Young Iranians Arrested for Being Too ‘Happy in Tehran’

Six young Iranians were arrested in Tehran and forced to repent on state television today for posting their homemade video “Happy in Tehran” on YouTube last month. (The video is posted here for your viewing.)

“Happy in Tehran” was viewed more than 165,000 times on YouTube before it attracted the attention of the police and was made private, The New Youk Times reported today.

On Sunday, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani had denounced Internet censorship in his country as “cowardly.” He said Iran should embrace Internet rather than view it as a threat.

“We must recognize our citizens’ right to connect to the World Wide Web,” Rouhani said. “Why are we so shaky? Why have we cowered in a corner, grabbing onto a shield and a wooden sword, lest we take a bullet in this culture war?” he asked. (IRNA/NYTimes, 20 May)

“Even if there is an onslaught, which there is,” Rouhani added, “the way to face it is via modern means, not passive and cowardly methods.”

How Al-Qaeda Changed the Syrian War

‘Since its appearance last April, ISIS has changed the course of the Syrian war.’

Sarah Birke has written an important piece on how Al-Qaeda changed the Syrian war.

“While ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria) and Nusra share many aims, and both are well funded and trained, there are significant differences between the two groups. Jabhat al-Nusra stresses the fight against Assad, while ISIS tends to be more focused on establishing its own rule on conquered territory. Nusra has pursued a strategy of slowly building support for an Islamic state, while ISIS is far more ruthless, carrying out sectarian attacks and imposing sharia law immediately. And while Nusra, despite its large contingent of foreign fighters, is seen as a home-grown problem, Syrians at the border frequently described Da’ash  (ISIS) as foreign ‘occupiers’ in their country.”

“While Syrians continue to suffer, sandwiched between a brutal dictatorship and extremist groups, Arab and European jihadists are being indoctrinated and trained in the world’s most active battle zone–experience they may someday bring home.”

To read Sarah Birke’s piece in the 27 December issue of The New York Review of Books, please click here.

Note: The Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS) is also referred to as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

Image credit: Mike King/nybooks.com

Deal with the People

 By Paul Iddon

Dealing with another autocratic regime is a regressive form of rapprochement with Iran.

“The rhetoric is really a reflection of the continuing economic and political crisis they are facing and the realization that they face an election in which most people are disinterested.”

That was Ali Ansari reflecting upon the propaganda the regime disseminated following the recent parliamentary elections and the siege mentality they attempted to stir up.

It seems to be the case that North Korean esque propaganda is one of the few things left up this regimes sleeve (it has after all long ago squandered any semblance of legitimate or integrity), fear of outsiders always must be trumpeted. Anyone who knows anything about this regime knows that an Israeli or an American attack against Iran's nuclear facilities would be a tremendous source of exaltation for it, as it would help truly radicalise the populace and (as was the case on the onset of the war against Iraq in the 1980's) give them a carte blanche in crushing all forms of dissent under the cover of war.

However in peace time their actions against their own people can be blatant, as well as their own stupidity and ineptness when it comes to running such a sophisticated country. As we hear of a currency that is drastically declining and ultimately dwindling in value as well as prevalent corruption which is the regimes trademark it is sadly becoming more evident the downward spiral the country is facing, with its monopoly on state media and the majority of information dissemination is content to further isolate Iran from the International Community whilst propagating its own perception of reality, and trying in earnest to keep the Iranian people vigilant, not in the protection of their country -- the prosperous and hopeful future of which this regime has sadistically plundered -- but of the theocracies high standing within their country that it has set on track to become beggared and bankrupted, which it slyly propagates as the protection of Iran's sovereign integrity.

As is the case in totalitarian societies, every Iranian's life is at risk, the mere act of publicly voicing a negative opinion with regard to the supreme dictator can land you in jail, as well as get you tortured or raped by the notorious and ridiculously self-described morality police. This isn't what one would expect from a republic of any kind.

The really cheap and underhanded allusions to strong and deeply historically rooted nationalist feelings prevalent in Iran for generations of which the regime utilizes to help shore up its base really speaks ill of it. This after all is a regime that has attempted to do away with many aspects of Persian culture, a sophisticated culture and civilization that long pre-dates the advent of Islam. A cultural heritage that every Iranian should be and for the most part are proud to have. Whilst the murderous theocracy which contemptibly claims to adhere to the principles and tenants of the Shia Islam evenly balances itself by attempting to control many aspects of Persian culture by relegating large parts of it and attempting to control and censor other parts of it. But they're not completely stupid, they would never try to ban Nowruz, which is probably the most biggest display of simultaneous exaltation expressed in Persia that has absolutely nothing to do with proclaiming death to another country or offering up blood for the supreme dictator. They would never try and ban this holiday because they know they can't, that's a line even they wouldn't dare cross.

The regimes palpable isolation from their own peoples aspirations and culture was made painstakingly evident when they took the winning of the Iranian film A Separation as an indication of the demise of Israel. Showing how mono-manically abjectly deluded and obsessive and downright ridiculous they really are.

Don't mince or misinterpret my words however, I am well aware that a country that has a majority of Muslims in its populace can very well be expected to have that aspect of their beliefs reflected in their representative government. That however isn't the case with regard to this regime, instead of a relatively moderate Montazeri headed Islamic Republic (now a completely empty, meaningless and deceptive term) Iranian Muslims got an obscurantist and reactionary form of Islam that has failed for precisely that reason, because it failed to resonate with those it claims to represent. That sums up the failure and folly of the theocracy in a nutshell and also explains why the present up and coming Iranian generation is naturally more in touch with their past heritage rather than another dictatorship in a very long line of dictatorships, that like all others before it will in time relegate itself into irrelevancy.

Rapprochement with Iran shouldn't include exclusively dealing with this regime and treating it as if it was the legitimately appointed representative of the inhabitants of Iran. The west's propping up of the Shah and their mono-maniacal focus on his monarchy kept them blind to the peoples discontent right until the very end. Western politicians were also a little too surprised when a large insurrection sprung up in Libya last year, as they had seemingly come to terms with the Gaddafi dictatorship to the latent extent that he was – as he claimed in his megalomaniac outbursts – Libya.

Why recognize this provably and palpably illegitimate regime and help extend its well overdue lifespan?

In the meantime shame should be bestowed on those regime apologists who still refer to the Iran as the 'Islamic Republic' and actually try to convey that the present system is what Iranian's of all social, religious and ethnic stripes fought for in their revolution and imply and infer and that recognizing that, the peoples revolution, is recognizing this regime. This view is self-evidently untrue and preposterous when cross examined, and those who try and sell that line deserve nothing more than our complete and utter contempt.

When Dignity is Seen as a Concession

By Paul Iddon

Does it take a bloody insurrection to make dictators seriously consider granting the most fundamental human rights to their people?

Damascus riot police.

Interestingly it was the last Shah of Iran whom I was in a latent manner reminded of when the Syrian dictator of 11 years Bashar al-Assad announced a referendum and the beginning of reforms. The tinpot dictator whom last year following demands from his people for openness, democracy and pluralism (hence citizenship for the country's Kurds) unleashed tanks and artillery leading many to nervously watch if another Hama massacre was in the making.

Now – after nearly a year of Syrian soldiers under his command shooting and indiscriminately murdering civilians – Assad has decided to hold a constitutional referendum for what he claims is the start of serious reforms. The U.S has aptly stated that this referendum is “laughable” whilst at the same time taking flak from China whom -- along with Russia -- has vetoed any resolution on Syria, accusing the U.S of being “arrogant” for criticizing it over its policy towards the situation in Syria, a move which is hardly surprising on China's part given that country's foreign policy initiatives and UN Security Council vetoes over the past 20 years. The more salient of which include, but are not limited to, its support of the Burmese junta, the ghastly Mugabe dictatorship in Zimbabwe and the family oligarchy in Pyongyang. As well as all that we're seeing increased Chinese settler activity in Tibet -- which is proving to be little more than a coordinated effort with the aim of eradicating the Tibetan identity -- which is comparable to the controversial actions of the more extreme Israeli settlers on the West Bank -- who unlike the Chinese settlers in Tibet garner immense acrimony for their actions.

It's also hardly surprising that the Iranian regime is supporting the Assad dynasty. Whilst it speaks warmly of concordance with the majority of Sunni's in Egypt whom are very supportive of the Muslim Brotherhood – which represented the grassroots opposition to Mubarak's dictatorial rule for quite a long time – it actively supports Assad whose minority clan divide and rule over the Sunni majority and suppresses the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. It does this in a manner similar to how the late Hussein family Baathist dictatorship in Iraq did with regard to the Shia majority in that country.

The Shah's army opened fire into a crowd of protesters in the 1979 revolution before he decided to embrace the revolution and acknowledge the error of his ways, and his corruption. Not granting concessions for so long the varied stripes of the opposition banded together and increased the pressure, when he finally offered concessions it was too late, the people were empowered, concessions were merely signs of his weakness that encouraged the young revolutionaries of the day to further pressure him to grant more concessions, until he finally left Iran which was symbolic of his capitulation.

Assad similarly has waited a considerable amount of time before considering reform, however he seems to be continuing to ignore key tenants from the old constitution, which include basic rights such as personal and political freedoms as well as the banning by law of torture. The Turkish Foreign Minister questioned this questionable referendum saying to the Syrian regime that: “on one hand you say you are holding a referendum and on the other you are attacking with tank fire on civilian areas,” and then proceeded to inquire if the Syrian regime seriously thought that the "the people will go to a referendum the next day in the same city?"

Of course this is in a region where dictators often claim 99 to 100% of the vote – even when only running for re-election against themselves – of which some credulous people – as well as some sly propagandists – in the west cite as a positive with regard to the respective dictator. Some eager to inflate the infinitely small “pro's list” with regards to the Saddam Hussein dictatorship cited the fact that he won an election -- at 100%

A similar political camp of people – some ignorant and deluded, others intentional obscurantist – often cite the fact that Iran holds elections on its own accord, and some regime apologists often state this is proof that Iran is a consensual democracy, ignoring and omitting the fact that since the last Presidential election the Supreme Leader and cohorts in the regimes state-within-a-state have made the totalitarianism of the regime self-evident, when it was up until two years ago a quasi and semi-democratic hybrid regime it is now a full blown no-apologies totalitarian regime, which terrorizes and kills its own people, the opposition to speak of is no longer a partisan organization promoting the causes or campaigning for the vote of a new reformist minded president to represent them within the system, instead it has evolved through circumstances to a relatively loosely associated group with the simple cause of campaigning and fighting for the most basic civil liberties and human rights which has been denied to them by this dictatorial theocracy.

There is a brilliant moment in the opening of Con Coughlan's brilliant book Khomeini's Ghost where he illustrates the apt manner in which a girl crying upon the onset of Khomeini's purges summed up what had really happened: “I thought Khomeini was going to bring us democracy, but now I realize that all is going to happen is that we are going to simply replace one dictator with another.” (I'd highly recommend if you haven't already to read the story of Samiye Tohidlou a child of the revolution and her horrific treatment for the mere act of voicing some well overdue criticisms of this supposedly infallible regime and if you still have the stomach for it; then read about the families of students shot by the ruthless, cruel and savage Basij goons whom were sent bills for the bullets used to murder their sons and daughters to truly get a whiff of the kind of democracy the Iranian people have thanks to this regime.)

The Shiite theocracy of which Ayatollah Khomeini implemented and built up in Iran is to that sect of Islam what the Berlin Wall was to Marxism in the sense that it missed the entire point and primary teaching of the beliefs it claimed to adhere to and practice. It is a core corrupted form of Islam that was propagated and advertised as the pure and true form, but is instead plain unadulterated fascism masquerading as an Islamic guided and mandated form of governance, an autocratic rule determined by the autocrats whims.

The regimes unapologetic policies of oppression and suppression become more tangible by the day and in the ghastly world of brute dictators where the dignity of the people is considered a dangerous concession to grant we're seeing the Iranian regime pave the inevitable path towards confrontation, where to suppress the opposition is to inevitably destroy that opposition, and instead of learning a lesson from the systematic massacre of dissidents in 1988 it is putting itself on course to repeat those horrific actions yet again.

It is therefore a lucky thing for this regime that the concept of shame is a wholly alien one, because if it weren't they would not be able to go on living with the shame they have garnered for themselves.

Nuclear Consensus

By Paul Iddon

If democracy flourishes in Iran so will peace in the region. 

Bushehr reactor.

The 33rd anniversary of the Islamic Revolution passed by last week. Cardboard Khomeini re-enactments aside there was a sizable turnout in the Freedom Square, where Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a rather vague manner spoke of Iran's nuclear program and asserted that "all needs of the Iranian nation" would be met by its nuclear scientists.

Anyone who knows anything about Iran knows that the country's nuclear program was started under the Shah, during his latter days of megalomania and disillusionment he constructed the Bushehr reactor, which wasn't completed upon his downfall. Whilst he always maintained that he separated oil from politics he must have seen the potential nuclear power would have for the future. Indeed, in a retrospectively amusing banner ad (a printout of which I have pinned on my wall to remind myself of the many ironies of history) entitled 'Guess Who's Building Nuclear Power Plants' U.S. energy corporations point to Iran as the perfect promotional example for nuclear power. Alluding to the fact that even though the Shah was sitting atop one of the largest oil reservoirs in the world he saw the economical investments to be had in nuclear power.

Many Iranians who took to the streets in 1979 motivated by anger and discontentment with the Shah's autocratic rule were under the impression that the installation of a representative democratic government would see Iran's oil nationalized (as was the case in 1953 before the Anglo-American coup) and the benefits of which would be invested in their future. Instead a flesh and blood Khomeini returned from exile and imposed a theocratic rule over the entire country. Plundering the economy -- which he is reportedly said to have dismissed as being for donkey's -- and leaving the country susceptible to attack through violent purges of the Iranian military. He even planned to sell back Iran's fleet of F-14 fighter jets, which proved to be essential in defending Iranian air space throughout the war with Iraq. The brave pilots whom defended their country at its time of need were brutally tortured, their heroic accounts body-guarded by anonymity as a result of fear for their safety – that's how the theocracy repays the few that so very much is owed to.

When the Shah was building up the foundations of the Iranian nuclear program he maintained an elite secret police unit called the SAVAK which sniffed out dissenters and tortured them to ensure his autocratic rule wouldn't be challenged. The SAVAK was essentially utilized by the Shah to ensure the broader private property that was his Iran wasn't tampered with from within.

When asked in what is a very historically significant interview in 1974 if the growing prosperity within Iran would lead to greater demand for democracy the Shah questioned the interviewers logic asserting there was and would be no great demand for democracy in Iran, as the people he asserted saw and respected the king as a father figure and followed him as such. This shows how he for the better half of 30 years viewed his people, as proverbial children who were subject to his perceived greater knowledge and insight to how the world works.

Roughly around this time Khomeini during his period in exile in Iraq decided that the religious decree that is the Vilayet-e Faqih should apply to everyone in Iran. Hence all power should be invested within him whilst the Iranian people were all in a sense children who weren't yet of age and required parental guidance.

One sincerely doubts that if the Shah had fully functioning nuclear reactors that his contempt for the Iranian people wouldn't be off-setted by nuclear power, on the contrary, nuclear energy certainly isn't the answer to Iran's problems, the obvious solution is democratization.

And when I say democracy I don't mean the current system which is a supreme dictator who preselects and prunes candidates and shows general contempt for the “electoral process” itself (“just pick one of my damned candidates and hurry up about it, I don't like all this public display of free expression and demonstration, even if it takes place under the tight constraints of my authoritarian apparatus”).

A 'Nixon goes to China' moment on behalf of the US - hence offering overtures to the theocracy - would be quite a regressive thing for the United States to do as it would exhibit the same amount of contempt towards the Iranian people as did their old relationship with the Shah – where they simply invested everything into him and checked solely on him when anything related to Iran was concerned. For the large part this is the kind of relationship the US would have yet again if it were to resume diplomatic relations with the theocracy, as it would in turn recognize it as the parental authority over the Iranian people and would deal accordingly with Iran via the theocracies whims.

The solution lies in the consensus. Iran has asserted in the midst of threats of aerial bombardment that its nuclear program is peaceful. A majority of the Israeli public has also expressed a willingness to pursue a nuclear free zone across the Middle East, knowing full well it would mean decommissioning their own stockpile. A democratic Iran could easily pursue such a policy, keep its own civil nuclear program and focus on domestic issues such as ensuring world class safety codes and measures are taken in its earthquake prone capital.

Iran is long overdue in entering the nuclear age, and long overdue in dispensing itself of its high reliance on its own natural resources. But to move into this age the people of Persia need to stand on their own feet and assert themselves like the fair minded individuals they are and not allow themselves to be tread upon by this conniving dictatorship.

The Iran - Libya analogy

By Paul Iddon

The parallel between the fall of the Colonel Gaddafi to a possible future confrontation between the Iranian regime and large parts of its own disenfranchised population.



Shortly after the Egyptian people stood together in their thousands in solidarity in Tahrir Square in Cairo, where they showed their unity and opposition to the Mubarak regime instigating its downfall something quite different happened in neighbouring Libya. The aged, senile dictator Muammar Gaddafi had ordered his air force to strafe Benghazi, the main hub of opposition to his rule. Two Libyan pilots clearly showing a lot of guts and initiative diverted their French made Mirage F-1 jets and flew to Malta in a dramatic defection, which they undertook to avoid slaughtering their fellow countrymen. Gaddafi had made it clear that he would go to any lengths to preserve his rule, even if it meant going to war against a large proportion of his countries population.

That was by all means a civil war, and given Libya's longstanding regional and tribal divisions when Gaddafi's tinpot rule finally capitulates we may not see a fully united Libya, (or even a stable one). This is another thing that distinguishes this situation from the one in Iran (I can't see even the Revolutionary Guards Air Corps strafing protesters with their 'Frogfoot' attack planes as a means of crushing democratic insurrection anytime soon). Furthermore unlike Tripoli (which remained relatively calm until the rebels arrival earlier this week) Tehran is the centre of not only the present regime, but also a hefty amount of the countries many youthful democrats.
Also Iran unlike the regions tinpot dictatorships didn't immediately dispatch tanks and other forms of lethal force to crush the people when they amassed in opposition to the regimes authoritarian rule, but instead employed brute baton wielding Basij thugs as a forms of crushing said insurrection, these tactics were eerily reminiscent to Israel's earlier attempts to subvert the Palestinian masses during the onset of what is now known historically as the First Intifada.

The regime clearly has no intention of signing its death warrant in the same manner that the last Shah did, the manner in question being the use of live ammunition as a means of suppressing the masses democratic aspirations.

The Iranian system and society is gradually metamorphosing into a secular democracy, demographically this is the countries destiny, and the present powers that be know their time is limited and are acting accordingly. But they're still treating citizens in a condescendingly childlike manner which reeks of utter contempt for principals such as individual freedom and freedom of expression. They treat their people with such contempt while adopting a zero tolerance policy towards criticism or public scrutiny towards their authoritarian rule. And furthermore subjecting those who don't conform to rape and torture is a very violent and paranoid way of conducting internal affairs. And now this rapidly declining and deteriorating regime is doing its utmost to assemble a nuclear weapon in which to use to intimidate its neighbours and elbow its way into broader regional affairs in its characteristically thuggish self-pitiful and self-indulgent righteous manner.

Even in an educated country like Iran steeped as it is in thousands of years of civilization will be further held back development wise by a regime whose domestic policies include the suppression of many the talents of its females. A regime that sneers at the educated and intellectuals of the country who are neither forced into exile or imprisoned for having the audacity to speak out against their policies; which have made one of the oldest and most advanced civilizations of the past a backward social pariah in the 21st century. One which is slowly declining to a state of beggary. It can be safely bet that the clerical rulers will utilize such conditions to lay the blame on western imperialism, Zionism and the Crusaders (or as I like to refer to them all as; the usual suspects).

And as with all totalitarian systems, when the states industry and economy grinds to a halt the loyal thugs that make up the paramilitary forces, the ones that have been indoctrinated ideologically wise will fight until the bitter end, even if it means shattering their own state and its people in the process.

The regime at present is gradually building itself up to reach the point where Gaddafi is now, where most of the people it presides over are liabilities, as their willingness to pursue democratic change is a direct threat to the regimes firm grip on the status quo. Therefore conflict between the fascistic elements of the regime and the aspiring and maturing Iranian democrats is only inevitable. And civilization and the idea of international human rights and justice will themselves be only abstract and wishful ideas in an international community that should rightfully be ashamed of itself if it lets such a grotesque outcome transpire in Persia.

P.S. In the 2010 Democracy Index carried out by The Economist both Iran and Libya were listed as authoritarian regimes. Both of which scored exactly 1.94 out of 10.00 (Norway got the highest with 9.80 and North Korea scored the lowest with 1.08).

Editor’s Note: Paul Iddon is one of the authors of Uskowi on Iran. His weekly columns appear here on Wednesdays.

Majlis Speaker Criticizes Ahmadinejad– Asserts Authority of Majlis

In a sign of growing schism among the Iranian leaders, the country’s powerful Speaker of Majlis today criticized president Ahmadinejad over his remarks yesterday that the parliament no longer has the final authority over governmental affairs.

"If Imam Khomeini (the founder of the Islamic Republic) said Majlis has full authority, it was to prevent the re-emergence of dictatorship in Iran," Majlis Speaker Ali Larijani said today in response to Ahmadinejad’s remarks.

"Parliament should supervise lest the government deviates from its course," Larijani added [Fars News Agency, 19 September 2010].

Ahmad Tavakoli, one of the leaders of the conservative faction in Majlis, said that Ahmadinejad's remarks should be and would be reviewed in a joint meeting of Majlis, the government and the Guardian Council scheduled for tomorrow.

“Based on the Iranian Constitution, the president and his cabinet are accountable to people, Majlis and the Supreme Leader," Tavakoli added.

RT report on Hilary Clinton's recent Iran comments

An interesting Russia Today segement in which Wayne Madsen assesses the comments made by Secretary of State Hilary Clinton when she stated that Iran is becoming a military dictatorship.

US: Iran Drifting Toward Military Dictatorship

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said today that the US feared Iran was drifting toward a military dictatorship, with IRGC seizing key political, military and economic positions in the country.

“That is how we see it,” Clinton said. “We see that the government in Iran, the supreme leader, the president, the Parliament, is being supplanted and that Iran is moving towards a military dictatorship” [NYTimes, 15 February].

Last week, the US imposed new sanctions against the commander of IRGC’s sprawling construction conglomerate, Khatam-ol Anbia, and four of its subsidiaries.

The Obama administration is working on a series of broader UN sanctions that would take aim at IRGC, publicly singling out the Revolutionary Guards’ vast array of companies, banks and the wide web of assets owned or controlled by IRGC.

Clinton’s blunt remarks in linking IRGC to the growing fear of Iran’s drift toward a military dictatorship were remarkable. In the past couple of years, a number of Iran analysts have also raised concern about the growing control of IRGC over the country’s political and economic institutions, a dangerous concentration of power in the hands of the armed forces.

UPDATE (Monday 15 February): As Secretary Clinton was leaving Doha, she voiced concern over the inability of the civilian leadership in Tehran to make their minds on the uranium enrichment policy.

"The civilian leadership is either preoccupied with its internal political situation or is ceding ground to the Revolutionary Guard," Clinton said.

She added that it appears the IRGC is in charge of Iran's nuclear program and any change in nuclear policy depends on whether the civilian leadership could reassert itself.

"I'm not predicting what will happen but I think the trend with this greater and greater military lock on leadership decisions should be disturbing to Iranians as well as those of us on the outside," she said.

Iran - Crackdown on Loyal Opposition

Iranian authorities are stepping up post-election crackdown. Reports from Tehran indicate that the government will put on trial several top reformist leaders, including key figures from reformist administration of Mohammad Khatami. Lawyers in Tehran say they are being held for “acting against national security.”

Meanwhile, Hossein Shariatmadari, the influential editor of the ultra-Conservative daily Kayhan, has called for detention and trial of Mir Hossein Mousavi, the leader of the opposition and the prime minister of the Islamic Republic during the eight-year Iran-Iraq war, on charges of “treason.” He has called Mousavi a “U.S. agent.” Shariatmadari is also a top aid to Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei.

The expected trial of the reformist leaders and the call for trial of Mousavi is formally transforming the Islamic Republic into a naked dictatorship, with no pretenses for being one of the few centers of tolerance in the Muslim world for the loyal opposition.