the fact that the rule of the Prophet Mohammad was based on tolerance and kindness toward the public.

Ayatollah Khamenei

As I have described, I was under great pressure to confess in court against myself, my friends and colleagues within various groups and political institutions with which I was involved or with which I had relations.  In particular, I was pressured to provide false testimony in court against Mr. Mehdi Karroubi, whom I had supported during the tenth presidential election.

Following these abuses, 86 days in solitary confinement and 50 days of being completely out of touch with the outside world, lack of access to my family, lack of phone privileges or visits (which resulted in everyone outside of prison wondering whether I was actually still alive), and after practicing my lines with the interrogator to ensure I made statements implicating myself, I appeared for my court hearing.  I appeared in court despite the fact that I was not allowed to have a lawyer of my own choosing representing me.  I was not interested in giving the impression that the court hearing was indeed legitimate by accepting the services of a public defender --- a defender who would have to be fully approved by interrogators and who I would be required to fully cooperate with. This was a court after all, where my testimony was dictated to me by my interrogators beforehand.  The interrogators had falsely promised me that if I read the testimony they had prepared during my court hearing, they would release me by the end of September 2009.

But freedom was not my motivation for reading their statement in court and implicating myself in confessions. I was only looking for a way to free myself of the constant physical and emotional torture that was being inflicted upon me in prison. I was seeking to free myself from the iron fists of the interrogators. I was hoping that in this way I could avoid starting each day with the vilest insults launched at me and my family. I was hoping that I would not have my head jammed into the toilet bowl in order to extract a false confession. I was hoping to free myself of the constant beatings, punches, kicks, and slaps of the interrogator. I was looking to free myself of the constant threats of execution and other promised acts of violence against me. I was hoping to put an end to the dirty tactics used to force me to confess to sexual indiscretions I had not committed.

It was such that I went to court and read the statement that the interrogators had prepared for me. In court, I tried to read the statement, so it would be readily apparent that it had been dictated to me. I had to confess against myself and read a prepared statement as my defense, a defense which was more like an indictment against me. I did this without believing in what I was saying. Believe me, even those who are guilty do not enjoy confessing in court and in front of the public.

But the experience in Evin and the eventful interrogations orchestrated by the Ministry of Intelligence pushes a person to the breaking point, so that he agrees finally to confess against himself, even a false confession.  It is a fact that these false confessions are then used by the court system and judges, as a basis for the issuance of verdicts and sentences.  This cooperation between the court and interrogators takes place despite the fact that on many occasions I personally witnessed how interrogators insulted and cursed the judges and prosecutors. The interrogators believe that the judge and prosecutors play no roles in the issuance of sentences and their opinions do not count.  Interrogators believe that they are the ones who decide for the judicial system and for the regime as a whole.

With respect to the lack of independence of the judiciary and the judges, I will only point to the first meeting I had with the Head Prosecutor Mr. Doulatabadi.  It should be noted that the crux of pressure and torture I endured occurred during the period of the former prosecutor [Saeed Mortazavi], and my meeting with Mr. Jafari Dolatabadi took place five months after my arrest and after my court hearing. As such, I did not expect much to come of the meeting.  But still, the interrogator in our interrogation session prior to the meeting with Mr. Dolatabadi insisted that I need not mention the circumstances of my time in detention and interrogation. The interrogator said, “The prosecutor is a nobody and that I am the one who decides.” The interrogator told me that in my meeting with the prosecutor I should not demand the services of a lawyer. In the end and to my disbelief, my interrogator was present during my meeting with the prosecutor --- the same interrogator who had tortured me, and the experience of this torture over several months was more tangible than all other possibilities.  So it was only natural that under these circumstances I did not have much to say to the prosecutor.

Supreme Leader

Isn’t the show of power by the security apparatus in opposing the will of the people, and their elevated position in the decision making process in related to policies of repression and control of political and social developments, a testament to the declining legitimacy of the state? And doesn’t it bring to mind the increased dependence of the government on the machinery of apparatus of tyranny?

Haven’t our rulers yet reached the belief that the use of force for ensuring their rule is an obsolete strategy? Do they still view repression as the appropriate response to objection, protest, opposition and the demand of rights by the public?

More than 400 days have passed since my arrest.   Despite having been released on a heavy bail order for a short period prior to the New Year’s holidays in March, I was returned to prison for refusing to succumb to the demands of my interrogators to continue confessing to crimes against myself and others while on furlough. I just want to inform all that I continue to hold the same beliefs that I had prior to my arrest and I remain true to those beliefs.  As explained earlier, the statement I read in court and under pressure does not represent my beliefs.

Our crime has been and continues to be the fact that we believe reform and democracy to be the most appropriate strategies for improving the conditions of our nation. Our crime is that we advocated limits on the boundless powers of undemocratic institutions.  My question is this: is the act of supporting the demands of the Iranian nation for democracy deserving of such inhumane and unjust treatment? Have we not reached the point of accepting that the expression of beliefs of individuals or groups should not be subjected to persecution?

In cases where torture has been proven to have taken place, is the expectation that the torturer be brought to trial, an unrealistic expectation? If we are to rid ourselves of injustice and those who carry out injustices, then bringing torturers to trial can be an important step in promoting effective strategies for implementing justice.  Reducing injustice and despotism can facilitate the implementation of justice and the rule of law.

In the end, I do not know what the aim and logic of the torture inflicted upon me and my family was. I do not even expect a response to this question, because the “elders can discern that which is in the best interest of their nation”. What I do know and believe is that these behaviours do not correspond with the concepts of justice and fairness nor are they justifiable by law or through religious teachings. I continue to hope that with the establishment of a truth commission we will be freed from these clear examples of injustice and move closer to justice.

Adullah Momeni
August 2010
Evin Prison

Video & Transcript: Hillary Clinton to Council on Foreign Relations "American Leadership for Decades to Come"

Hillary Clinton's speech to the Council on Foreign Relations on Wednesday:



Although many in Washington and around the country are just coming off their summer vacations, events of the past few weeks have kept us busy.  We are working to support direct talks between the Israelis and Palestinians, and next week I will travel to Egypt and Jerusalem for the second round of negotiations.  In Iraq, where our combat mission has ended, we are transitioning to a civilian-led partnership.  We are stepping up international pressure on Iran to negotiate seriously on its nuclear program.  We are working with Pakistan as it recovers from devastating floods and combats violent extremism.  And of course the war in Afghanistan is always at the top of the agenda.

None of these challenges exist in isolation.  Consider the Middle East peace talks.  At one level, they are bilateral negotiations involving two peoples and a relatively small strip of land.  But step back and it becomes clear how important the regional dimensions of the peace process are, what a significant role institutions like the Quartet and the Arab League are playing, and how vital American participation really is.

Solving foreign policy problems today requires us to think regionally and globally, to see the intersections and connections linking nations and regions and interests, and to bring people together as only America can.

The world is counting on us.  When old adversaries need an honest broker or fundamental freedoms need a champion, people turn to us.  When the earth shakes or rivers overflow their banks, when pandemics rage or simmering tensions burst into violence, the world looks to us.   I see it on the faces of the people I meet as I travel... not just the young people who dream about America's promise of opportunity and equality, but also seasoned diplomats and political leaders.  They see the principled commitment and can-do spirit that comes with American engagement.  And they look to America not just to engage, but to lead.

Nothing makes me prouder than to represent this great nation in the far corners of the world.  I am the daughter of a man who grew up in the Depression and trained young sailors to fight in the Pacific.  I am the mother of a young woman who is part of a generation of Americans who are engaging the world in new and exciting ways.  I have seen the promise and progress of America with my own eyes, and today my faith in our people has never been stronger.

I know these are difficult days for many Americans, but difficulty and adversity have never defeated or deflated our country.  Throughout our history, Americans have always risen to the challenges we have faced.  That's who we are. It's what we do.

Now, after years of war and uncertainty, people are wondering what the future holds, at home and abroad.

So let me say it clearly: The United States can, must, and will lead in this new century.

Indeed, the complexities and connections of today's world have yielded a new American Moment.  A moment when our global leadership is essential, even if we must often lead in new ways.  A moment when those things that make us who we are as a nation - our openness and innovation, our determination, and devotion to core values - have never been needed more.

This is a moment that must be seized --- through hard work and bold decisions --- to lay the foundations for lasting American leadership for decades to come.

Now, this is no argument for America to go it alone.  Far from it.  The world looks to us because America has the reach and resolve to mobilize the shared effort needed to solve problems on a global scale - in defense of our own interests, but also as a force for progress.  In this we have no rival.

For the United States, global leadership is both a responsibility and an unparalleled opportunity.

A New Global Architecture

When I came to the Council on Foreign Relations a little over a year ago to discuss the Obama Administration's vision of American leadership in a changing world, I called for a new global architecture that could help nations come together as partners to solve shared problems.  Today I'd like to expand on this idea, but especially to explain how we are putting it into practice.

Architecture is the art and science of designing structures that serve our common purposes, built to last and withstand stress.  That's what we seek to build - a network of alliances and partnerships, regional organizations and global institutions, that is durable and dynamic enough to help us meet today's challenges and adapt to threats that we cannot even conceive of, just as our parents never dreamt of melting glaciers or dirty bombs.

We know this can be done, because President Obama's predecessors in the White House and mine in the State Department did it before.  After the Second World War, the nation that had built the transcontinental railroad, the assembly line and the skyscraper turned its attention to constructing the pillars of global cooperation.  The third World War that so many feared never came.  And many millions of people were lifted out of poverty and exercised their human rights for the first time.  Those were the benefits of a global architecture forged over many years by American leaders from both political parties.

But this architecture served a different time and a different world.  As President Obama has said, today it "is buckling under the weight of new threats".  The major powers are at peace, but new actors - good and bad -- are increasingly shaping international affairs.  The challenges we face are more complex than ever, and so are the responses needed to meet them.

That is why we are building a global architecture that reflects --- and harnesses --- the realities of the 21st century.

We know that alliances, partnerships and institutions cannot solve problems by themselves.  People and nations solve problems.  But an architecture can make it easier to act effectively by supporting the coalition-forging and compromise-building that is the daily fare of diplomacy.  It can make it easier to identify common interests and convert them to common action.  And it can help integrate emerging powers into an international community with clear obligations and expectations.

We have no illusions that our goals can be achieved overnight, or that countries will suddenly cease to have divergent interests.  We know that the test of our leadership is how we manage those differences - and how we galvanize nations and peoples around their commonalities even when they have diverse histories, unequal resources, and competing world-views.  And we know that our approach to solving problems must vary from issue to issue and partner to partner.  American leadership must be as dynamic as the challenges we face.

But there are two constants of our leadership, which lie at the heart of the President's National Security Strategy released in May, and run through everything we do:

First, national renewal aimed at strengthening the sources of American power, especially our economic might and moral authority.  This is about more than ensuring we have the resources we need to conduct foreign policy, although that is important.  When I was a young girl, I was stirred by President Eisenhower's assertion that education would help us win the Cold War.  That we needed to invest in our people and their talents.  He was right.  America's greatness has always flowed in large part from the dynamism of our economy and the creativity of our country.  Today, more than ever, our ability to exercise global leadership depends on building a strong foundation at home.  That's why rising debt and crumbling infrastructure pose very real long-term national security threats.  President Obama understands this --- you can see it in the new economic initiatives he announced this week and in his relentless focus on turning our economy around.

The second constant is international diplomacy aimed at rallying nations to solve common problems and achieve shared aspirations.  As Dean Acheson put it in 1951, "the ability to evoke support from others" is "quite as important as the capacity to compel".  To this end we have repaired old alliances and forged new partnerships.  We have strengthened institutions that provide incentives for cooperation, disincentives for sitting on the sidelines, and defenses against those who would undermine global progress.  And we have championed the values that are at the core of the American character.

Now there should be no mistake: this Administration is also committed to maintaining the greatest military in the history of the world and, if needed, to vigorously defending our friends and ourselves.

After more than a year and a half, we have begun to see the dividends of our strategy.  We are advancing America's interests and making progress on some of our most pressing challenges.  Today we can say with confidence that this model of American leadership works, and that it offers our best hope in a dangerous world.

I'd like to outline several steps we are taking to implement this strategy.

Our Closest Allies

First, we have turned to our closest allies, the nations that share our most fundamental values and interests --- and our commitment to solving common problems.  From Europe and North America to East Asia and the Pacific, we are renewing and deepening the alliances that are the cornerstone of global security and prosperity.

Let me say a few words about Europe in particular.  In November, I was privileged to help mark the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, which closed the door on Europe's broken past. And this summer in Poland, we marked the 10th anniversary of the Community of Democracies, which looked ahead to a bright future.  At both events, I was reminded how far we have come together.  What strength we draw from the common wellspring of our values and aspirations.  The bonds between Europe and America were forged through war and watchful peace, but they are rooted in our shared commitment to freedom, democracy and human dignity.

Today we are working with our allies there on nearly every global challenge.  President Obama and I have reached out to strengthen both our bilateral and multilateral ties in Europe.

The post-Lisbon EU [European Union] is developing an expanded global role, and our relationship is growing and changing as a result.  There will be complications as we adjust to influential new players such as the EU Parliament, but these are debates among friends that will always be secondary to the fundamental interests and values we share.  And there is no doubt that a stronger EU is good for America and good for the world.

NATO remains the world's most successful alliance.  And together with our allies, including new NATO members in Central and Eastern Europe, we are crafting a new Strategic Concept that will help it meet not only traditional threats but also emerging challenges such as cyber security and nuclear proliferation.  Just yesterday, President Obama and I discussed these issues with NATO Secretary General Rasmussen.  After the United States was attacked on 9/11, our allies invoked Article V of the NATO charter for the first time.  They joined us in the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban.  And after President Obama refocused the mission in Afghanistan, they contributed thousands of new troops and significant technical assistance.  We honor the sacrifices our allies continue to make, and recognize that we are always strongest when we work together.

A core principle of all our alliances is shared responsibility --- each nation stepping up to do its part.  American leadership does not mean we do everything ourselves.  We contribute our share, often the largest share, but we also have high expectations of the governments and peoples we work with.

Investing in Developing Partners

Helping other nations develop the capacity to solve their own problems --- and participate in solving shared problems - has long been a hallmark of American leadership.  Our contributions to the reconstruction of Europe, to the transformation of Japan and Germany from aggressors into allies, to the growth of South Korea into a vibrant democracy contributing to global progress, these are some of our proudest achievements.

In this interconnected age, America's security and prosperity depends more than ever on the ability of others around the world to take responsibility for defusing threats and meeting challenges within their own countries and regions.

That is why the second step in our strategy for global leadership is to help build the capacity of developing partners.  To help countries obtain the tools and support they need to solve their own problems and help solve our common problems.  To help people lift themselves, their families, and their societies out of poverty, away from extremism, and toward sustainable progress.  The Obama Administration views development as a strategic, economic, and moral imperative - as central to advancing American interests as diplomacy and defense.

Our approach is not development for development's sake; it is an integrated strategy for solving problems.  Look at the work to build institutions and spur economic development in the Palestinian territories.  The United States invests hundreds of millions of dollars to build Palestinian capacity because we know that progress on the ground will improve security, help lay the foundation for a future Palestinian state, and create more favorable conditions for negotiations.  Think about our efforts to empower women and girls around the world.  This is the right thing to do, of course, but it is also rooted in the understanding that when women are accorded rights and afforded opportunities, they drive social and economic progress that benefits us all.  Similarly, our investments in places such as Bangladesh and Ghana are bets on a future where more and more countries will be capable of contributing to solving problems in their regions and beyond.

Engaging Emerging Centers of Influence

We must also take into account those countries that are growing rapidly and already playing more influential roles in their regions and in global affairs, such as China and India, Turkey, Mexico and Brazil, Indonesia and South Africa, as well as Russia, as it redefines its own role in the world.

Our third major step has been to deepen engagement with these emerging centers of influence.  We and our allies --- indeed people everywhere --- have a stake in their playing constructive regional and global roles.  Being a 21st century power means accepting a share of the burden of solving common problems.  It also means abiding by a set of rules of the road, everything from intellectual property rights to fundamental freedoms.  So through expanded bilateral consultation and within the context of regional and global institutions, we look to these nations to assume greater responsibility.

The emerging powers represent a spectrum of interests and values.  India, for instance, is the world's largest democracy, a country with which the United States shares fundamental values and a broad range of national interests.  That convergence of values and interests has helped us to lay the foundation of an indispensable partnership.  President Obama will use his visit in November to take our relationship to the next level.

With Russia, we took office amid talk of cooling relations and a return to Cold War suspicion.  This invigorated spy novelists and arm chair strategists.  But anyone serious about solving global problems such as nuclear proliferation knew that without Russia and the United States working together, little would be achieved.  So we refocused the relationship on mutual respect, interest and responsibility.  The results speak for themselves: a historic new arms reduction treaty, which the Senate must pass this fall; cooperation along with China in the UN Security Council on tough new sanctions against Iran and North Korea; a transit agreement to support our effort in Afghanistan; a new Bilateral Presidential Commission and civil society exchange that are forging closer people-to-people ties.  And, as we were reminded this summer, the spy novelists still have plenty to write about.

Working with these emerging powers is not always smooth or easy.  Disagreements over policies and priorities are inevitable.  On certain issues, such as human rights with China or Russian occupation of Georgia, we simply do not see eye to eye --- and the United States will not hesitate to speak out and stand our ground.  When these nations do not accept the responsibility that accrues with their expanding influence, we will use all the tools at our disposal to encourage them to change course while we will press ahead with other partners.

But we know that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to solve many of the world's biggest problems without the cooperation of these nations.  So our goal is to establish long-lasting positive and productive relationships that can survive the times when we do not agree and enable us to continue working together on shared challenges.

A central element of our approach is to engage directly with the people of these nations --- and indeed with foreign publics around the world.  Technology and the spread of democracy have empowered people around the world to speak up and demand a say in their own future.  Public opinions and passions matter, even in authoritarian states.  So in nearly every country I visit, I don't just meet with government officials.  In Russia, I did an interview on one of the few independent radio stations.  In Saudi Arabia, I held a town hall at a women's college.  And in Pakistan, I answered questions from every journalist, student and business leader we could find.

Strengthening Regional Architecture

While we expand our relations with emerging centers of influence and developing nations, we are also working to engage them in effective regional frameworks and global institutions that encourage constructive contributions.

Few, if any, of today's challenges can be understood or solved without working through a regional context.  Think about the complex regional dynamics surrounding the fight against violent extremism in Afghanistan and Pakistan or the process of reintegrating Iraq into its neighborhood.

Nor can we expect regional dynamics to remain static.  Countries like China and Brazil have their own notions about what regional institutions should look like, and they are busy pursuing those ideas.  Our friends and allies depend on us to remain robustly engaged and to help chart the way forward.

So the fourth key step in our strategy has been to reinvigorate America's commitment to be an active transatlantic, Pacific and hemispheric leader.  In a series of speeches and through ongoing consultations and discussions with partners from Europe to the Americas to the Asia-Pacific, we have laid out core principles for regional cooperation and worked to strengthen institutions that can adapt to new circumstances.

Let's examine the Asia-Pacific region. When we took office, there was a perception --- fair or not --- that America was absent.  So the Obama Administration made it clear from the beginning that the United States was back.  We reaffirmed our bonds with close allies like South Korea, Japan and Australia.  We also deepened our regional engagement with China, and with India, which we see as a vital Asian democracy.

The Asia-Pacific has few robust institutions to foster effective cooperation, build trust, and reduce the friction of competition.  So with our partners, we began working to build a more coherent regional architecture that will strengthen both economic and political ties.

On the economic front, we have expanded our relationship with APEC, which includes four of America's top trading partners and receives 60 percent of our exports.  As President Obama has said, to realize the benefits from greater economic integration, we must implement policies that promote balanced and sustainable growth.  To this end, we are working to ratify a free trade agreement with South Korea and pursuing a regional agreement with the nations of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, efforts that will create new opportunities for American companies and support new jobs at home.

On the political front, we are engaging with the East Asia Summit, encouraging its development into a foundational security and political institution for the region, capable of resolving disputes and preventing them before they arise.  I will be representing the United States at this year's EAS in Hanoi, leading up to presidential participation in 2011.

In Southeast Asia, ASEAN is home to nearly 600 million people and more U.S. business investment than China.  We have bolstered our relationship by signing the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation, announcing our intention to open a mission and name an ambassador to ASEAN in Jakarta, and holding annual U.S.-ASEAN Summits.

As the Asia-Pacific region continues to grow in importance and influence, developing these regional institutions and establishing new habits of cooperation will be vital to stability and prosperity.

Global Institutions for the 21st Century

Effective institutions are just as crucial at a global level, where the challenges are even more complex and the partners even more diverse.

So our fifth step has been to reengage with global institutions and begin modernizing them to meet the evolving challenges of the 21st century.  We need institutions that are flexible, inclusive, and complementary, instead of competing with one another for jurisdiction.  Institutions that encourage nations to play productive roles, that marshal common efforts, and enforce the system of rights and responsibilities that binds us all.

The United Nations remains the single most important global institution and we are constantly reminded of its value: The Security Council enacting sanctions against Iran and North Korea.  Peacekeepers patrolling the streets of Monrovia and Port-au-Prince.  Aid workers assisting flood victims in Pakistan and displaced people in Darfur.  And, most recently, the UN General Assembly establishing a new entity --- UN Women --- which will promote gender equality, expand opportunity for women and girls, and tackle the violence and discrimination they face.

But we are also constantly reminded of its limitations.  It is difficult for the UN's 192 Member States, with their diverse perspectives and interests, to achieve consensus on institutional reform, especially reforming the Security Council itself.  The United States believes that the Council must be able to react to and reflect today's world.  We favor Security Council reform that enhances the UN's overall performance, effectiveness and efficiency to meet the challenges of the new century.  We equally and strongly support operational reforms that enable UN field missions to deploy more rapidly, with adequate numbers of well-equipped and well-trained troops and police they often lack, and with the quality of leadership and civilian expertise they require.  And we will continue to embrace and advocate management reforms that lead to efficiencies and savings and that prevent waste, fraud, and abuse.

The UN was never intended to tackle every challenge, nor should it.  So when appropriate, we are working with our partners to establish new venues and organizations to focus on specific problems.  To respond to the global financial crisis, we elevated the G-20.  We also convened the first-ever Nuclear Security Summit.  New or old, the effectiveness of institutions depends on the commitment of their members.  President Obama has reaffirmed our commitment and we have encouraged other nations to do the same.

Our efforts on climate change offer a good example of how we are working through multiple venues and mechanisms to advance our goals.  The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change process allows all of us - developed and developing, north and south, east and west - to work within a single venue to meet this shared challenge.  But we also launched the Major Economies Forum to focus on the biggest emitters.  And when negotiations in Copenhagen reached an impasse, President Obama led our team into a meeting of key leaders that included China, India, South Africa, and Brazil - working with them and our colleagues from Europe and elsewhere to fashion a deal that, while far from perfect, saved the summit from failure and represents progress we can build on in the future.  For the first time, all major economies made national commitments to curb carbon emissions and report with transparency on their mitigation efforts.

An Architecture of Values

As we strengthen and modernize regional and global institutions, the United States is also working to cement democracy, human rights, and the rule of law into their foundations.  To construct an architecture of values that spans the globe and includes every man, woman and child.  An architecture that can not only counter repression and resist pressure on human rights, but also extend those fundamental freedoms to places where they have been too long denied.

This is our sixth major step.  We are upholding and defending the universal values that are enshrined in the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Today these principles are under threat.  In too many places, new democracies are struggling to grow strong roots.  Authoritarian regimes are cracking down on civil society and pluralism.  Some leaders see democracy as an inconvenience that gets in the way of the efficient exercise of national power.

This world-view must be confronted and challenged.  Democracy needs defending.  The struggle to make human rights a human reality needs champions.

This work starts at home, where we have rejected the false choice between our security and our ideals.  It continues around the world, where human rights are always on our diplomatic and development agendas, even with nations on whose cooperation we depend for a wide range of issues, such as Egypt, China and Russia.  We are also committed to defending these values on the digital frontiers of the 21st century.  And in Krakow this summer, I announced the creation of a new fund to support civil society and embattled NGOs around the world.  This will continue to be a focus of U.S. foreign policy going forward.

Iran Sanctions: Our Strategy in Action

Now, how do all of these steps --- deepening relations with allies and emerging powers, strengthening institutions and shared values --- how do they work together to advance our interests?  One need only look at our diplomatic effort to stop Iran's provocative nuclear activities and its serial non-compliance with all of its international obligations.  There is a still a lot of work to be done, but how we are approaching the Iranian challenge is an example of American leadership in action.

First, we began by making the United States a full partner and active participant in international diplomatic efforts regarding Iran.  Through our continued willingness to engage Iran directly, we have re-energized the conversation with our allies and are removing easy excuses for lack of progress.

Second, we have sought to frame this issue within the global non-proliferation regime in which the rules of the road are clearly defined for all parties.  To lead by example, we have renewed our own disarmament efforts.  Our deepened support for global institutions such as the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] underscores the authority of the international system of rights and responsibilities.  Iran, on the other hand, continues to single itself out through its own actions.  Its intransigence represents a challenge to the rules to which all countries must adhere.

Third, we continue to strengthen relationships with those countries whose help we need if diplomacy is to be successful.  Through classic shoe-leather diplomacy, we have built a broad consensus that will welcome Iran back into the community of nations if it meets its obligations and likewise will hold Iran accountable to its obligations if it continues its defiance.

This spring, the UN Security Council passed the strongest and most comprehensive set of sanctions ever on Iran.  The European Union has followed up with robust implementation of that resolution.  Many other nations are implementing their own additional measures, including Australia, Canada, Norway and most recently Japan.  We believe Iran is only just beginning to feel the full impact of sanctions.  Beyond what governments are doing, the international financial and commercial sectors are also starting to recognize the risks of doing business with Iran.

Sanctions and pressure are not ends in themselves.  They are the building blocks of leverage for a negotiated solution, to which we and our partners remain committed.  The choice for Iran's leaders is clear, even if they attempt to obfuscate and avoid it: Meet the responsibilities incumbent upon all nations and enjoy the benefits of integration into the international community, or continue to flout your obligations and accept increasing isolation and costs.  Iran now must decide for itself.

Conclusion

Our task going forward is to take all that I have discussed today and make it lasting.

To help achieve this goal, America needs the tools and capacity to do the work I've described.  So we are strengthening every aspect of our civilian power.  Congress already has appropriated funds for more than 1,100 new Foreign and Civil service officers.  USAID has begun a series of reforms that will reestablish it as the world's premier development agency.  Across the board, we need to rethink, reform, and recalibrate.  And in a time of tight budgets, we must ensure our resources are spent wisely.  That is why I launched the first Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, or QDDR, a wholesale review of State and USAID to recommend how we can better equip, fund, and organize ourselves to meet the world's challenges in the years ahead.  I will be talking much more about this in the coming weeks and months as this review is completed.

We recognize the scope of the efforts we have undertaken.  And looking at our agenda, reasonable observers may question how we can handle so many problems at once.  The first answer is that, as I've described today, we are not trying to do it alone.  One of the central purposes of the strategy we're pursuing is to build relationships and institutions that encourage others to step up.

But I would also ask: Which of our great challenges today can be placed on the back burner?  Are we going to tell our grandchildren that we failed to stop climate change because our plate was just too full?  Or nuclear proliferation?  That we gave up on democracy and human rights?  That is not what Americans do.

Now, all of this requires what we call strategic patience.  Long after our troops come home from Iraq and Afghanistan, our diplomatic and development assistance and support for the Afghan security forces will continue.  Ridding the world of nuclear dangers, turning back climate change, ending poverty, hunger and disease - this is the work not of a year, or a presidency, or even a lifetime.  This is the work of generations.

America is up to the job.  We will seize this new moment of opportunity - this new American Moment.  We are a nation that has always believed we have the power to shape our own destiny, to cut a new and better path.  This administration will do everything we can to exercise the best traditions of American leadership at home and abroad to build a more peaceful and prosperous future for our children and children everywhere.

Thank you.

(Applause.)

MR. HAASS: Well, thank you. And I will ask a slightly longer first question than I normally would while you fumble with that.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much. (Laughter.) Very kind of you.

MR. HAASS: The old stall tactic, filibuster, and you may recall that from a previous life.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes, I do, but I never knew it would be so common. (Laughter.)

MR. HAASS: Yes, it’s – Council on Foreign Relations, we’re trying to keep up. We’re trying to keep up. Touché.

Let me start where – you okay?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yeah.

MR. HAASS: Let me start where you began --- where you ended rather --- which was with all these things we want to do, and you called for strategic patience in Afghanistan and so forth. Yet the United States is soon approaching a point where the scale or size of our debt will exceed our GDP. It’s a question of when more than if. Where does national security contribute to the solution to running deficits of $1.5 trillion a year, or do we continue to carry out a foreign and defense policy as if we were not seriously resource constrained?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Richard, first, as I said, I think that our rising debt levels poses a national security threat, and it poses a national security threat in two ways. It undermines our capacity to act in our own interests and it does constrain us where constraint may be undesirable. And it also sends a message of weakness internationally. I mean, it is very troubling to me that we are losing the ability not only to chart our own destiny, but to have the leverage that comes from this enormously effective economic engine that has powered American values and interests over so many years.

So I don’t think we have a choice. It’s a question of how we decide to deal with this debt and deficit. I mean, it is – we don’t need to go back and sort of re-litigate how we got to where we are. But it is fair to say that we fought two wars without paying for them and we had tax cuts that were not paid for either, and that has been a very deadly combination to fiscal sanity and responsibility.

So the challenge is how we get out of it by making the right decisions, not the wrong decisions. There’s a lot of wrong things we could do that would further undermine our strength. I mean, it is going to be very difficult for those decisions. And I know there’s an election going on and I know that I am, by law, out of politics, but I will say that this is not just a decision for the Congress; it’s a decision for the country. And it’s not a Republican or a Democratic decision. And there are a lot of people who know more about what needs to be done and who, frankly, have a responsible view, whose voices are not being heard right now, and I think that is a great disservice to our nation. Whether one is a Republican or a Democrat, a conservative, a progressive, whatever you call yourself, there is no free lunch and we cannot pretend that there is without doing grave harm to our country and our future generations.

So when you specifically say, well, what about diplomacy, development and defense, we will have to take our share of the burden of meeting the fiscal targets that can drag us out of this deep hole we’re in, but we’ve got to be smart about it. And I think from both my perspective and [Secretary of Defense] Bob Gates’s perspective, and we talked about this a lot, Bob has made some very important recommendations that are not politically popular, but which come with a very well thought out policy. And what I’ve tried to do is to say, “Look, we’re going to try to be smarter, more effective.” In our QDDR [Quadrennial Defense and Development Review], we’re recommending changes in personnel policies, in all kinds of approaches that will better utilize what we have. But we needed to get a little more robust in order to catch up to our responsibilities.

A quick final point on that. When our combat troops move out of Iraq, as they’ve been, that will save about $15 billion. That’s a net win for our Treasury, and it’s the policy that we have committed to along with the Iraqis. The Congress cuts my budget of the State Department and USAID for trying to pick up the pieces that we’re left with. We now have the responsibility for the police training mission, for opening up consulates that have to be secure. So even though our troops are coming down and we’re saving money, and what we’re asking for is considerably less than the $15 billion that we are saving by having the troops leave, the Congress cuts us.

And so we have to get a more sensible, comprehensive approach. And Bob and I have talked about trying to figure out how to present a national security budget. It’s a mistake to look at all of these items – foreign aid, diplomatic operations, defense – as stovepipes. Because what we know, especially from the threats that we have faced in Iraq and now in Afghanistan, is you have to be more integrated. So let’s start thinking from a budget perspective about how to be more integrated.

So there’s a lot that we can do on our side to help. But the bottom line is that the public and the Congress and the Administration have to make some very tough decisions, and I hope we make the right decisions.

MR. HAASS: Let me just follow up on that because you broached the political issue, and let me do it in the following way. I don’t have a crystal ball any better than anyone else’s, but let’s assume some of the pundits are essentially right and Republicans pick up quite a few seats in the House – whether they have control or not, who knows, they pick up a few seats in the Senate – so government is more divided come the new Congress when it takes office early next year. What does that mean for you? What are the opportunities? What are the problems in that for being Secretary of State?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I won’t answer that as a political question because I don’t want to cross my line here. But I will say that I have found a lot of support for what we’re trying to do on both sides of the aisle in both houses, and I think we will continue to have that. And I’m hoping that we can maybe reestablish something of a détente when it comes to foreign policy that cuts across any partisan divide.

Like, take the START [Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia] treaty; we have unanimous support for that. Our two chief negotiators, Rose Gottemoeller, our Assistant Secretary, and Ellen Tauscher, our Under Secretary, are here and they did a terrific job. And we’ve had a very positive endorsement of it by former secretaries of State and Defense, of both parties, the Joint Chiefs have come out, everybody’s come out for it. And it’s a political issue. I wish it weren’t because most of these treaties pass 95 to nothing, 90 to 3. They have huge overwhelming majorities in the Senate.

But we know that we have political issues that we have to address, which we are, and talking to those who have some questions. But I hope at the end of the day, the Senate will say, “Something should just be beyond any kind of election or partisan calculation,” and that everybody will pull together and will get that START treaty done, which I know, from my own conversations with Eastern and Central Europeans and others, is seen as a really important symbol of our commitment to continue working with the Russians.

MR. HAASS: Let’s ask one last question, then I’ll open it up to our members. You’re about, as you said, to head back to the Middle East for the resumption of the Israeli-Palestinian talks. The op-ed pages have been filled. I would say a majority of the pieces have been quite pessimistic. Why are the pessimists wrong? (Laughter.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think they’re wrong because I think that both sides and both leaders recognize that there may not ever be another chance. I think for most Israeli leaders that I have known and worked with and especially those coming from sort of the right of Israeli politics, which the prime minister does, it’s like Mario Cuomo’s famous line: “They campaign in poetry and they govern in prose.” And the prose is really challenging.

You look at where Israel is and the threats it faces demographically, technologically, ideologically, and the idea of striking a peace deal with a secular Palestinian Authority that is committed to its own people’s economic future makes a lot of sense if it can be worked out. From [Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud] Abbas, he was probably the earliest and at times the only Palestinian leader who called for a two-state solution going back probably 20, 30 years, and for him, this is the culmination of a life’s commitment.

And I think that the Arab League Initiative, the peace initiative, put the Arab – most Arab and Muslim countries on record as saying that they could live with and welcome a two-state solution. Fifty-seven countries, including some we know didn’t mean it, but most have followed through in commitments to it, has changed the atmosphere. So I know how difficult it is, and I know the internal domestic political considerations that each leader has to contend with, but I think there is a certain momentum. We have some challenges in the early going that we have to get over, but I think that we have a real shot here.

MR. HAASS: So I’ll open it up and what I’ll ask is people to identify themselves, wait for a microphone, and please limit yourself to one question and be as short as you can. Sir, I don’t know your name, but just – pick up.

QUESTION: How are you, Secretary Clinton? My name is Travis Atkins. I’m an International Affairs Fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations focusing on Sudan this year. And my question is if – you mentioned Darfur once in your talk – if you could elaborate a little bit on our ramped up efforts in Sudan as we head towards the referendum there in January.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, thank you. Thanks for asking and thanks for your work on Sudan. We have a very difficult set of challenges in Sudan. Some of you in this audience, those of you who were in government before like John Negroponte and others, you know this firsthand – the situation in Darfur is dangerous, difficult, not stable.

But the situation North-South is a ticking time bomb of enormous consequence. So we are ramping up our efforts to bring the parties together, North and South, the African Union, others to focus on this referendum which has not been given the attention it needs, both because the South is not quite capable of summoning the resources to do it, and the North has been preoccupied and is not inclined to do it because it’s pretty clear what the outcome will be. The African Union committee under Thabo Mbeki has been working on it.

So we are upping our diplomatic and development efforts. We have increased our presence in Juba, we have sent a – we’ve opened a – kind of a consulate and sent a consul general there, we are – Princeton Lyman, whom some of you know, is – sort of signed on to help as well with Scott Gration and his team.

MR. HAASS: Until last week, a senior fellow here.

SECRETARY CLINTON: That’s right, and Assistant Secretary Johnnie Carson. It’s really all hands on deck, so that we’re trying to convince the North and South and all the other interested parties who care about the Comprehensive Peace Agreement to weighing in to getting this done. The timeframe is very short. Pulling together this referendum is going to be difficult. We’re going to need a lot of help from NGOs, the Carter Center, and others who are willing to help implement the referendum.

But the real problem is what happens when the inevitable happens and the referendum is passed and the South declares independence. So simultaneously, we’re trying to begin negotiations to work out some of those intractable problems. What happens to the oil revenues? And if you’re in the North and all of a sudden, you think a line’s going to be drawn and you’re going to lose 80 percent of the oil revenues, you’re not a very enthusiastic participant, what are the deals that can possibly be made that will limit the potential of violence? And even if we did everything perfectly and everyone else – the Norwegians, the Brits, everybody who is weighing in on this – did all that they could, the reality is that this is going to be a very hard decision for the North to accept.

And so we’ve got to figure out some ways to make it worth their while to peacefully accept an independent South and for the South to recognize that unless they want more years of warfare and no chance to build their own new state, they’ve got to make some accommodations with the North as well. So that’s what we’re looking for. If you have any ideas from your study, let us know. (Laughter.)

MR. HAASS: We’ll turn to Carla Hills.

QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, first of all, thank you for a really far-ranging, extraordinarily interesting talk. You mentioned strategies that are regional, and I’d like you to just say a word more about this hemisphere. You gave a wonderful speech at the border of Mexico where you asserted that we had responsibility for the drugs coming north and the guns going south. Talk a little bit about how we are implementing strategies to turn that around and also to gain friendships that would be helpful throughout Latin America.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, Carla, thank you for asking about this hemisphere, because it is very much on our minds and we face an increasing threat from a well-organized network drug trafficking threat that is, in some cases, morphing into or making common cause with what we would consider an insurgency in Mexico and in Central America.

And we are working very hard to assist the Mexicans in improving their law enforcement and their intelligence, their capacity to detain and prosecute those whom they arrest. I give President Calderon very high marks for his courage and his commitment. This is a really tough challenge. And these drug cartels are now showing more and more indices of insurgency; all of a sudden, car bombs show up which weren’t there before.

So it’s becoming – it’s looking more and more like Colombia looked 20 years ago, where the narco-traffickers control certain parts of the country, not significant parts. And Colombia – it got to the point where more than a third of the country, nearly 40 percent of the country at one time or another was controlled by the insurgents, by FARC. But it’s going to take a combination of improved institutional capacity and better law enforcement and, where appropriate, military support for that law enforcement married to political will to be able to prevent this from spreading and to try to beat it back.

Mexico has capacity and they’re using that capacity, and they’ve been very willing to take advice. They’re wanting to do as much of it on their own as possible, but we stand ready to help them. But the small countries in Central America do not have that capacity, and the newly inaugurated president of Costa Rica, President Chinchilla, said, “We need help and we need a much more vigorous U.S. presence.”

So we are working to try to enhance what we have in Central America. We hear the same thing from our Caribbean friends, so we have an initiative, the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative. And our relationship is not all about drugs and violence and crime, but unfortunately, that often gets the headlines. We are also working on more economic programs, we’re working on Millennium Challenge grants, we’re working on a lot of other ways of bolstering economies and governments to improve rule of law. But this is on the top of everyone’s minds when they come to speak with us.

And I know that Plan Colombia was controversial. I was just in Colombia and there were problems and there were mistakes, but it worked. And it was bipartisan, started in the Clinton Administration, continued in the Bush Administration, and I think President Santos will try to do everything he can to remedy the problems of the past while continuing to make progress against the insurgency. And we need to figure out what are the equivalents for Central America, Mexico, and the Caribbean.

And that’s not easy because these – you put your finger on it. Those drugs come up through Bolivia, Peru, Colombia, through Central America, Southern Mexico to the border, and we consume them. And those guns, legal and illegal, keep flooding along with all of the mayhem. It’s not only guns; it’s weapons, it’s arsenals of all kinds that come south. So I feel a real sense of responsibility to do everything we can, and again, we’re working hard to come up with approaches that will actually deliver.

MR. HAASS: Speaking of guns, I’m going to be shot if I don’t ask a question that comes from one of our national members, and thanks to the iPad I have on my lap, I can ask it. Several have written in about the impact of the mosque debate in New York, about the threat to burn Qu’rans. How do – what’s your view on all this from the Department of State? How does this complicate your life? (Laughter.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I mean, we’re a country of what, 310 million-plus right now and – I mean, it’s regrettable that a pastor in Gainesville, Florida with a church of no more than 50 people can make this outrageous and distressful, disgraceful plan and get the world’s attention, but that’s the world we live in right now. I mean, it doesn’t, in any way, represent America or Americans or American Government or American religious or political leadership. And we are, as you’ve seen in the last few days, speaking out. General Petraeus made the very powerful point that as seemingly small a group of people doing this, the fact is that it will have potentially great harm for our troops. So we are hoping that the pastor decides not to do this. We’re hoping against hope that if he does, it won’t be covered -- (laughter) --

MR. HAASS: Bonne chance.

SECRETARY CLINTON: -- as an act of patriotism. But I think that it’s unfortunate. I mean, it’s not who we are, and we just have to constantly be demonstrating by our words and actions. And as I remind my friends around the world, in the environment in which we all now operate, anybody with an iPhone, anybody with a blog, can put something out there which is outrageous. I mean, we went through the cartoon controversy. We went through the Facebook controversy in Pakistan. Judith McHale, who is our Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy, is on the front lines of pushing back on all of this all the time. And so we want to be judged by who we are as a nation, not by something that is so aberrational. And we’ll make that case as strongly as possible.

MR. HAASS: Time for one more?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Sure.

MR. HAASS: Okay, let me first of all apologize for the 283 of you whose questions will not – (laughter) – get answered. And let me also say that after the Secretary completes her next answer, if people would just remain seated while we get you out quickly and safely.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Safely? Do you think they’re going to storm the stage? (Laughter.)

MR. HAASS: This is the –

SECRETARY CLINTON: I don’t know. I’m looking at this audience. There’s a – (laughter) – a few people I think that might. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Thanks, Richard. Barbara Slavin, an independent journalist. Madam Secretary, it’s a pleasure and I appreciate the responsibility on my shoulders. I have two very quick ones.

MR. HAASS: (Off mike.)

QUESTION: Very easy ones.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Is it the role of the United States to support the Green Movement, the opposition in Iran? And if so, how should we be doing that?

And secondly, you’ve hardly mentioned North Korea. Is U.S. policy now just to let North Korea stew in its own juices until the next Kim takes over? Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, with respect to the first question, it is definitely our policy to support freedom and human rights inside Iran, and we have done so by speaking out. We have done so by trying to equip Iranians with the tools, particularly the technology tools that they need, to be able to communicate with each other to make their views known. We have strongly condemned the actions of the Iranian Government and continue to do so.

I don’t think there’s any doubt that Iran is morphing into a military dictatorship with a sort of religious, ideological veneer. It is becoming the province of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and in concert with some of the clerical and political leadership. And I don’t think that’s what the Iranian Revolution for a Republic of Iran, an Islamic Republic of Iran was ever meant to become.

So I know there’s a great deal of ferment and activities inside Iran that we do try to support. At the same time, we don’t want to either endanger or undermine those very same people so that it becomes, once again, the U.S. doing something instead of the U.S. being supportive of what indigenous efforts are taking place.

We know that Iran is under tremendous pressure. Early returns from implementation of the sanctions are that they’re feeling the economic effects. We would hope that that would lead them to reconsider their positions, not only with respect to nuclear weapons, but, frankly, the export of terrorism. And it’s not only in the obvious places with Hezbollah and Hamas, but in trying to destabilize many countries in the region and beyond, where they have provided support and funding for terrorist activities as far away as Argentina.

So I think there is a very, very sad confluence of events occurring inside Iran that I think eventually – but I can’t put a time frame on it – the Iranian people themselves will respond to. And we want to be helpful, but we don’t want to get in the way of it. So that’s the balance that we try to strike.

Now, with respect to North Korea, we are continuing to send a very clear message to North Korea about what we expect and what the Six-Party process could offer if they are willing to return and discuss seriously denuclearization that is irreversible. We are in intense discussions about this with all the other Six-Party members and we’re watching the leadership process and don’t have any idea yet how it’s going to turn out. But the most important issue for us is trying to get our Six-Party friends, led by China, to work with us to try to convince whosever in leadership in North Korea that their future would be far better served by denuclearizing. And that remains our goal.

MR. HAASS: As always, thank you so much for coming here, first of all, but also giving such a thorough and complete and serious and comprehensive talk about American foreign policy. And I know I speak for everyone that we wish you Godspeed and more in your work next week and beyond. Thank you so much.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thanks, Richard.

(Applause.)

Iran Document: Karroubi on the Siege of His Home and of the Iranian People (8 September)

From the Facebook page supporting Mir Hossein Mousavi:

In the name of Almighty God,

The noble and free nation of Iran

You were witness and present that over the past days and especially during the blessed nights of Qadr [last week], some thugs headed and organized by an ungodly and doomed group, with warm and cold weapons, shamelessly attacked the home and residence of this minor servant of yours and did to us and our patient neighbours what words are not capable of describing.

Truly these few have put mindless Sha’ban and the former government thugs to shame (“brainless Sha’ban” was an infamous thug who was hired by the government in the time of the last Shah to create chaos and attack people and activists similar but less brutally and aggressively than the plain clothes militias now) and have put a golden page in their otherwise shameful records (they were at least better than the current government’s thugs). In the nights of Ramadan, they stepped on religious virtues in the name of Supreme Leader and broke their fast with slurs. They didn’t stop at throwing stones and opened fire. It seemed that climbing up doors and windows could not reveal their character so they beat the innocent and responsible guards and some of the friends and family, and they disturbed peace of the neighbours. The meaningless slogans and shameful screams were apparently not enough so the swearing of the thugs was added. Gulping people’s votes and opening fire on those who question and imprisoning the critics and sewing the mouth of the press were not enough, so they disrespected Ramadan and the Ghadr nights in the Islamic Republic 30 years after the revolution for the sake of firming up their power.

The patient nation of Iran

It seems that the ungodly newcomers have attacked a criticszing citizen but who can deny that their savage and pitiful behaviour is aimed at humanity, freedom, and the essence of Islam and the Islamic Revolution, as well as the dignity of Iran and Iranians? Indeed they are not after Mehdi Karroubi but rather they are at odds with the ideal of theRrevolution which is the ideal of the noble and knowledgeable people, the ideal of the intellectuals and free thinkers of this land, the ideal of the students and academia, the ideal of the youths tired of all these deceits, deceptions, and lies, and the ideal of this land's martyrs. Today everybody is aware that these demons are trying to turn the home of nightingales into their nest of grimy crows and choughs and establish a graveyard’s silence over the Islamic Iran.

They have tied the hands of our revolutionary and devoted people in any way possible. Those hands that they could not tie they send behind the bars of the prisons bars. In contrast, they opened the hands of this ungodly group in such a way that they can show whatever savagery and brutality that they can.

I ask myself what has happened to this Revolution that today the security and police forces and the judiciary and management of this country of 70 million people is weak and pathetic and in control of a few goons, letting the world and global community criticise our civilized people? Of course the answer is clear. He who is cut off from the people has no option other than to trust in a few mugger goons, and this is the fate of those who replace democracy with tyranny and consider people’s freedom as waste paper. Truly this is a God-sent torment that has dishonoured them and has revealed their true selves for the people and has thrown their tub of scandals from the roof (has shown their scandals to the world). It is funny that this small group, with such pitiful actions, foolishly thinks that they can disappoint Mehdi Karroubi in defending people and the ideals of the Revolution with their disgraces and childish nuisances and harassments.

The honourable nation of Iran

From a young age with the confidence and faith in the Almighty God and by following late Imam Khomeini's teachings, I have stood against the rule of dictatorship despite all the hardships and sufferings; and I thank and praise God that I have had this blessing to honor my promise and pledge until now. The imprisonments and tortures during the time of the tyrant Shah did not make me give in, and unlike some, power and high posts did not blind my eyes. Now the oppression and tyranny by those disgraced me will not make me give in and silent.

Whoever makes a pledge to defend the freedom of humanity will never be afraid to sacrifices his/her life and leaves this material prison to God's kingdom in heaven happily and cheerfully. Look at those who think that, by these vulgar shows and childish intimidations, they can force Karroubi out of the scene and shiver from the fear of dying, while he had learned patience and resistance from the great Khomeini, had spent his youth beside him and with his values and was Khomeini's leader of pilgrimage to Mecca and had been his representative to protect and take care of the children of the martyrs of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

A group of ungodly assume that Mehdi Karroubi can see the deviation from the Islamic Republic's path and will say nothing and that he sees Islam disgraced and hides in a corner from fear and seeks refuge. How shortsighted of them to have such a wrong assumption. They think by attacking the mosque and residence of senior figures, imprisoning Khomeini's allies, putting authors, journalists, human rights activists and devoted intellectuals in chains, and creating fear and terror in prisons and society, they can make obstacles and blockages against the spring breeze and blossoming of Iran's social prosperity. Of course they are scared that they could not stop the breeze of awareness and freedom of the people and this is why they have chose the path of terror, because whoever is scared, scares.

The freedom-seeking people of Iran

We very well are aware that, in the camp of the totalitarian dictator, such despair and hopelessness, division and doubt, confusion and lack of planning exist that they lead to foolish behaviour. We are aware that the authorities don't have control over their restless minds and spirits and are unable to have a plan for governing the country, even at the most fundamental levels, and the most obvious example of that are the irresponsible attacks and imprisonments of the intellectuals and elites of this nation.

In the case of the attacks of Qadr nights, we saw that initially they recognized the attackers as committed, faithful and loyal to the Supreme Leader. With the presence of the commanders of the police and security forces in the scene they confirmed this claim. But when they saw that their plans were ruined, that they gained nothing, and that they faced the hatred and exclusion by the people of Iran and the people of world, they called these elements rogue, impudent and reckless.

A group of rogue elements? Iran's vast intelligence, security, judiciary, and military forces, who claim to have control over the world, claim tob e incapable of identifying and punishing them! They are trying to cover a lie with another lie so clumsily that they cannot hide their deception behind their phony swears, and of course it is the fate of the deceptive that God will return their deception to them.

The noble people of Iran

At the end it is my duty to thank all the dear ones who from all over Iran and the world with their phone calls, visits, and follow-ups were concerned about my health and the well-being of my family and also to apologize to my kind neighbors who patiently heard and endured the yelling of a bunch of thugs. Also I should thank my protection team for their competence, particularly the head of my security team, Colonel Yari, who has been brutally beaten and currently is under full control and is banned from visitations, from talking to others, and even from going to the clinic in order to get documents for medical leave. I pray to God for wisdom and tact for those who ordered these attacks and for knowledge and insight for those who executed them.

We will be taking the Green path of hope for freedom, joyfully and hopeful of Almighty's mercy and with firm steps. Hand in hand, we will move forward and will be cautiously vigilant so that these profane ones could not turn our peaceful and humane protest violent and bloody. Suchchildish shows not only will not block our path, but to the contrary, they will make our belief stronger in the path that we are taking, the path of fighting with lies, cruelty and bullying.

"There is none worthy of worship except you, O' God! You are free of all shortcomings. Surely I am among those who committed cruelties."

Mehdi Karroubi
September 8, 2010

The Latest from Iran (8 September): Sakineh Execution Suspended?

2055 GMT: Karroubi Watch. Mehdi Karroubi has posted an open letter to the Iranian nation, declaring, "Our leaders have no control over their disturbed nerves and minds."

2035 GMT: The Battle Within. Interesting to see that another website has picked up on MP Ali Motahari's declaration, which we reported earlier (see 1544 GMT), that the Parliament must prevent an emergence of “dictatorship” in the Ahmadinejad Government and that, if it failed to do so, it had betrayed the nation.

Even more interesting to note the the website is the English-language version of Mehr, which is not known as a prominent critic of the President and his allies.

NEW Iran Feature: Re-visiting the 2009 Election (Keshavarz)
NEW Iran Snap Analysis: Who is Running Foreign Policy?
Iran Exclusive: Rafsanjani Declares “I Won’t Bear This Situation”
Iran Exclusive: FM Mottaki Attempted to Resign over Ahmadinejad Foreign Policy
The Latest from Iran (7 September): The Real Stories

2025 GMT: US "Iran is a Dictatorship" Alert. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, responding to a question after her speech today at the Council on Foreign Relations, declared, "I don''t think there''s any doubt that Iran is morphing into a military dictatorship with a sort of religious ideological veneer. It is becoming the province of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and in concert with some of the clerical and political leadership."

While those sentences are seizing headlines tonight, they are far from new. Clinton used similar language in Qatar in February, as the US tried to forge an alliance of Arab countries against Tehran. At that time, the dictatorship line appeared to be another arrow in Washington's quiver of measures to bring pressure on Iran over the nuclear issue and regional contests.

Initially, it might not be clear if the declaration on this occasion was anything more than a rhetorical flourish. In her speech --- a grand tour of why US leadership is necessary around the world --- the Secretary of State devoted some time to Iran's nuclear programme but not a single word to the internal political and legal situation. She focused on the theme of Iran as the international enemy to be repelled with the assertion, "Early returns from implementation of the sanctions are that they''re feeling the economic effects. We would hope that that would lead them to reconsider their positions, not only with respect to nuclear weapons but, frankly, the export of terrorism."

Yet these paragraphs, immediatedly following the "military dictatorship", point to a somewhat different US strategy, "I don't think that's what the Iranian Revolution for a republic of Iran, an Islamic republic of Iran, was ever meant to become. So I know there is a great deal of ferment and activities inside that we do try to support.

"At the same time, we don't want to either endanger or undermine those very same people so that it becomes, you know, once again, the U.S. doing something instead of the U.S. being supportive of what indigenous efforts are taking place."

So is there a US strategy not only to acknowledge the justice and rights issues but to bolster the activists pursuing them? It is here the vision becomes muddled because of an apparent uncertainty as to where Iranian events may head. Clinton could only offer a vague notion, "I think that there is a very sad confluence of events occurring inside Iran that I think eventually --- but I can''t put a time frame on it -- the Iranian people themselves will respond to."

1710 GMT: Power (Price) Surge. Deputy Minister of Energy Mohammad Behzad, commenting on the rise in electricity prices (reportedly five times for some Tehran residents), says subsidies have been cut for people who use too much energy.

Behzad offered the consolation that consumers can pay bills by installments.

1705 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Two Haft Tapeh Sugar Cane factory workers, Alireza Saeedi and Behrouz Mollazadeh, have each received one-year jail sentences.

The two labor activists were arrested last December and released on $70,000 bail. Their "crime" was satirical clips of the Supreme Leader on their cell phones.

1555 GMT: The Rahnavard Challenge. More on the letter from Zahra Rahnavard to the head of judiciary, Sadegh Larijani (see 1210 GMT), "Don't Erase the Freedom and Rights of Citizens".

We are all responsible for the people's future....What misery has come to our country, in which opposition people and families' houses get raided, in which people get arrested and kept as hostages, while their relatives get thretened? Which of these actions is Islamic or human?

Rahnavard continues:

How do you expect society to remain sane, when thugs attack women and youngsters...?
What has happened? Is this a war between Iran and Saddam or against helpless families, detained by thugs, which were certainly armed and equipped by a part of the rulers?

Before God enters and burns all together, I expect from you as the head of judges to restore justice to the people. I expect you to appear at least once in public and boldly condemn all officials and sentence them.

1544 GMT: Parliament v. President. Leading MP Ali Motahari is speaking up again, claiming that silence on government deviance paves the way for dictatorship. Motahari criticised the Majlis for bowing to government threats on subsidy cuts, hijab and chastity issues, the 5th Budget Plan, and foreign policy.

Motahari's take-away line: Ahmadinejad has to decide if he wants velayat-e-faqih (clerical authority) or velayat-e-Mashai (the authority of Presidential Chief of Staff Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai).

Former Presidential candidate Nategh Nouri has said that the President's refusal to implement laws is dictatorship. Reformist MP Ali Akbar Oulia adds that Ahmadinejad's withdrawal of the 5th Budget Plan, because of Parliamentary amendments, "ridicules everyone". (The Majlis Research Center concludes that, during 2008-2009, the Government has applied only six of 112 Majlis laws in due time; 58 were implemented late and 48 not at all.)

MP Javad Jahangirzadeh claims that 45 MPs have already signed for the impeachment of energy minister Majid Namjoo and that many others support the move.

1540 GMT: Claim of Day. The Supreme Leader's representative to the Revolutionary Guard has said that the 12th "hidden" Imam will appear when the people support Ayatollah Khamenei.

1530 GMT: The Post-Election Dead. Peyke Iran has posted a list of 150 people whom it says have been killed in the conflict since the June 2009 election.

1525 GMT: Sanctions Watch. Lebanon's Central Bank Governor Riad Salameh has said that Lebanese banks will have to comply with stricter sanctions by the UN, the US, and the European Union on Iran: “It is up to the Lebanese banks to act in accordance with their interests and be sure, if they have to make an operation, that it’s an operation that can’t be contested internationally.”

Salameh said that the latest UN resolution “is very clear and we will respect it and make sure it is respected".

1520 GMT: Execution (Sakineh) Watch. The European Parliament has condemned the death sentence on Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani by 658-1, with 22 abstentions.

1320 GMT: Execution (Sakineh) Watch. An EA correspondent adds more reason for caution:

Mehmanparast had said this [that the sentence for stoning was suspended during the summer] yesterday during his usual press briefing together with the ongoing case for murder, but for some reason world media decided to ignore it yesterday and pick up the identical Press TV quote today.

The alarming thing in all this is that Mehmanparast is the Foreign Ministry spokesman and is making statements on a case which has absolutely nothing to do with his ministry. The Justice ministry and the judicial authority, both of which have people capable of reading out statements, have kept near-absolute silence on the matter.

If Sakineh is indeed hanged, Mehmanparast can wash his hands off it by saying that his ministry does not hang people and the judicial authorities can say that we have not given any assurances all along.

1310 GMT: Neither the Islamic Republic News Agency nor Fars News are carrying the Mehmanparast statement about the sentencing of Sakineh Mohammad Ashtiani.

1250 GMT: Execution (Ashtiani) Watch. The Western media is buzzing over "a suspension of the death sentence" of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, convicted of adultery and later complicity in the murder of her husband.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast has said, "The sentencing of Ms. Ashtiani for adultery has been stopped and [her case] is being reviewed again, and her sentencing for complicity in murder is in process."

That somewhat confusing statement does appears to be a limited change in the Iranian position: earlier this summer, Tehran suspended the sentence of execution by stoning, the original penalty imposed on Ashtiani, but left open execution by a means such as hanging. (Most of the Western media have overlooked or misunderstood this, as they report that it is Mehmanparast's statement today that suspends stoning.)

However, I am being cautious. Mehmanparast may be saying that the execution on the adultery charge is only being held up while the "complicity in murder" moves to the conclusion of sentencing, which of course could be the death penalty.

Yesterday Mehmanparast warned European countries such as France and Italy not to interfere in the country and he repeated that line today: "Defending a person on trial for murder should not be turned into a human rights matter." He repeated that, if this was such a matter, European countries could free all incarcerated murderers in the name of human rights.

Mehmanparast then attempted to justify the death punishment for adultery: "even "Western countries, which are not sensitive about family values, take offence at betrayal".

1240 GMT: Lawyer Watch. A further note on yesterday's court appearance of journalist and activist Heshmatollah Tabarzadi (see 0720 GMT): he was represented by Mohammad Ali Dadkhah, as his lawyer Nasrine Sotoudeh was detained on Saturday.

1210 GMT: Justice. In the wake of the siege of Mehdi Karroubi's house, Zahra Rahnavard has written the head of Iran's judiciary, Sadegh Larijani, to demand justice for the Iranian people.

Wondering if intimidations, detentions, and abuses were "Islamic" and "human", Rahnavard asked Larijani how he expects society to remain "healthy" when homes and student dormitories are attacked.

1030 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Mahmoud Bagheri, a member of the Iranian Teachers Trade Union, has been released after two months detention.

0910 GMT: Sanctions Watch. South Korea has announced new sanctions, including review of most financial transactions, against Iran. An expanded blacklist will affect more than 100 Iranian firms and individuals, inspections of suspicious cargo will be expanded, and investments in Iran's energy sector will be limited.

Seoul also said Iran's Bank Mellat faces "a heavy penalty" for moving hundreds of millions of dollars in transactions for Iranian nuclear, missile and defense agencies.

0905 GMT: Can't Be Clearer Than This. Back to our main story today....

Press TV headlines on the letter signed by 122 MPs over the President's appointment of special envoys for foreign policy, "Iran Lawmakers Criticize Ahmadinejad".

0858 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch (Election Fraud Edition). Detained reformist politician Mostafa Tajzadeh has re-asserted, in a visit with his wife, his conviction that the 2009 Presidential election was a "fraud", involving officials such as Guardian Council head Ayatollah Jannati and the Revolutionary Guard. He asked why the Iranian judiciary has not addressed the complaint that he and six other prominent detainees have filed over alleged manipulation of the vote.

Tajzadeh also said that officials have yet to answer his question, "On what charge am I detained?"

The politician's defiance comes after sustained attempts by the regime --- through intimidation, threats, and propaganda --- for a Tajzadeh "confession" that the reformists knew they had lost the Presidential ballot.

0855 GMT: We have posted an analysis by Fatemeh Keshavarz, "Revisiting the 2009 Election".

0750 GMT: Sanctions Watch. The US Treasury has added Iranian-owned, German-based European-Iranian Trade Bank AG to its sanctions blacklist, claiming the bank has provided a financial lifeline to Iranian companies involved in weapons proliferation.

The Hamburg-based bank, known as EIH Bank, has been banned from the US financial system. Tehran has reportedly increased its reliance on EIH, amidst sanctions, to conduct business on behalf of blacklisted companies.

0720 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Kurdish writer, poet, and translator Aziz Naseri has reportedly been arrested.Another session in the trial of journalist and activist Heshmatollah Tabarzadi was held yesterday. Tabarzadi reportedly used the appearance to talk about the conditions in Rajai Shahr Prison (see 0705 GMT).

0715 GMT: Gasoline Magic. For the sake of balance, given the apparent reference by the Supreme Leader to Iran's "poor economic performance" (see 0655 GMT), we must issue an All-is-Well Alert:

Iran’s oil minister, Massoud Mirkazemi, announced that Iran has now become self-sufficient in its petrol production and is no longer dependent on foreign imports in this regard.

Iranian media report that Massoud Mirkazemi told reporters at a press conference today that Iran is now producing 66 million litres of petrol per day.

He said that Iran was formerly producing 44 million litres a day and in order to supply the domestic demand 20 million litres were imported from abroad....

Mirkazemi said: "Since 20 days ago we started increasing production in the production units and finally managed to bring our daily production up to 66.5 million litres per day in the past week."

0705 GMT: Torture Watch. HRANA is claiming that the death of prisoner Mohsen Beikvand in Rajai Shahr Prison on 31 August was a killing organised by officials: "Prisoners confined in Rajai Shahr prison believe prison authorities directly issued an order [to other prisoners] to murder Beikvand."

In May, HRANA released a video of alleged abuse of Beikvand, with the breaking of both legs and burns on his body. He was reportedly moved to solitary confinement days later.

Earlier this week, EA featured a report by Loes Bijnen on the "gruesome" conditions in Rajai Shahr.

0655 GMT: We begin this morning with a snap analysis, "Who Is Running Iran's Foreign Policy?"

Meanwhile, as we note the latest speech of the Supreme Leader, proclaiming that Iran will repel international sanctions, this summary is striking:

[The Leader] reiterated that the enemies seek to frustrate the Iranian people by exerting economic pressure on the country with the intent of turning the nation against the government by blaming it for poor economic performance.

Ayatollah Khamenei said their goal is to cut ties between the government and nation.

However, they have not known the Iranian nation and are mistaken in their calculations.

"Poor economic performance"? Is that an implicit admission of Iran's difficulties --- identified in a scathing statement by the head of the Supreme Audit Court this week --- with manufacturing, imports, unemployment, privatisation, and even its energy sector?