Zarif’s hypocrisy soars to new heights

Let’s face it – Iranian FM Zarif is a serial liar and a hypocrite way beyond the expected demagoguery of a slick politician. His easy demeanor and his charming smile are the perfect cover-up for an endless stream of lies over the past 4 years which include:

  • The nature of the regime: “a government which follows its people, not the other way around” – while it is obvious that Tehran’s government begins and ends with the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei who is not elected by the peopleof Iran.
  • Freedom of speech in Iran: “we do not jail people for their opinions” – the hundreds of political prisoners (activists, journalists, lawyers, oppositionists, minorities etc…)  in Iranian jails or graves are living (dead) proof that Zarif is lying.
  • The holocaust cartoon contest: “it’s an NGO that is not controlled by the Iranian government” – Zarif knows full well that in Iran, the regime controls every cultural aspect and has repeatedly shut down concerts or exhibitions which did not suit its agenda…if the regime did not support the contest, it would not exist.
  • Meddling: “for us, peace and non-interference in domestic affairs of other countries, their national sovereignty…are important” – Tehran is currently meddling in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Bahrain, to name a few.
  • Military involvement in Syria: “Syria’s fate should be determined at the polls and not by weapons” and “Iran has no troops in Syria, but only advisor[s]. We do not have troops involved in fighting there” – but meanwhile, Tehran sent in tens of thousands of Hezbollah, Shiite militants and the IRGC soldiers to fight for Assad.
  • Military support for the Houthi rebels in Yemen: the accusations (that Tehran is supporting the Houthis militarily), according to Zarif are “completely baseless” – how does he explain the numerous intercepted Iranian arms shipments and the admissions of Iranian support by Houthi leaders themselves?
  • The Parchin ” nuclear clean-up”: “we said that the activities in that site are related to road construction” – the satellite pictures leave no room for doubt that there was a huge clean-up at Parchin which was probably used to test nuclear detonators.

And now, the latest addition to Zarif’s string of lies: “I do not see any reason Iran and Saudi Arabia should have hostile policies toward each other”. Really? Let’s rewind to September 13th, to an article written by Zarif entitled ” Let Us Rid the World of Wahhabism”, one of the most viciously anti-Saudi Arabia article ever written which exemplifies the regime’s attitude towards Saudi Arabia. The title of the article is anti-Saud to begin with since Wahabbism is a central theme to Saudi Arabia just as the Shiite Revolution is to Iran. But Zarif is not content to talk only about Wahabbism. In this article Zarif calls the Saudi rulers “callous and capricious rulers unfit to rule the sacred lands”, they hold “petty, malicious, and sectarian extremist” policies which “beget, foster, and spread terrorism”, they owe their allegiance to “serving their imperialist and Zionist patrons” and are responsible for “the most pernicious and abominable acts of atrocity in the history of nations and to infest them with extreme levels of hatred”. All of these vilifying statements appeared in only one article…other barbs by Zarif towards Saudi Arabia are easy to find – just google “Zarif Saudi Arabia”.

But Zarif’s lies are not only dependent on his own views. Zarif knows all too well that nothing in Iran happens without the consent of Khamenei. It is Khamenei who sets the tone and draws the red lines. He will decide whether policies between Iran and Saudi Arabia are hostile or not. So, what does Khamenei think of Saudi Arabia? Here are a few “gems”: The rulers of Saudi Arabia are “disgraced and misguided people who think their survival on the throne of oppression is dependent on defending the arrogant powers of the world, on alliances with Zionism and the US”, are “small and puny Satans who tremble for fear of jeopardizing the interests of the Great Satan (the United States)”, are “blasphemous and faithless”, are “heartless and murderous”, “unwise”, “backstabbers”, responsible for “continuous infanticide” and “genocide” etc…Does khamenei also think that there aren’t “any reason Iran and Saudi Arabia should have hostile policies toward each other”? Definitely not.

And this is only rhetoric. We haven’t even reached the actual points of conflict.

How about the fact that Tehran and Riyadh are already fighting each other in two proxy wars? In Syria, where Tehran openly supports Assad while Riyadh covertly supports Syrian rebels and in Yemen, where Riyadh openly supports the Yemenite government while Tehran covertly supports the Houthi rebels. Yes, up until now, there are no cases in which Iranian troops are fighting Saudi troops but both sides prefer it this way knowing full well that an open frontal war will be devastating to both sides and could lead the world to a third world war.

And what about the endless meddling of Tehran in Saudi Arabia in the other Gulf states? Tehran openly and covertly supports local Shiite factions and militants in the Gulf states in efforts to overthrow the Sunni governments – this strategy is at the base of Tehran’s efforts to “Export the Revolution”. Whenever such local militants such Nimr al-Nimr in Saudi Arabia or Isa Qassim in Bahrain are busted for subversion, spying or terrorism, Tehran makes it a point to blast these countries for not adhering to human rights (a classic “pot calling the kettle black” situation). Bahrain is a particular sore point for both sides since Tehran continues to treat Bahrain as its “14th province” openly inciting the Shiite majority to overthrow the legitimate rulers. The Gulf States have united in denouncing Iran as an interference in internal affairs

And then there’s Hezbollah…Khamenei praised Hezbollah as “shining like the sun and are a source of honor for the Muslim world” with very good reason. In its efforts to “Export the Revolution”, Hezbollah plays a key role since it is not formally part of Iran and therefore can act as Iran’s proxy in numerous conflicts which Tehran wants to keep officially away from. Tehran has now added Shiite militias manned by Shiite extremists from the region to become another proxy military force in its conflicts. Riyadh, on the other hand, has succeeded in getting the support of the Arab League to denounce Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.

But the animosity that Tehran holds for Riyadh is not limited to battle-fields. Just last week, Tehran tried to convince Kurdistan to oust the Saudi consul since it wasn’t sure to Tehran “what the Saudi Consulate is doing in Kurdistan?”. The response from the Kurds was to deem the call from Tehran an “irresponsible interference” and the Saudi consulate will remain.

The list of verbal, diplomatic and military attacks by Iran and its proxies on Saudi Arabia and its proxies goes on and on and is beyond the scope of this article. The conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia has always been simmering under the Sunni-Shiite divide but has boiled over due to the wars in Syria and in Yemen and due to the nuclear deal which has visibly strengthened Tehran’s diplomatic and military power in the region. In this context, Zarif’s claim that he does not “see any reason Iran and Saudi Arabia should have hostile policies toward each other” means that he is a liar or psycho-schematically blind. Such statements should be thrown in to the large bucket of calls by Iran to unite Islam to confront the West when, in fact, Tehran really wants to unite Shiite Islam and “Export the Revolution” to other Muslim countries.

If Tehran really wishes to have a good relations with Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states, it should understand one simple guide-line; “practice what you preach”. You should not call Saudi Arabia “baby killers” for the casualties in Yemen if you are “killing babies” in Syria. You should not accuse Saudi Arabia of not giving local Shiites their rights to stand up to the government while Sunnis are being oppressed in Iran. You should not blame Saudi Arabia of meddling and interfering while being the biggest meddler in the region. You should not accuse Saudi Arabia of supporting terrorism while you support terrorist organizations. You should not criticize Saudi Arabia for verbally slamming you while you issue such vile rhetoric at the Saudi rulers. You should not claim that Saudi Arabia is increasing the Muslim divide while you are constantly trying to export your Shiite Revolution to other Muslim countries.

 

Related articles:

 

IRGC is gowing stronger under Rouhani

President Hassan Rouhani is toeing a very fine line: On one hand, he has openly called for the privatization of the Iranian economy which is dominated by the IRGC’s formidable network while on the other hand, he is weary of confronting the IRGC head on since that will essentially pit him against Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

The IRGC’s business empire reaches far beyond the military fields which once embodied the organizations main scope. Over the years, and especially under Rouhani’s predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and during the years of global sanctions in Iran, the IRGC expanded its empire to include the fields of construction, telecommunication, oil and gas, finance, infrastructure etc…Huge governmental and private projects are regularly awarded to the IRGC conglomerate of affiliated companies in which, incidentally, Khamenei is sometimes named as a shareholder. Furthermore, the IRGC affiliates such as “Khatam-al Anbiya” also enjoy the special privilege of tax exemptions and there are strict orders by the regime which forbid the monitoring of IRGC affiliates by external agencies. As such, the nature of the ties between the IRGC and the regime is problematic to say the least since the IRGC was born as a military organization dedicated to the preservation of the regime.

The ties between the IRGC and innumerable cases of human rights abuses and links with terroristic activities have led to sanctions which remain in effect following the signing of the nuclear deal. Since the IRGC is so well connected to Iran’s economy, these sanctions are especially worrisome to foreign investors who want to capitalize on Iran’s economic potential but do not want to find themselves in contravention of these sanctions after partnering with the IRGC.

Furthermore, the IRGC has not sat idly by during Rouhani’s presidency: although the IRGC has tacitly supported Rouhani in his efforts to sign the long-awaited nuclear deal which freed Iran of sanctions, IRGC leaders have continuously criticized Rouhani over the years on numerous subjects including the nuclear deal itself. Since the IRGC answers directly to Khamenei himself, it’s obvious that such criticism could not be levelled at Rouhani without Khamenei’s approval or request.

Khamenei is not averse to intervening in all of the aspects of the governing of Iran including the economy. He has maintained, for the last two years, the ideal of the “Resistance Economy” which places a huge emphasis on keeping the Iranian economy free of foreign intervention or influence. The “Resistance Economy” is a part of Khamenei’s strategy to allay his paranoia of a “soft war” in which foreign states would weaken the regime through cultural and economic “infiltration”. The IRGC, of course, fully supports the “Resistance Economy” since it is exactly such an economy that made the IRGC the economic behemoth it has turned out to be. Rouhani, on the other hand, continues to support the ideal of the “Resistance Economy” but he seems to be doing so not out of a real belief in this strategy but because he understands too well that were he to oppose such a strategy, he would find himself, once again, fighting a losing battle against Khamenei.

Rouhani fully understands that clashing directly with the IRGC could easily result in being banned from the upcoming presidential elections since the body which authorizes or disqualifies presidential candidates, the Guardian Council, is an unelected body dominated by the IRGC and Khamenei. Just to make it clear, a spokesman of the Guardian Council has released a statement claiming that Rouhani has still not been officially allowed to run for president next year.

In a strange development, Rouhani has agreed to award plans for “rural development” to the IRGC. Handing over the billion-dollar projects was meant as a means to allow Rouhani to continue with the privatization of the economy while giving the IRGC enough economic clout back. Unfortunately for Rouhani, the IRGC took over these plans, establishing its Progress and Development Headquarters but has not lifted any pressure from expanding in other commercial projects. In fact, Hossein Dehghan, Rouhani’s minister of defense who just happens to be an ex-IRGC commander and the godfather of Hezbollah, has announced that the IRGC will be awarded 50 more huge construction contracts to build highways, dams, gas-fields etc…

The strength and fate of the IRGC is directly correlated to the strength and fate of the regime itself and both are dependent on Islamic Revolutionary ideals and money, lots of money. Rouhani and any other elected president doesn’t have the power to weaken the IRGC nor the regime as long as Tehran is governed at the end of the day by an theocratic dictator whose sole interest is to preserve the status quo of the regime.

Aleppo is liberated / Aleppo has fallen

The city of Aleppo has been liberated or has fallen, depending on whose side you are on. It’s a victory against terrorist or a massacre inflicted on innocent civilians. It is the triumph of the legitimate leader of Syria (together with his Iranian and Russian allies) for the benefit of the Syrian people or the triumph of illegitimate leader of Syria (together with the foreign meddling of Iran and Russia) for the benefit of Bashar al-Assad’s government. Aleppo is open to interpretation since the narratives surrounding it are bipolar in nature: Each side is claiming that it is in the right and the other side is in the wrong. These two separate “echo chambers” create a situation in which two separate and totally different realities seem to be occurring at once.

Whatever the case may be, the city is totally ruined as can be seen from this video the civilians of Aleppo have paid the price: It is they who were wounded or killed, who starved, who are forced to move to another city. Sometimes, the saying “a picture is worth a thousand words” is spot on. Looking at this picture taken last week in Aleppo following the ceasefire is just such a picture: the victors in the truck could be liberators or they could be terrorists but the civilians trudging their way out of Aleppo certainly don’t look like terrorists and the destruction of Aleppo is clear to all. It might be worth your while to keep this picture in mind as you read this article. You might also want to view this video taken by citizen of Aleppo from his window over the past few years…It’s easy to notice that the rebels don’t look like the hardened terrorists which Assad, Tehran and Moscow are claiming they are.

The fact that even according to Syrian sources, most of the fighting in Aleppo was done by Russian jets and Iranian-backed Shiite militants is one that says a lot about the conflict itself. As such, the battle of Aleppo is as far from a civil war as it could be: This wasn’t a battle between warring Syrian factions but a battle between the foreign supporters of Assad against the Syrian rebels who have lost their own foreign support for a long time.

Meanwhile, Tehran is jubilant over the “freeing”/”liberation”/”victory” of Aleppo: while the Iranian media is ecstatic Rouhani has congratulated Assad claiming that “the victory in Aleppo… constitutes a great victory for the Syrian people against terrorists and those who support them” to which Assad thankfully responded that Iran had stood “on the side of the Syrian people and government in its most difficult moments, and we will never forget it”.  Some Iranians have taken the fall of Aleppo to mean much more: “The liberation of Aleppo indicates the defeat of the political and military power of the (global) arrogance (the US)”.

Both leaders are sharing their versions of the truth and are denying any questions regarding the legitimacy of Assad’s government who has not held a true democratic election since he became president in 2000 and who imprisoned activists who called for democratic elections in 2001 and in 2011.  Nor is either leader questioning the illegitimacy of the “terrorists” who were beaten in Aleppo, Syrian rebels who challenged Assad’s rule since 2011 by calling for the release of political prisoners and demanding democratic reform. No, it is much easier to portray all rebels as terrorists and Assad as the legitimate leader of Syria because in this manner, there is no need for acknowledging the fact that Assad’s government doesn’t really have the backing of the Syrian people. Tehran isn’t helping the Syrian people, as it might like to portray itself, it is helping Assad.

Some voices in Iran are more cautious regarding the jubilation surrounding the liberation of Aleppo and Tehran’s involvement in Syria in general: “the killing of 300 thousand people and the displacement of 12 million others in Syria will only lead to hatred and violence” towards Tehran and the celebrations over the “liberation” of Aleppo are only “two nights’ joy” compared to the worries Tehran will have for the “next 30 years”.

What is certain is that Tehran seems to have successfully exported its revolution to Syria with tens thousands of Iranian troops, Shiite militias and Hezbollah forces fighting in Syria under the direct supervision of Qassem Suleiman, the chief of Tehran’s Qods forces in coordination with Moscow. And much more important than this, the Syrian civil war, together with the nuclear deal, has led to the rapprochement between Tehran and Moscow which has redefined the balance of power in the Middle East.

For now, the US and Russia are content to fight each other on the issue of Aleppo in the confines of the UN: The US ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power asked if the “axis of resistance” had “any shame” on the suffering that their actions have cost while the Russian ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, quipped back that she certainly wasn’t “Mother Theresa“. The US, nor any other supporter of the Syrian rebels, is not willing to turn Aleppo into a Sarajevo, the city which ignited World War 1 and the fleeing people of Aleppo will have to accept the fact that they are totally alone against the axis of resistance.

For now, the Syrian “rebels” and the Syrian civilians who happen to live on the “wrong side” of Aleppo are trying to restart their lives elsewhere but they are definitely still in danger. Thousands are still waiting for a safe passage and every day, there are new cases in which Shiite militants are murdering Syrian “rebels” before they can get out. The videos of Syrian civilians calling out for help form Aleppo have spread all over the world but no help can be expected in a country which has allowed only foreign influences who are backing Assad but which isn’t allowing any foreign influence which might be construed as being against Assad.  The graffiti written by the fleeing Syrians on the ruined cityscape say it all: “Good by”,  “we shall return one day” and “Under each destroyed building is a family buried with their dream. They were finished by Bashar Al Assad”. For the estimated 50,000 Syrians still waiting to flee the oncoming forces of the axis of resistance, the next few days will be crucial and will literally become a matter of life or death following a “complete meltdown in humanity“.

Related articles:

Rouhani lies outrageously about minorities in Iran

Once again, President Hassan Rouhani is in his campaigning for the presidency mode which means that he allows himself to paint a wonderful picture regarding the state of human rights in Iran. The last time he campaigned, according to the RouhaniMeter, he issued 74 promises of which only 18% (13) were fulfilled and another 36% (27) are “still in progress. The unfulfilled promises include, settling diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia, free the Green Movement leaders who are still under house arrest, assuring equality for women and men, submit bills to empower women’s rights, strengthen the value of the Rial, ending the expulsion of students and teachers because of political reasons etc… Specifically, for this article, he also promised teach Azeri to Azeris in schools,  to respect minorities and appoint members of Iran’s minority groups to become vice presidents.

Well, for the past three and a half years, the minorities in Iran have been oppressed just as they were before Rouhani took office. Sunni mosques were shut down, Christian pastors and believers were arrested, Baha’is have been oppressed through economic and academic sanctions, Kurds and Ahwazis have suffered wave after wave of oppressive measures by the regime, and the Azeris are still forbidden to learn their language in school.

One could easily put such promises aside and throw them in the garbage can labelled “promises by politicians” were it not for Rouhani’s latest take on minorities during a meeting with Sunni clerics in which he glowingly praised the positive role of ethnic and religious minorities in Iran. He began by slamming the fate of minorities under the Shah’s rule, pre-1979, which “espoused a strategy of iron fist where ethnic and religious minorities found no opportunity to live their social and political life”, a mentality which still exists in “some countries” (not Iran, of course). Rouhani then sells his rose-tinted pitch: “We believe however that ethnic diversity provides opportunities for a country, and that ethnic and religious minorities should be given equal opportunities and rooms for social and political activity”.  But that isn’t all…Rouhani then echoed his earlier promise to draft a “Citizenship Rights Charter” which would soon see the light of day and that he wants to appoint Sunnis ministers in his government

Of course, Rouhani doesn’t need to mention any other minorities since they did not have representatives in the room. He spoke to Sunnis so he spoke about Sunnis. There were probably some women in the room, so he spoke about “gender equality”, being “no less important” and added that he wanted to include “Sunni women” as governors.

Of course, Rouhani is no fool and he knows that his listeners can easily find out that nothing has changed since he was elected president the first time. That’s why he adds this telling excuse: “efforts have been directed” to equality for minorities “however, there have been glitches and lack of coordination in some areas, to be honest”.

Well, judging from the fate of the minorities in Iran under his presidency, including the largest “minority” in Iran, women, minorities should not hold their breath until Rouhani’s promises will be fulfilled. Rouhani fully understands that the regime which was born from the Islamic Revolution in 1979 is racist in nature towards women, religion and ethnicity even though it claims to respect women and to strive for Islamic unity. There is no gender equality, nor religious or ethnic equality in Iran and in order for a woman or a Baha’i to be treated equally in Iran, the whole regime would have to fall. So why does Rouhani continue to lie? Well, the obvious answer is that he wants to get re-elected. But can he really expect his disillusioned voters to trust him again after he failed them the first time? Or perhaps, and this is where it could get really interesting, he will blame the “glitches” on the regime and try to renew his promises together with a much bigger promise: to place his fate in the hands of his voters instead of the regime.

 

Related articles:

 

Extended US sanctions do not breach nuclear deal

The US decision to extend its non-nuclear sanctions on Iran for another 10 years has elicited a lot of responses from Tehran. The common denominator of all the responses is that such sanctions breach the nuclear deal, implicating the US on trying to derail the deal. Even President Hassan Rouhani joined in on the cacophony of rants claiming that the US is “the enemy” and that these sanctions will lead to “harsh reactions” from Tehran. What Rouhani and the mullahs in Tehran prefer to not mention is that these sanctions are focused only on US entities and do not affect the economic relations between Iran and the rest of the world. “But, it’s still a breach of the deal, then isn’t it?” you say. Well, here’s where it all gets tricky since the status between Tehran and Washington is still stuck where it has been since 1979. In fact, the ink had barely dried on the nuclear deal when Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei decided to ban 227 US brands from the Iranian market while at the same time, forbidding the chief negotiators, FM Javad Zarif in particular, from negotiating anything with the US that wasn’t nuclear in nature and explaining why chants of “Death to America” while burning the US flag was justified.

Now some would quickly claim that even though the sanctions are not nuclear-related, they infringe on the “spirit” of the nuclear deal. They are 100% correct.

The “spirit” of the deal can be found in the mutual goal of Iran and Western countries to look to the future for peaceful relations instead of looking back to find all the reasons why Iran was isolated by the West in the first place. But from day one, such a spirit never really existed in Tehran. Tehran has always claimed that it would gladly sign the nuclear deal with the P5+1 but such a deal would not normalize in any way relations with the US.

In fact, that spirit, which President Barack Obama tried so hard to sell to the American public was cut down before it even had a chance to develop. Khamenei made sure that Tehran’s negotiating team did all it could to keep the nuclear deal focused only on nuclear issues. The P5+1, specially the US, tried to repeatedly introduce other issues such as missile tests, sponsoring terrorist organizations, supplying arms to the Bashar al-Assad in Syria and to the Houthi rebels in Yemen, harassing US navy ships in international waters etc… to no avail. The message from Tehran was clear: this was a nuclear deal and as such the only issues which would be relevant to the deal would be nuclear issues. As such, the renewed sanctions do not breach the deal itself.

So when Obama claimed that Tehran’s repeated long-range missile tests broke the spirit of the deal, Tehran loudly pointed out that such a spirit doesn’t exist. But this didn’t stop some Iranian leaders to pick up on Obama’s “spirit” of the deal to try to pressure the US to lift all sanctions which might impede the normalization of Iran’s economy.

Many people are wondering what will happen to the nuclear deal once Donald Trump takes over. One thing is certain, if there ever had been a “spirit” of the deal, it lived only in Obama’s administration and it will certainly die out under Trump.

The bottom line is this: Trump might lead the US out of the deal or he might even add a few more sanctions just to make a point. Such a move would not necessarily force any of the other co-signees of the deal to drop the deal but it would place Tehran and Washington back to where they were before the deal was signed – deep in the paranoid mentality that has been the bread and butter of relations between these two countries since 1979.

Related articles:

 

Exporting the Revolution is simply Shiite Colonialism

Tehran is rightly deemed the “King of the Meddle East” for its continuous efforts to meddle in the affairs of its neighbors. It has done so in Lebanon, in Syria and in Iraq to great success, turning these countries into vassal states and has attempted to do the same in Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Nigeria, Argentina and a host of Muslim countries.

The main force of Tehran’s meddlesome nature can be found in Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s call to “Export the Revolution” to any and all countries in which people are “oppressed”.. More specifically, Tehran is focusing its efforts to export the revolution to countries in which Shiites are oppressed or countries with extreme anti-American sentiment. This ideal was meant to be the answer to the “colonial hegemony” of the West since the Islamic Revolution was seen by Khomeini as a successful challenge to Western rule. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has created his own adaptation of Khomeini’s “export the revolution” strategy by calling for a “Global Islamic Awakening” and a “New Islamic Civilization” which is meant to take over from the “colonial”, “imperialistic”, “arrogant” and “oppressive” rule of the West, and specifically, the domination of the “Great Satan”, the USA.

But ironically, “exporting the revolution” is turning out to be simply another form of colonialism. While the Europeans pursued colonialism in order to profit from their colonies, Tehran is “exporting the revolution” in order to expand its influence in order to create a Global Islamic Awakening which is definitely Shiite in nature. While the Europeans ruled their colonies with their armies, Tehran rules its vassal states such as Lebanon, Iraq and Syria through a mixture of local militants and its own military forces. While the Europeans oppressed the natives of their colonies, Tehran is introducing its oppressive Islamic rule through local Shiite leaders.

The potential for exporting the revolution is enormous and the stakes are incredibly high: although Shiites make up only 15% of all Muslims in the world, most Muslim countries are satisfied to live their lives in peace within their borders. The call to “export the revolution”, a Shiite Islamic revolution, is a call to enhance the power of Tehran and each country that “imports” the revolution is bound to support Tehran in its expansionist vision.

At the forefront of these efforts are Hezbollah and the elite Quds forces of the IRGC and the strategy is actually quite simple: identify and empower local Shiite militants to overthrow legitimate governments or, as in the case of Syria, empower Bashar al-Assad, a Shiite-Alawite to suppress non-Shiite militants. Hezbollah is a key factor in this strategy since it allows Tehran to deploy military might without involving directly its own army. Now, Tehran is upping the ante by empowering Shiite militants independent of Hezbollah in its wars in Syria and in Iraq. In Syria, Shiite militants are at the forefront of Assad’s civil war – in fact, it’s estimated that most of the military personnel taking part in the siege of Aleppo are Shiite militants. These militants are accused of fighting as fiercely as ISIS and although they are made up of recruits from Iran, Lebanon, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan, they are all 100% loyal to Tehran and to Tehran alone.

In Iraq, the presence of Iranian police and Shiite militants is growing daily as more Shiites are substituting the yearly Hajj to Mecca in Saudi Arabia with a yearly pilgrimage to Arab’een in Iraq. This shift in importance of destinations for pilgrimages follows the breakdown in efforts to allow Shiite worshippers from Iran to go to Mecca due to the strained relations between Tehran and Riyadh. Since Iraq is predominantly Shiite, the whole issue of Shiite militants in Iraq isn’t ruffling to many feathers but some Iraqis, just as some Lebanese and many Syrians view Tehran’s efforts as a foreign interference meant to take over the country.

But Tehran isn’t content to deal only with Shiite militants and is open to working with any other militants who are willing to cooperate. In this manner, strange partnerships evolve such as the growing relations between Tehran and the Taliban in Afghanistan. In fact, Afghan security forces have lodged a formal complaint against Tehran for supporting the Taliban financially and militarily. As one Taliban leader was quoted: “The movement is trying to benefit from all legitimate means to reach a regional agreement as part of the war against the American invasion”.

So while Tehran speaks of “exporting the revolution” as part of its war against European colonialism, it is in fact simply trading a capitalistic-oriented form of foreign rule for a religious-oriented from of rule. Sure, there are differences but in the end, the results are similar: the local populations are ruled by foreign powers.

 

Relevant articles:

 

 

Montazeri jailed for 6 years for airing father’s audio-tape of 1988 massacre

The Iranian judiciary has added insult to injury yet again – this time, by jailing Ahmad Montazeri.

On Agust 9th, Ahmad Montazeri published an audio-tape of his late father Ayatollah Hussein Ali Montazeri from 1988 in which Montazeri senior, who was slotted to become the Supreme Leader after Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, is heard attempting to dissuade the regime from carrying out Khomeini’s horrific orders to execute all political prisoners who supported the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI). In the tape, Montazeri senior calls the planned executions “the greatest crime committed during the reign of the Islamic Republic, for which history will condemn us, has been committed by you (the officials in the meeting). Your (names) will in the future be etched in the annals of history as criminals…Beware of fifty years from now, when people will pass judgment on the leader (Khomeini) and will say he was a bloodthirsty, brutal and murderous leader…We will not be in power forever… Executing these people while there have been no new activities (by the prisoners) means that … the entire judicial system has been at fault…the people are now revolted by the Velayat-e Faqih (the regime)”.

Montazeri senior then tried to gain support from regime officials to try to change Khomeini’s mind and claimed that his willingness to defy Khomeini resulted from his fear of “not having an answer on Judgment Day” and out of his “duty to warn Imam (Khomeini)”. Montazeri senior’s objections were unsuccessful and an estimated 30,000 political prisoners were systematically massacred within a few months while Montazeri senior was doomed to live under house arrest for the rest of his life.

All of this had been suppressed by the regimes in the following decades but the surfacing of the Montazeri senior tape brought the massacre back to life. And sure enough, within three days, Montazeri junior received a phone call from the ministry of Intelligence “requesting” to delete the audio-file which he subsequently did. But Montazeri junior’s tribulations had just started. Within days he was “invited” to two successive interrogations which were then followed by formal charges of “sharing state secrets”. Two days ago, he was convicted to 6 years in jail. In fact he had been convicted to 21 years in jail (10 years for “acting against national security”, 10 years for “publishing a secret audio file” an done year “propaganda against the state”) but the sentence was then commuted to 6 years because, as Montazeri junior claims, his brother “was a martyr” or as the court claims, they took “into account his age and lack of prior criminal record”. The court which handled Montazeri junior’s case is the Special Court for the Clergy in Qom which is independent from the Judiciary and is under Khamenei’s direct authority.

Montazeri junior’s defense was simple: the audio-tape was never marked as a secret and that the contents of the tape were published earlier in his father’s memoirs so publishing it was not a crime. But the court at Qom decided that the recording was a secret anyway and Montazeri junior claims that the verdict, which he plans to publish, “contains things that were never mentioned during the trial” . But why did Montazeri junior publish the tape in the first place? He claims that he did so following continuous attacks on his father’s memory by hardliners. In fact, his defiant publication of the recording echoes his father’s calls to stop the massacre, albeit 28 years after the fact: “What I’m insisting on is that eventually the state manage and settle the issue about the 1988 executions instead of trying to hide it…If the Islamic Republic is transparent about it, and forms a truth commission, as suggested by MP Ali Motahhari, and possibly rectifies any wrongdoings, it would be a big step in restoring the greatness of the Islamic Republic”.

Well, the regime has a different idea of what “the greatness of the Islamic Republic” should be and that is suppressing Montazeri junior just as it suppressed Montazeri senior and 30,000 helpless political prisoners.

 

Related articles:

 

 

Rouhani under heavy fire from all sides

Since he was elected, President Hassan Rouhani has been the target of repeated attacks from hardline elements in the regime but lately, the pressure against him is building up dramatically, culminating in a harsh criticism by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

The attacks are based on two main themes:

  • The nuclear deal: Hardliners are bashing Rouhani for signing the deal which although has brought Iran in from its isolation, the economic benefits of the deal are still far from being fulfilled.
  • Internal politics: Rouhani’s open criticism of hardline elements in regards to freedom of speech, regime corruption, women’s rights and political opposition is exasperating hardliners who want to maintain the status quo at all costs.

Let’s start with Khamenei since his criticism holds more weight than all the other critics together. Although Khamenei allowed Rouhani to lead Tehran into the JCPoA, he always did so reluctantly. The nuclear deal’s weaknesses from Khamenei’s perspective is twofold: 1) the nuclear deal opens Iran to the influence/”infiltration” of all countries who want to trade with Tehran and 2) the JCPoA has forced Tehran to deal with the Great Satan, the US, which is contrary to Khamenei’s revolutionary ideals. The issue of foreign infiltration, or as Khamenei calls it “the soft war”, is not a clear cut issue since Khamenei has no real qualms in dealing with non-Western countries such as Russia, China, India, Azerbaijan etc…What he is really worried about is specifically Western infiltration from the EU and, of course, from the US. His fear from the EU is also not too well defined since it depends on just how much EU countries support the US and Israel. But Khamenei’s harshest criticism of Rouhani is based on relations with the US. During the negotiations, Khamenei issued several “red lines” to Rouhani and his negotiators and one of them was to not deal with the US on any subject apart from the JCPoA. At the same time, he banned 227 American brands from entering the Iranian market and has never stopped from aiming his fiery rhetoric at the US on issues of human rights, the use of sanctions, supporting terrorism, the presidential elections etc…

The US congress’s vote to extend non-nuclear sanctions against Iran have triggered Khamenei’s latest attack on the US and on Rouhani as well: “The West side is not committed to this agreement, while some Iranian officials rushed to sign it“. Of course, Rouhani spearheads the list of “some Iranian officials” but in a way, this attack is definitely petty on Khamenei’s part since the nuclear deal would not have been signed without his express approval. Khamenei then goes on to criticize the sanctions themselves: “There is no difference between imposing a new ban or resuming one that has lapsed, the second is an explicit negation of what has been agreed upon previously by the Americans”. Here, it seems that Khamenei hasn’t read the JCPoA since the nuclear deal specifies the removal of nuclear-related sanctions but not any other sanctions that are related to different aspects of the regime such as human rights and supporting terror and therefore the renewed sanctions do not breach the nuclear agreement in any way. Khamenei only has himself to blame for this since during negotiations, the US tried to include issues such as human rights and terrorism within the deal only to be told that the JCPoA is to be focused on Iran’s nuclear program and nothing more.

But Khamenei is not alone in trying to attack Rouhani’s strategy of “constructive engagement” with the West.

Hossein Shariatmadari, Khamenei’s representative at the powerful Kayhan institute openly challenged Rouhani to “name one of the 100 sanctions (that) have been lifted” following Rouhani’s call to focus on the “100” sanctions that had been lifted instead of focusing on the sanctions that weren’t. He also pointed to the contradiction of sanctions being lifted while major international banks continue to stay at arm’s length form Iran despite the fact that they are doing so not out of fear from US sanctions but because of FATF rules which continued to place Iran within the category of a country which supports terrorism and because of the uncertainty of the Iranian economy. Shariatmadari opposition to Rouhani comes as no surprise since he has been adamantly opposed to the nuclear deal from day one. In fact, he openly endorsed Trump: “The wisest plan of the crazy Trump is tearing up the JCPOA…The JCPOA is a golden document for the US but is considered nothing except humiliation and a loss for Iran”. On both counts, Shariatmadari is way off target: the JCPoA is definitely not a “golden document” for the US since the US has not gained in any way from the nuclear deal and it is hard to see how Tehran is humiliated by the hundreds of diplomats and trade delegations which have landed in Tehran since the signing of the nuclear deal.

Shariatmadari’s criticism of Rouhani is echoed by the IRGC as well: Ali Shirazi, Khamenei’s representative at the IRGC attacked Rouhani with a more religious overtones: He accuses Rouhani of “making (too many) concessions to America but then adds that Rouhani is “Godless”, is “unfamiliar” with prayer and lacks an understanding of the Quran. Such attacks are very dangerous in Tehran since the religious overtones are bound to attract the hot-headed hardliners who act from a purely religious view. The fact that Shirazi is an IRGC man is also a key factor here since the IRGC was against the nuclear deal from day one.

Rouhani’s efforts at eradicating corruption and the promotion of the freedom of speech has earned him yet another powerful political enemy: The chief of the Judiciary, Sadeq Larijani. Before we get into the nature of this clash, it is noteworthy that Larijani has two brothers who are also a part of the regime: Ali Larijani, the head of the Iranian Majlis (parliament) and Javad Larijani, the chief of human rights. Larijani, a hardliner who is one of the candidates to become a Supreme Leader after Khamenei passes away has always been critical of any efforts by Rouhani to bring about changes in the sphere of internal affairs and the two have had some minor clashes in the past. But now, Larijani has raised his criticism to a much higher level based on two separate issues: Rouhani has called for an investigation into 63 bank accounts under Larijani’s name which are suspected to have been used to funnel corrupted money to Larijani and others. Larijani denies any wrong doing, claiming that the bank accounts are “by no means personal and belonged to the Judiciary as a government branch” but the allegations have hit a raw nerve. In fact, the situation has been aggravated by the fact that Khamenei has refused to even talk to Larijani since these allegations were exposed.

The second issue in the latest war between Rouhani and Larijani concerns Ali Motahari, a relatively liberal MP who is also the deputy-speaker of the Majlis. Motahari was all set to deliver a speech in Mashhad in the province of Khorasan Razavi but his speech was cancelled the night before by the local prosecutor general without explanation. The cancelled speech sparked a massive social media campaign and Motahari quickly penned an open letter to Rouhani demanding to know how the prosecutor was empowered to cancel his speech: “Please clarify who rules Khorasan Razavi province: the governor, or the prosecutor-general and the Friday prayer leader?“. The governor of Mashhad was then dismissed and Motahari proceeded to file a lawsuit against the prosecutor general claiming that the judiciary had “blocked the execution of the constitution and individual freedoms”. Enter Rouhani who instructs his interior and justice ministers to investigate the issue and lamented that “some people want to shut the mouths (of their critics) and lay the ground for radicalism and discord within society”. Larijani took this as a personal attack on the judiciary and on himself and was quick to respond: “The President’s conduct who had responded to Mashhad event by calling the situation ‘source of shame,’ is violation of his duties as president…unfair remarks using the Parliament as the media would reserve strong decision to investigate why such unfounded allegations are voiced in the Parliament”.

Within one week, Rouhani has been attacked by the Supreme Leader and two of his representatives at the Kayhan institute and the IRGC as well as by the judiciary. And some believe that this is just the tip of the iceberg and such attacks on Rouhani will only increase as the elections approach. With so much pressure around him, Rouhani needs to make the Iranian people believe that his presidency, which brought on the nuclear deal, should be awarded four more years to continue to steer Tehran towards diplomatic and economic engagement with the world instead of the isolation that his predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad created.

 

Related articles:

 

 

The clash between nationalism and theocracy in Iran

Last month tens of thousands of young Iranians celebrated “International Cyrus the Great” day by visiting his tomb in Pasargade. What began as a celebration of Iran’s distant pre-Islamic glory days turned into a protest of the current regime and the usual police brutality and arrests. For a while, it seemed that old-style nationalism was being pitted against the ruling theocracy.

At first the crowds chanted slogans which sounded benign: “Iran is our homeland, Cyrus is our father”…but even such a chant was interpreted by hardliners as an affront to Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader , who is sometimes called the “father” out of respect. A senior Shia cleric in Qom, Hossein Nouri Hamadani stated that he was “flabbergasted that people could gather at the tomb of Cyrus and we just sit and watch them chant the words we reserve for the great leader of the Revolution (Khomeini and Khamenei).

But as the protests heated up, the chants took on much more political overtones: The participants protested Tehran’s continuing involvement in Palestine, Lebanon and Syria by chanting “neither Gazza, nor Lebanon; I give my life for Iran” and “forget about Syria think about us”. Other chants such as “freedom of thought, impossible with the mullahs” and “mullahs’ regime, only oppression, only war” protested the nature of the regime itself. Unfortunately for them, the regime in Tehran has little or no tolerance for protests of any kinds and as one Iranian official simply said “the initiators of the inappropriate slogans against the regime’s values have been arrested”. What the official forgets to mention is that before they were arrested, they were brutally beaten and at least one of the protesters, a prominent Iranian poet by the name of Mohammad Reza Aalia Payam and was sent to hospital. One protester’s voice explained it all: “We pay tribute to a king who respected people everywhere, no matter what their religious or ethnic background”…paying tribute to such a leader is definitely an affront to the regime itself which respects only its own.

Those arrested, are to be prosecuted in court for unnamed charges which might include bogus charges such as “insulting the Supreme Leader” and “spreading propaganda against the state. But until they reach their trial dates, they will have to survive interrogations and torture – In fact, Mostafa Nabi, one of the arrested protesters was killed by his torturers shortly after his arrest.

Videos of the protests began hitting social media and within hours, they had spread virally all over Iran and once the news of the arrests reached social media, the debate had been sparked.

Cyrus the Great vs. Supreme Leader Khamenei or old-style nationalism vs. Islamist theocracy, the tensions surrounding these protests are bound to spring up again and again as long as the regime tries to crush such nationalistic sentiments. The fact that the regime is so fearful of such outbursts of ancient nationalism exemplifies the inherent weakness of the regime which cannot allow itself to accommodate any form of criticism. The Islamic Revolution in 1979 may have occurred to depose the Shah but it now is bent on deposing long dead leaders such as Cyrus the Great.

Human rights in Iran: The thin line between Islamic laws and the regime’s zero-tolerance

thin-line

Following on the heels of the EU strategy report on Iran which included a harsh criticism of the state of human rights in Iran, the UN issued a new resolution which echoes the exact same sentiment: Iran is a serial abuser of human rights on many levels and in order to normalize relations, Tehran will have to change.

The UN resolution includes severe criticism on many levels in regards to the abuse of human rights in Iran: “enforced disappearances”, “arbitrary detention”, “severe limitations on freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief”, “alarmingly high frequency of the death penalty” and “human rights violations against women and girls”.

The EU’s report was similar including the fact that the EU “remains highly critical of Iran’s frequent use of the death penalty”, calls on Tehran to respect “the rights to freedom of expression…without discrimination or persecution on grounds of sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, gender, sexual orientation or other status”, demands that Tehran “eliminate the existing legal and practical discrimination against women”, is worried that Tehran doesn’t “fully guarantee international due process safeguards (and) ensure the inclusion of fair trial guarantees”, “considers the lack of freedom of expression online, the systemic surveillance and monitoring of internet traffic and the lack of digital freedoms to be an obstacle to trade with Iran, as well as a violation of people’s rights and freedoms”, “calls for the release of all political prisoners” and  “calls on the Iranian authorities to ensure that the rights of religious and ethnic minorities are fully respected and protected in law”.

In order to get a better understanding of the nature of the criticism by both the UN and the EU, it is necessary to define two distinct categories:

  • Islamic laws: Abuses of human rights due to Islamic laws which include the oppression of women and religious minorities as well as the use of the death penalty.
  • The regime: Abuses of human rights due to the intolerance of the regime to accept criticism and calls for change by activists, political oppositionists.

These two categories of the West’s view on human rights in Iran is mirrored in Tehran’s categorical rejections of the EU/UN critique:

  • Islamic laws: There is a basic difference between Western ideals of human rights and “Islamic human rights” which must be acknowledged and accepted by the West.
  • The regime: All criticism by the West against Iran on the issue of human rights is politicized, hypocritical, arrogant and based on double standards and the regime is not susceptible to pressure from any source, least of all from the West…in fact, Tehran views such resolutions as an “abuse” of human rights in itself.

Of course, the regime doesn’t differentiate between both categories but from a Western perspective, the distinction between these two categories should be critical. It really is arrogant of the West to expect an Islamic country to give up its Islamic values in order to kowtow to the norms of the West and the issue of Shariah laws has put the West into a Catch 22 situation: if the West places such high import on religious beliefs and religious freedoms, it must accept that Shariah laws are legitimate in an Islamic country even if they seem outrageous from a Western perspective. Qisas, usually understood through the “eye for an eye” form of punishment, is brutal and barbaric from a Western perspective but it is deemed as “beautiful and important“. Tehran accepted to hold talks on human rights with the EU based on “mutual respect”, devoid of “double standards” and understanding that there is a fundamental difference between Western human rights and “Islamic human rights”, a difference which may not necessarily bridged. The West can try to “tone down” the harshness of some of these laws and to allow for more personal freedoms by pointing out that many Islamic countries have done just that but at the end of the day, as long as the Islamic regime exists, Islamic laws will prevail.

The issue of the death penalty in Iran is exemplary of this issue: according to the regime, 75%-80% of all executions are drug-related. Up until now, Tehran has vehemently defended these executions based on the fact that Shariah laws endorse the execution of drug-dealers and that it’s war on drugs benefits the West since most of the drugs are destined to Western users. Unfortunately, this defense is weakened by two simple facts: 1) the death penalty doesn’t seem to be a deterrent for drug dealers even according to Iranian leaders and 2) not all Westerners agree that limiting the inflow of drugs is worth the 700+ drug-related executions a year. Since Iran holds the dubious title for the largest number of executions per capita, and since the regime is intent on normalizing relations with Western countries (apart from the US, of course), the mullahs in the regime have understood that it might be worth it to be more lenient on most drug-related offenders, convicting only the largest repeat offenders to be executed. But then again, change cannot be immediate as the Iranian deputy foreign minister made it clear that negotiations over human rights with the EU could take 3-4 years and that Tehran will not give up capital punishment under any circumstances.

So what about the second category? The regime’s inability to allow for dissent, opposition and change? This is much firmer ground from a Western perspective because the issue isn’t related in any way to Islam, only to the ideals of democracy which allow for pluralistic views and for the respect of minorities of any kind. It’s important to remember that Iran has repeatedly and proudly claimed that it is the only true democracy in the Middle East even though is not a true democracy (more like a “democtatorship”) due to the huge powers of unelected bodies of the regime. In fact, the bases of power in Iran emanate from democratic vote (the election of the president, government, the Assembly of Experts etc…through popular vote) and from the regime’s dictatorial resolve to choose its own leaders (such as the Supreme Leader, the Guardian Council, the IRGC etc…). Tehran’s pride at being democratic coupled with its inherent fear of accepting democracy 100% is an inherent weakness of the regime. Slamming the regime for “enforced disappearances”, “arbitrary detention”, “severe limitations on freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief”, the lack of “freedom of expression”, “the discrimination or persecution on grounds of sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, gender, sexual orientation or other status”, “political prisoners”, the lack of “fair trial”, the oppression of “religious and ethnic minorities” etc…” all emanate from the regime’s fears of losing its power.

These issues should spearhead the West’s efforts to help the cause of human rights in Iran. If these issues are dealt with, if Iranians have a say in the way they are being governed, the Islamic religious issues will take care of themselves. Let’s take the issue of compulsory hijabs for women. To be sure, not every Iranian woman and definitely not every Iranian man is in favor of women wearing hijabs. The problem is that with the current regime, no one really knows if the majority of Iranians want compulsory hijabs or not. But if the whole of the regime was elected by the people and if enough people would decide that women should not have to wear hijabs, laws will be changed to accommodate such a sentiment. If the majority of the Iranian people would vote for more freedom of the press, for the release of political prisoners, for a fairer judicial system etc…, these changes would come about as well.

That’s why the West should place more weight on abuses of human rights in Iran which aren’t directly related to Islamic laws. . The systematic oppression of women and even the use death penalty, as such, must be accepted since they both stem from religious beliefs. Such a strategy echoes the statement of the liberal Iranian MP, Ali Motahari who wants Western criticism to be split into “two dimensions”: “one is related to Islam’s laws that is unnegotiable and not understandable for them (the West), and the second is related to affairs common to all human beings that has nothing to do with a certain ideology”.

 

Related articles: