Iranian regimes forces shoot teenager dead in his home

Security forces belong to the Iranian regime shot dead a 15-year-old boy named Morteza Soveidi in his home in the south-eastern city of Ahvaz on April 12.

The Iranian regime has deemed homes of the Arab minority in Ahvaz to be 'illegally built' and is accordingly flattening these homes in the largely impoverished district under the pretext that they were built without official permission.

This comes mere weeks after a crackdown on farmers in Isfahan who were protesting against water shortages that came after the Revolutionary Guards cut off their water supply through their building of dams in the Zayande-Rud River.

Will Iran take the Morsi line on Syria?

 By Paul Iddon

Why Tehran may switch sides in the destructive Syrian Civil War. 

Mohammed Morsi.

It's a bad sign when one grows tired of repeating something to the point that they sound like a broken record. I confess to bringing up on far too many occasions Barack Obama's past relativistic apologetic attitude towards the Mubarak dictatorship in Egypt when it was a 'stalwart ally' of the United States in the region.

After reaching out to the Arab world whilst being hosted by the autocrat in Cairo Obama offered, among other things, an extended arm to the regime in Damascus offering to mend broken bridges and even going as far as proposing the establishment of a U.S embassy in Syria. Among those making excuses, it was fashionable for a time, for the Baathist regime of Bashar al-Assad was the magazine Vogue which went to considerable length to paint Syria's first family as admirable peace-loving and heartfelt democrats.

On a related note our friend Flynt Leverett seems to be more set on apologizing for the authoritarian nature of the regime in Tehran these days than he is for exculpating and relativizing Assad's rule -- which was what took up his time when that regime was assassinating the main advocates of secular and civil democratic society in Lebanon back in 2005.

But like Iran, “under the great leadership of the Shah”, Egypt went from a stalwart “force for stability” (how such euphemistic phrases make one cringe) in the region to a country engulfed by enthusiastic revolutionary fervour. Whilst two years on the fate of Egypt is still uncertain and hard to gauge (one can be excused for being highly cynical) one was still nonetheless inspired by the courage and power the people exhibited in that 18-day stand off against the military in Tahrir Square.

Speaking to an anonymous Christian Syrian government official last year, while covering events in Syria for his magnificent book Revolt in Syria, Stephen Starr recalls pondering the nature of the Iran-Syria relationship. It didn't make sense to him. Iran is predominately Persian and Shia, not predominately Arab and Sunni like Syria he mused. The official agreed with the peculiar nature of the relationship adding the regime wanted to make overtures with Washington in recent years, but the latter didn't even want to talk until security issues were addressed. The Syrian official put the blame on the supposed power of the “Israel lobby”.

Therefore Syria in its staunch opposition to Israel and support for the Hezbollah in Lebanon found an ally in Tehran, albeit strictly for common “Realpolitik” means and not ideological ones. Tehran has given considerable support to its ally in Damascus. Therefore the Sunnis revolting against Assad don't constitute an “Islamic awakening” as did the Egyptian Revolution. Morsi has furthermore agreed with Tehran and blamed the unrest in Syria not on the repressive regime, but on conspiratorial foreign meddling from Tel Aviv and Washington. He also quite aptly vindicated Ayatollah Khameini and seeks closer ties with the Iranian theocracy and seeks to aid the oppressed of Palestine and Bahrain.

Well what he really said was irrelevant because the Iranian regime regulated censor replaced words he said at last Septembers non-aligned conference in Tehran with ones more favourable to their position. The term “Islamic awakening” wasn't mentioned. Morsi supports the Syrian people in their struggle against dictatorship and never said anything about the Shia majority in Bahrain (even though they warrant serious attention, but not for the reason the theocratic regime is focusing on it).

But when you proclaim your words to be infallible as well as your world outlook it can in all fairness very annoying when people say things that don't fully fit this world view. It can also be annoying when other nations don't want to align with your great and self-professed – in name only -- 'Islamic Republic'. So just report that they did.

It would be almost funny if it wasn't so serious. Yet even the rulers in Tehran, with their delusions of grandeur and general delusional perceptions of itself and the world, have become hesitant regarding its support for Assad. Several analysts and commentators are pondering what the regime is thinking and whether or not its stance on Syria will change in accordance with a potential rebel victory. Hence will Iran, in a desperate bid not to be relegated into total irrelevancy when it comes to regional affairs, change its horse in midstream and throw their lot in with a victorious opposition?

Hence take the Morsi line, which is that the Assad regime has no place in the future of the Syria state. Will the Syrian struggle therefore cease to be characterized in their propaganda outlets as a conspiratorial intervention by the CIA and the Zionists (or whichever one it happens to be 'this week') and instead become, as was the case in Egypt, an 'Islamic awakening'?

Many who support or see Assad as a tolerable 'force for stability', or believe the civil war to be a wholly covert U.S/Saudi sponsored initiative to sow chaos and instability in the country, point out the fundamentalist aspects of hefty branches of the opposition. These branches of the rebels have already even began to impose strict Sharia law on territory in the countryside around the city of Aleppo which they have captured. This may be a sign of things to come in Syria if the fundamentalists prevail over both Assad and the secular branches of the opposition they are currently fighting alongside.

Iran which is striving to have an influence in the revolutionary fervour in the region may very well switch allegiances and try and ingratiate itself with a Sunni regime that may rise to power from the devastation wrought by the civil war. This could be through the offering of aid and assistance in a bid to prevent such a fundamentalist regime from starting a war with Hezbollah in neighbouring Lebanon -- any new government or regime that comes after Assad, if he indeed falls or capitulates in the coming months or years, will doubtlessly try and exert its influence on Lebanon.

Saudi Arabia, which has proven in Bahrain and in its own kingdoms east that it will readily use repressive measures to clamp down on the Shia, would certainly like to see Hezbollah's power and interest in the region diminish. But unlike some of the more hardcore Sunni fundamentalists they are currently supporting in Syria the Saudi kingdom nevertheless doesn't perceive it to be in its regional interests to start a proxy war with the State of Israel. Whether or not the Iranian regime perceives further confrontation via proxy with Israel in the near future to be in its interest is debatable.

One could go into numerous 'what if' situations, but the idea of Iran making such a move under certain circumstances in order to retain some degree of influence isn't far-fetched, the regime has proven with its policies and alliances that there are few depths to which it will not sink to.

Rudimentary Realpolitik

By Paul Iddon

Some of the more arcane and illogical views on the Iran issue that are propagated as 'realist' ones. 

Flynt Leverett -

LOUAI BESHARA/AFP/Getty Images 

Suffice to say there has been a lot of myths and half-truths that have been propagated by a variety of different sources with regard to the image the so-called 'western world' has of Iran. The perception of a country full of Islamic fundamentalists hellbent on acquiring 'the bomb' and immediately using it to destroy the State of Israel is an image that many to the right in the U.S have been propagating since Ahmadinejad's now infamous comments regarding the 'vanishing of the Zionist entity from the page of time.' Which was, as you my astute reader well know, a quote of a statement made by the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Interestingly that statement of Khomeini's was made in the early 1980's when the Jewish state was adopting a Realpolitik policy of its own, which saw to it cooperating with Iran and essentially taking its side against Iraq throughout the war. Iran's botched bombing of the Iraqi Osirak reactor in 1981 for example was a forerunner to the Israeli raid that successfully knocked it out. Yes, Iran and Israel cooperating in the bombing of another country's nuclear installation under the pretext of preventing said country from developing nuclear weapons, how times have changed.

Whilst one could go on for hours and hours about the dynamics of the geopolitical history of the Middle East that isn't the issue I want to address. The issue I think needs to be analyzed and cross examined is the issue Middle Eastern Realpolitik, particularly with regard to policies towards Iran and the present ruling regime in Tehran.

1953 is a year I never tire, and never will tire, of bringing up when it comes to the broader question about Iran, the present situation there and that country's future. Back then as you know it was a Realpolitik outlook the hawks in Washington took to Iran nationalizing its own natural resources. Mohammed Mossadeq was accordingly denounced as a communist and the Iranian people were forcibly denied a democratic and potentially prosperous future as a republic. And, to add insult to injury, these foreign entities went on to prop up the Shah and even trained his secret police to keep his dynasty in place and essentially solidify Iran as a bulwark against Soviet expansion into the oil rich Persian Gulf. An interesting fact about this period was that it was the secularist Mohammed Reza Pahlavi who oversaw the building of a large amount of mosques during his period of modernization. This was, in part, because his 'realist' view saw them as an ideological deterrent against communism. Indeed it was the so-called 'Islamic Revolution' of '79 marked the beginning of a new era of holy war, that would see committed ideologues armed with AK-47's and Stinger missiles in next store Afghanistan fight a tough and dedicated guerrilla war against the Soviet military and force it to cease its occupation of their land.

One finds it very difficult to elaborate in any way on the subject of the 'Islamic Republic' and the term 'realism' without mentioning Flynt and Hilary Mann Leverett. A couple you could call notorious for their advocacy of rapprochement with Iran and their strong denouncements of policies of the United States. In their eyes the Iranian regime isn't the radical and fundamentalist types vying for apocalyptic war but a relatively sober actor which has been undermined time and again by an aggressive United States.

It is certainly true that the Iranian regime isn't what it is in a lot of political circles claimed to be. And certainly a more sober policy on behalf of 'the west' needs to be taken with regard to conduct towards Tehran. Very recently the Leverett duo contrasted the currently crippling sanctions being leveled against the Iranian people to the previous ones leveled against Iraq. Which is a considerable point and one I have often made with regard to suggested policies that should be taken with regard to the current situation in Syria (of whose current President-for-life Flynt wrote an entire book about back in 2005 arguing that him and his 'British-born wife' represented the perfect people to do business with, since they are convicted reformers at heart). The sanctions against Iran, contrary to statements from Benjamin Netanyahu and Ayatollah Khameini, are having an effect on Iran, but an effect on the wrong people, namely those very same Iranians whose future and lives have essentially been stolen along with a vast majority of the country's wealth by the 'kleptocrats'. The ones who rule the country and regularly employ brute force against any dissent clearly demonstrating this to unequivocally be the case. This is an aspect of the regime that the Leverett's have strove to distort and to conceal, in their lectures and writings on the subject. Such distortion reek of an agenda on their part.

The Leverett's arguments are quite a lot of the time questionable. Especially their blatant attempts to sucker us into calling Iran an 'Islamic Republic', something that it is in name only and something we should cease calling it, lest we want to palpably fool ourselves. If we're going to have a 'Nixon goes to China' moment we should at least tell the truth about what the Iranian regime is, how it came to where it is today and how recognizing it could seriously undermine Iran's democratic aspirations and could potentially serve to alienate a whole new generation of Iranians.

American imperialism is of course something that should be investigated and accordingly scrutinized where it rightfully deserves and warrants said scrutiny. However, the Leverett's are in essence advocating, through their talk and propagation of a supposedly thoughtful and symbiotic 'Nixon goes to China' type of rapprochement, another form of imperialism. This kind would see to the United States once again taking at face value a brutal authoritarian regime that is far worse than the last one it embraced.

Persia's history of British paranoia that was fostered from the colonial era is essential understanding when it comes to Iranian paranoia and conspiracy theorizing about how imperial entities are plotting against their own developments. One such theory half-jokingly asserts that if you look under the beard of a Mullah, you'll see an imprint which reads 'Made in Britain'. The obvious point being that it was the British, up to their usual tricks and malevolence again, who imposed this current regime on Iran, to rob it of any future free from the shackles of dictatorship and regression. Since a weak Persia is an exploitable Persia. Recognizing and doing business with this regime would be in essence an imperial move on behalf of the west. As would enriching and prolonging the rule of this regime a great disservice and another unjust act carried out by the west against the Iranian people as a whole.

Flynt and Hilary are right in saying that such a rapprochement would have highly significant economic advantages to the United States. They are completely correct in this regard, as Flynt is at pains to point out, Iran is very important when it comes to the geopolitics of imperial control, it has vast resources and is in a highly strategic location, and whoever controls that territory wields substantial power, influence and control in this world of ours.

Iran was effectively robbed and its people killed and even massacred by the tyrants that reigned following the coup of '53. An imperial coup that led Iran to the sorry state it is in now. What is more 'imperial' than cooperating with the gangsters in Tehran now and dealing with them as if they represent anything more than their own exorbitant business interests? What a horribly unjust thing that would be to advocate and propagate as policy. What is essentially at its base more divide and rule via proxy.

The couples upcoming book is entitled 'Going to Tehran: Why the United States Must Come to Terms with the Islamic Republic'. When one looks up the elementary dictionary definition of the terms 'Islamic' and 'republic' one wonders how the United States could possibly come to terms with something that doesn't even exist in Iran.

Assad's Allies

By Paul Iddon

China, Russia and the Iranian regime should not be condemned for their policies vis-á-vis Syria.

China and Russia have vetoed
Security Council Resolutions
condemning Assad.

The Syrian conflict persists, the country is rapidly descending into utter despair, her cities have been bombed, shelled and largely churned to rubble, over 250,000 Syrian citizens are homeless, or are being hosted in refuge camps abroad. In excess of 20,000 people have been killed. Both the army and the armed opposition have committed heinous crimes against the Syrian people.

In the midst of such horrors it is essential that one gauges ones condemnation soberly. Looking at Iran's relation to all of this one easily can see the heavy realpolitik motive of the regime supporting its only real ally in the region, even if such realpolitik renders its rhetoric utterly nonsensical.

Similarly the Russia and China's vetoing the United Nations Security Council Resolutions condemning Mr. Assad are understandable, and don't constitute aggression against the Syrian people. Russian arms supplies to Syria since this crisis began haven't increased nor decreased, the Russians are simply steadily supplying spare parts to the Syrian military, the Syrian military isn't being supplied with any new military hardware -- let alone any new hardware in bulk -- to enable it to enhance its abiliy to seek out and eliminate the various insurgent groups across the war ravaged state.

In the broader outlook being presented to us about the Syrian conflict a lot of attention is focused in particular on Assad's brutal means of suppression and the sectarian makeup of the country, hence the idea that the Alawaii minority is being pitted against the Sunni majority. An often neglected feature of the country's ethnic makeup is that of its Kurdish population, which constitutes about 8% of the total population.

The Syrian Kurds are currently in a de-facto truce with the regime. An interesting feature of their outlook on this whole thing is their total bewilderment at the idea of Turkey caring in the slightest of human rights for Syrians after the way the Kurds have been treated at the hands of the Turks in the past. In fact the Syrian Kurds have made it clear that it will fight on the side of the regime if Turkey militarily intervenes in the conflict – which it would probably do under the pretext of a humanitarian intervention to establish humanitarian safe zones in order to protect civilians against Assad's forces.

In the 1990's during the conflict between the Turkish state and the PKK the Turks (after declaring the Kurds to be their own people) carried out an extensive campaign against the predominately Kurdish populated south-eastern Turkey. This campaign saw to – among other sordid exploits – the killing of 50,000 Kurds and the destruction of some 3,000 villages – several of which were completely obliterated from the air -- which in turn saw to the displacement of some 2 million Kurds. All of this was done under the same pretext that Assad is using for his oppressive means, to deny the “terrorists” a foothold -- in Turkey back then it was the PKK, in Syria today it is the 'Free Syrian Army'. The United States during this time supplied Turkey with an unprecedented amount of military hardware and ordnance which was decisive in enabling them to carry out that highly destructive campaign.

The United States along with the other bloc of the Security Council (the U.S. - Western Europe bloc that favours condemning Assad and have contemplated intervention on the side of the oppositional elements) should stop trampling upon the collective and cooperative ability and resolve of the international community to broker a ceasefire by providing effective humanitarian aid to the Syrian civilians who are caught in the crossfire and are struggling to survive. This would be a more humanistic approach that wouldn't constitute aggression against the Syrian state -- which the funneling of arms to the Syrian opposition by U.S. regional allies does.

It is clear that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards have advisers on the ground in Syria providing the Assad regime with means in which to suppress and crush insurrections across the country. They are also more than likely aiding the Syrian Republican Guard in cyber-related activities – most likely in order to prevent the organization of anti-regime demonstrations in Damascus, etc.

We should tell the truth about Assad and his heinous crimes and exploits, but we should also comprehend and recognize the variety of factors that shape these decisions that are being made by the China and Russia bloc of the Security Council as well as the ones of the Iranian regime -- which is trying its utmost to 'cash in' on the ongoing hysteria over that 18-minute anti-Islamic film, which has offended some Muslims in Egypt, Libya and Yemen, by increasing the amount of its silly bounty on Salman Rushdies head.

Condemning the presiding regime in Tehran for its support and aid to Assad is pointless and counterproductive, what would be productive would be to officially support the likes of the brave Bahraini human rights activist Abdulhadi Khawaja (whose courage and determination should have made him a household name in the part of the world that prescribes to value the spread of democracy). We should do that instead of pointing the finger at the current rioters and malcontents who are trying to justify their petty vandal behaviour by stating it is a direct result of them being deeply offended by that inflammatory film. The 'enlightened' and supposedly 'civilized' and 'liberal' west really needs a more educated and deeper outlook on such developments, instead of an outlook shaped on hollow perceptions and shallow obscurantists. Such outlooks -- depressingly -- have once again prevailed in the mainstream.

The Iranian regime with its pathetic attempts of masquerading to be Islamic discreetly welcomes the mental formation of such misleading misconceptions, which is why it embraces and encourages such obscurantist Islamists wherever they sprout up, to foster the said hollow perceptions and in turn sully and demonise Muslims everywhere.

Operating behind-the-scenes while the western mainstream shines its narrow spotlight on these jesters are the true Iranians, the patriots, whose forefathers pioneered the pivotal ideas that built the foundations of civilization that people the world over take for granted.

These are the people who will be the first to put their lives on the line and fight off any attackers and defend their homeland. Any person professing to be civilized should deeply respect these people as they are the ones that should represent Iran for what it truly is. We should stop energizing and exciting the theocrats with our contempt for them, and instead energize and encourage the true nationalist and patriots of Persia with our support and heartfelt understanding.

The Disappeared

 By Paul Iddon

What the Argentine Dirty War and the massacre of Iranian prisoners of conscience in 1988 warn us about dictatorial caprice and paranoia.

Argentine memorial of the
'desaparecidos' -- disappeared.

The 30th anniversary of the Falklands War went by a few weeks ago. Amidst the present ongoing dispute regarding the rightful ownership of those small sparsely populated islands public interest in that question and on that war briefly flared as a result of the historically significant anniversary.

One however cannot aptly and properly reflect upon that period without appreciating the gravity of the Dirty War and the affect it had on Argentina. When one does appreciate this it puts a lot of things into perspective, particularly the manner in which the General Galteri dictatorship felt it needed to in a sense dignify itself by invading the islands under the pretext of reasserting national pride, which had been lost as the nerve racked country had tangibly “lost” some 30,000 of its citizens who were subsequently dubbed as “the disappeared.” The actual invasions of the islands and the subsequent war (which was later described very brilliantly by the Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges as being the equivalent of “a fight between two bald men over a comb”) was the juntas attempt of 'saving face' in the midst of its terrorizing of Argentine society and plunging the country into an economic recession.

The legacy of that horrific period in recent South American history has its origins in the subversion of democracy in Chile and the imposition of the ghastly military regime of Augusto Pinochet by the same U.S. Secretary of State who had helped Richard Nixon win the 1968 U.S. Presidential Election -- by sabotaging the Johnson Administrations peace agreement and thus prolonging the ongoing war in Vietnam -- and was by Gerald Ford's side when the Shah of Iran effectively stabbed the Iraqi Kurds in the back after prepping them up against the Baathist government there. I am of course talking about Henry Kissinger whose Cold War overture to China -- which was a bid by the U.S. to capitalize on the then recent Sino-Soviet split -- is an episode in 20th century history which Flynt Leverett constantly trumpets as the perfect model for U.S. Rapprochement with the Iranian regime in the present post Cold War world.

Reminiscent of the Argentine juntas cruelty during those years was the Iranian regimes massacre and crime against humanity which it executed in and around the time of Operation Mersad – a PMOI incursion into Iran near the end of the depleting Iran-Iraq War -- in 1988.

It's still unknown by international human rights organizations exactly how many were killed in this massacre which saw the Khomeini's then successor Montazari being forced to resign after writing letters condemning these heinous crimes. Montazari perfectly summed up the gravely horrendous injustice these mass executions represented when he stated very aptly that these actions violated “Islam by executing repenters and minor offenders who in a proper court of law would have received a mere reprimand.”

Even though he had been put forth by the Council of Experts Montazari was forced to resign. Criticism and self-evaluation was clearly not something that the regime took kindly to (and still doesn't). That is in a sense the point in time when the Islamic Republic ceased being anything that represented the masses of Iranians whom had fought in earnest to topple the Shahs autocratic regime. Having a free hand under the cover of that long war to crush dissent the regime felt the need to abolish all political opposition to its tight-knit ruling elite. Khomeini who had sacrificed hundreds of thousands of young men and boys with a clumsy and inept strategy then turned his hand to authorizing a religious decree to murder more Iranians.

However, instead of actually having trials for the various prisoners accused of treasonous action and/or membership with the PMOI Khomeini opted to make it a theological issue, painting thousands political prisoners of all different affiliations with the same brush he proclaimed them apostates of Islam (Salman Rushdie would give him the mother of all diversions the next year after his publishing of The Satanic Verses prompted Khomeini to capitalize on the resentment expressed by many inflamed Muslims who viewed the book as blasphemous. This affair was a political coup for Khomeini as it meant he could continue to instil radicalism within Iran and slyly divert attention away from the fact he had lost the six year counter offensive against Iraq).

That bloodbath also saw the hard liners do their utmost to squeeze out the moderates, the most prominent being Montazari who arguably could have substantially reformed the system and actually maintained a tangible legitimate Islamic Republic rather than the 'in name only' Islamic Republic that exists today.

That massacre was described as “an act of violence unprecedented in Iranian history - unprecedented in form, content, and intensity.” The exact number killed is still unknown, families whose loved ones were executed were prohibited from holding funerals for a year and were forbidden to show any signs of mourning in public. It was a warning of sorts for how cruel and capricious the regime can be and how when its unmentionable policies and actions are challenged (even verbally) it is readily willing to resort to sadistic violence within the blink of an eye.

The negation of elementary and fundamental human rights amongst people in Iran and the wider region isn't something that should be relativized, or excused as the internal conduct of the theocracies ignoble “justice system”. The Dirty War in Argentina is thankfully now part of history, this however doesn't mean the sense of loss and pain in those whom lost loved ones during that dark time does not still painfully linger on to this day. 

One of the most severe instances of violence to occur in Argentina following the Dirty War took the form of two heinous terrorist attacks against Israeli diplomatic institutions within the country, Iran in cahoots with Hezbollah are the prime suspects in these two respective attacks, a named high ranking member in the Iranian government is thought to have been a culprit in the latter one. Those attacks left approximately a hundred Argentine civilians dead.

These episodes from history are a grim reminder of why the abolishment of human rights in civilized countries like Iran must not be relativized, exculpating the oppressors, the human rights violators, torturers and the killers by explaining away such horrendous crimes against humanity is certainly no way for an International Community with a mere semblance of civility to conduct itself.

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.

Rhetoric & Realpolitik

By Paul Iddon

The Iranian regimes fanciful rhetoric and its telling Realpolitik.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei spoke warmly of the Egyptian Revolution on the February of last year. As a despot was being forced to capitulate at the behest of the Egyptian people Khameini addressed them as did Ahmadinejad. Both the Supreme Leader and the President advocated the right of the Egyptian people to choose their own government and in a broader sense their own destiny. Both these men made these statements with straight faces only days before employing their mentally stunted brainwashed 14-year old Basij thugs to ruthlessly crush a peaceful gathering of demonstrators in Tehran whom were clearly distraught with the destiny outlined for them by Khameini's authoritarian regime.

Khameini also spoke of an “Islamic awakening” sweeping the Arab world. A somewhat curious statement to make considering the Iranian regime is still giving its support to Bashar Al Assad, the brutal dictator who rules Syria and uses the same Ba'athist divide and rule policies to keep the Sunni majority oppressed as Saddam Hussein did in Iraq to that country's Shia majority.

Whilst some have translated Khameni's rhetoric and tried to give it some semblance of reality by pointing out that the Muslim Brotherhood are doing well with Egypt's electorate these are very superficial interpretations of the Ayatollah's rhetoric and don't exactly vindicate his pronouncement of an “Islamic awakening”. The Muslim Brotherhood after all were the main organizational grassroots opposition to Mubarak's dictatorial rule. Whilst the US did pay the Mubarak government in grants every year that money never properly filtered down to the majority of Egyptians. As CNN's Christiane Amanpour pointed out during a visit to Egypt in 2007, the Muslim Brotherhood worked on the communal level, giving people their “bread and butter needs” when the Mubarak dictatorship had long since alienated itself from the majority of the Egyptian people.

The Muslim Brotherhood in Syria whom also form a lot of the grassroots opposition against the fascistic dictatorship of Assad launched a revolt against his father in 1982 in the town of Hama and were brutally crushed. 10,000 Syrians at the very least were killed in the horrific scorched earth policy the Syrian Army conducted against the residents of Hama.

It was just earlier this week that the Iranian ambassador to Lebanon said that Iran is quote "not at odds with the Muslim Brotherhood out of Islamic unity that we work towards and preach for,” around the same time the Muslim Brotherhood accused Iran – as well as Russia and China following their recent UN veto – of being an accomplice to the horrible massacre being carried out by Assad's forces against the Syrian people.

Khameini's regime is helping Assad to stay in power through the supplying of tools, equipment and technical assistance to monitor - among other things - opposition activity on the internet through the Quds Force. Khameini himself has essentially washed his hands of the scandalous fact that he is actively supporting a despot whom represses his country's Muslims through brutal divide and rule tactics - the same kind Khameini has accused the west of leveling towards the Egyptians - by blaming the unrest in Syria on the United States and Zionist conspirators. He is obviously in a morally depraved manner trying to convey that the Arab Spring and his professed “Islamic awakening” that has spread far and wide across the Arab world doesn't apply to Syria since the oppressive Ba'athist regime there happens to serve Tehran's broader interests in the region.

The Islamic Republics strategic imperatives in the region would face a major setback if the Assad regime was forced to capitulate at the behest of Syria's Sunni majority. As Syria is the so to speak conduit line between Iran and Hezbollah, the regimes primary military and political force in the Levant. If Syria were to be ruled by its majority and their outlook reflected in that countries foreign policy one doubts that they'd have ties as close to the regime in Tehran as Assad has at present.

And speaking of the wider Arab Spring, who could forget the events of those days and weeks following Khameini's pronouncements about Egypt in Bahrain?
Bahrain; a country where the same family has ruled for 200 years and a country where the close-knit Sunni minority through policies that stink of sectarianism marginalize the country's Shi'ite majority. The protests and the brutal crushing of the massive public gathering at Pearl Roundabout in the centre of Manama showed that the Bahrain situation wasn't a case of some sudden “Islamic awakening”. The graphic and moving scenes we saw at Salmaniya hospital weren't of people demanding a theocracy on the model of Saudi Arabia or Iran be put in place to rule over them, nor were they of Bahraini's demanding one sect rule over another, they were simply campaigning for equality and a tangible hint of compassion in their government.

The Saudi led GCC intervention into that country was given vocal support by the Israel's premier Netanyahu whom asserted that the Saudis had every right to secure their interests alluding to that fact that an Iranian controlled Bahrain would put Iran within “spitting distance” of the gulf states. This contemptible statement shows how Khameini's rhetoric is being used by some of the more hawkish elements in western governments to justify such deplorable actions.

It also shows that the biggest theocracies in the region that represent the two respective sects of Islam are facing widespread discontentment within their own borders. And this failure to make their own predominately Muslim populations contented seems to have led both to become overly paranoid and reactionary. Which is evident from the Saudi intervention in Bahrain and the billions that are being spent in concessions to quell further domestic protests. It is also evident in the Iran, where the regime has continued to give support to Assad's regime as well as continued to propagate such wishful rhetoric whilst trying to convey that it possesses some semblance of truth.

In a League with North Korea?

One finds the ruling regimes in Iran and North Korea have a lot more in common than being in former President George Bush's “Axis of Evil” together.



'Supreme Leader' Khameini and 'Dear Leader' Kim Jong il'

With the passing of the DPRK's 'Dear Leader' Kim Jong il one aptly is reminded of the cult of personality surrounding Ayatollah Khomeini and the outburst of emotion and despair following his death in 1989. Furthermore one finds upon closer examination and overall evaluation and comparison that the totalitarian systems imposed upon the North Koreans and the Iranians are strikingly similar in their totalitarian nature and respective propagation of propaganda.

In 2002 when President Bush declared an Axis of Evil and from his pulpit proclaimed it to consist of Iran, North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq one thing was clear to the keen observer from the get go – that being the fact that the Iranian people hadn't been reduced to the state of the literal serfs that had been made out of the Iraqi and North Korean people.

While the UN mandated international sanctions imposed on Iraq following the 1991 Persian Gulf War starved the feeble Iraqi people in their thousands Saddam Hussein was still able to build a lavish palace for himself in every one of Iraq's provinces. In North Korea little over three years before Bush's speech a famine had killed upwards to 3 million as the nations crops once again failed to feed the majority of the people who struggled to stay alive by eating grass and muck in order to have something in their stomachs, both people lived in a constant state of abject fear.

Iran at this time on the other hand was undergoing a hopeful time of liberal reforms under President Khatami which saw the countries youth having a vested interest in the countries political system and hopes for a brighter and more prosperous future.

So while the Iranian people are much more well off than the North Koreans (not a substantial amount more democracy wise in the last year or so – but I digress) their leadership shares a unique commonality with the North Korean one that I will strive to illustrate:
North Koreans are treated as if they are vulnerable, weak and innocent children protected by a figurative paternal father against a harsh and cruel world. This figurative father was Kim il Sung who when he passed away in 1994 left behind over 20 million Koreans sobbing uncontrollably, their tears for the most part seemed genuine, because since at least 1953 Kim il Sung had started one of the most elaborate personality cults centred around himself and gradually isolated the northern part of the Korean peninsula to the status of a hermit kingdom with his Juche (self-sufficiency) ideology. For the most part North Koreans don't know the reality of the outside world as the country has virtually no access to any information that doesn't follow the party line. The people there have been made into malnourished minions, the crops are continually failing and the country is becoming even more reliant on foreign aid from the powers it brainwashes its people to detest – whilst at the same time building ballistic missiles to neither export to countries like Iran or Pakistan or for its own use to threaten South Korea and Japan.

The clerical regime in Iran treats its people in a similarly condescending way, however there is an actual religious name for their supposed paternal authority over them, the Vilayat-e Faqih. Previously a religious decree it states amongst other things that the insane, absentees and the poor must be given guardianship by the Guardian Jurist. Following the overthrow of the last Shah in 1979 Ayatollah Khomeini formed the basis of the constitution of the then newly formed 'Islamic Republic' of Iran giving the Guardian Jurist the role of Supreme Leader over the government and in effect the Iranian people, who as a collective would be subjects of that rule.

Going back to other thing the Dear Leader and the Supreme Leader have in common. Apart from the solipsistic attitude they take with regards to their own people they also share another commonality with regards to their propagation of anti-western propaganda.

The North Korean propaganda system and party line often referred to their brethren in the south simply as the “Yankee colony” and preaches a very xenophobic view towards foreigners (the Cuban ambassador to North Korea was attacked by an angry mob of Koreans upon his visit to Pyongyang in 1965 simply because he was black) as a means of stirring up fear and animosity towards the outside world, all the while – as I've already stated – furthering their nuclear ambitions and capabilities in which to threaten their neighbours and solidify the leaderships firm positions of power and secure its hold over the publics imagination.

The present Iranian leadership since its foundation in 1979 has similarly made the country and its inhabitants social pariahs, as it continues to cynically blame all domestic and development woes on Zionists, western imperialism and the age old wretched Anglo-Saxon's. Unlike in North Korea however this ostentatiousness is as clear as day to most Iranians, and they for the most part have outgrown and seen through the shallow idea that – like their North Korean counterparts are raised to believe – they are vulnerable and feeble children whom require the tutelage of a regime made up of aged clerics. This regime has in the name of God imposed a theocratical totalitarian entity upon Persia and her inhabitants, subjugating them to an infantile level of intellect and accordingly treating them with despicably high levels of condescension and contempt.

As the Professor of Iranian History from the University of St. Andrews Ali Ansari stated, Iran is an educated society that has a God King, as he mildly but firmly put it, we live in a world where there is no longer any room for the God King.

Editor’s Note: Paul Iddon is one of the authors of Uskowi on Iran. His weekly column 'Broadened Vistas' appears here on Wednesdays.

The Tehran Spring

By Paul Iddon

A broad historical comparison that bares consideration.

Anti-regime demonstration in Tehran.

The recent passing of the former Czech President, playwright and dissident Václav Havel gives one a rather timely occasion to reflect upon the history of former Czechoslovakia and the substantial role he played in it.

Today as political dissidents and women are struggling for their human rights and right to practice freedom of speech are languishing in the likes of Evin Prison the informal civic initiative dubbed Charter 77 which Havel helped to draw up during Czechoslovakia's oppression bares uncanny relevance to the present situation in Iran. In particular its description of its signatories as: "loose, informal, and open association of people . . . united by the will to strive individually and collectively for respect for human and civil rights in our country and throughout the world" aptly describes how the struggles of various different Iranians for the most basic reforms and rights inevitably binds and inextricably ties them in the same struggle against the oppression which the regime inflicts upon them.

The title of this column isn't meant as an allusion to this years protests in Iran - that were an offshoot from the Arab Spring - but instead is an allusion to the Prague Spring of 1968. This is more of a broad comparison, as I don't want to convey the impression that I am the sort of person who stated that Mir- Hossein Mousavi was Iran's Lech Wałęsa. But I think there are several factors that bare a comparison of the Tehran of present and the Prague of the Soviet era.

The infamous intervention by the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact satrap satellite states into Czechoslovakia in 1968 when Alexander Dubček attempted to reform the countries socialistic system – under his policy of 'socialism with a human face' – was one of the first signs that showed the Soviet system was resorting using brute force as a means of prolonging its lifespan, clearly fearing reform would inevitably bring it down. In the intervening period (post Prague Spring 1968 to 1989) Havel and his various Czech dissident friends helped disseminate information and played an important role in the peaceful 1989 Velvet Revolution, which saw a peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy.

The manner in which Dubček simply waited following his removal by force from his position as Prime Minister in 1968 until a completely new generation of Czechoslovakians grew up under a regime that simply repressed them and tried to suppress their desire to voice certain discontentment's they had bares a striking resemblance between the aged senile totalitarian regime in Tehran today – which is becoming clearly senile and has shown itself to be readily prepared to utilize brute means to upkeep a status quo favourable to their survival and dominance – and the young and upcoming generation – which is more enthusiastic and strives to implement basic liberal values such as the emancipation of women, a free press and the right to free speech and an accountable government - whom like their Czechoslovakian counterparts of the day are gradually working in earnest to metamorphose Iran into a more pluralistic and secular democracy.

The Islamic theocracy in Iran attempted to reform itself in the mid to late 1990's under President Khatami in an attempt to curb the growing discontent among the growing future generation. Whilst these reforms did see to young Iranian's participating in politics and having a genuine interest in ensuring they had a stake in their future it proved to be only a superficial exercise. This was made painstakingly clear when a group of young Iranian students in 1999 mounted a peaceful demonstration in response to the closure of a reformist newspaper. The Basij responded with sheer and brute violence, raiding student dormitories, harassing women and even throwing students off third storey balconies breaking their bones and fatally paralyzing them. President Khatami “disowned” these protesters and went so far as to state in light of the violence exercised by authorities against a peaceful demonstration that such a defiance on the ban of a public gathering was "an attack on the foundations of the regime."

A friend of mine who lives in Tehran lamented to me a while back how he doesn't understand why so many young people strive to come to Tehran and added that if it weren't for family and friends he would like to move to another city stating that Tehran no longer encapsulates Persia's unique traditional feel and character as much as other cities such as Isfahan do. Furthermore long term inhabitants like him feel as if they are becoming “strangers” in their own town. The past year has seen – among other things – the importation from rural areas by the regime of boys aged no older than 14 to join the Basij to violently suppress gatherings and demonstrations. This is just another reminder of how petty the regime really is, and like the Soviet Union of the Prague Spring era is devoid of social cohesion and is being facilitated in a brutal manner to maintain the theocracies hold on power – in a manner similar to how the senile Brezhnev leaderships ineptness and self interest led to economic stagnation that eventually culminated in the collapse and dissolution of the Soviet Union.

One of the most foul and deplorable thing about this regime is that it actually has the gall in light of such a contemptible record to continually act as if it is a beacon of emulation and morality that all Iranians should look up to for guidance when looking for moral standards to set for themselves. When it has clearly shown time and again that it possesses no moral qualms over using murder and rape as a means of enforcing its self-centred solipsistic status quo.

The numerous and various aspiring Iranian liberal democratic secularists who want to move Iran and its people from the clutches of this dangerous, ruthless and whimsical theocracy have to face the fundamental reality in their struggle, that is that the leadership sees them as expendable and dispensable subjects of its rule. Once they recognize this stark reality and dispense with this unreasonable unsavoury regime and see it the way it sees them they will have reached the defining moment in their long, harsh and courageous struggle, and will therefore inevitably and ultimately prevail.

Droning On...

By Paul Iddon

Washington downplays, Tehran overplays.

Captured RQ-170 in Iran.

Last July a rumour suggested that Iran had shot down an unmanned US drone over the Fordo uranium enrichment facility near Qom. I quipped at the time that given the fact it may indeed have been an unmanned drone that the Iranians would be unable to produce 'a Gary Powers' so to speak which would in turn ultimately serve to refute the US claim that they were not violating Iranian air space with such drones.

However earlier this month the Iranians were able to produce such irrefutable evidence that a US drone had indeed violated Iranian air space. The recent capture of the RQ-170 Sentinel stealth drone has given the regime in Tehran a propaganda coup with their claim of having been able to 'electronically' bring down the drone with minimal damage over the embarrassing US claim of the drone having 'malfunctioned' and subsequently been lost whilst operating near Afghanistan's western frontier with the Islamic Republic.

Scorn was poured on the Obama Administration after they sent a formal request for the drones return. Secretary of State Clinton had previously stated that “given Iran's behaviour to date” – the regimes odious behaviour to its own citizens in recent weeks includes threatening actress Marzieh Vafamehr with 90 lashes for violating the countries brutally enforced dress code, the actual lashing of an Iranian student for merely “insulting” the President and on top of that offering death as the only alternative to conversion to Islam for the Iranian Evangelical pastor Youcef Nadarkhani – she didn't expect they would even reply and despite “provocations” asserted that the US would pursue a “diplomatic approach.”

Defence Minister Ahmad Vahidi whom has stated that the drone is now Iran's property responded to the American request for its return by stating bluntly of the US has "instead of apologizing to the Iranian nation,” opted to “brazenly asking for the drone back.”

In a previous column entitled 'A Time to Apologize' which I wrote a few days after the 23rd anniversary of the horrific downing of Iran Air Flight 655 by the US Navy I argued that the US should make a formal heartfelt and thoroughly sincere apology to the people of Iran. As at the end of the day the attack was against them, as nearly any Iranian could have been on that plane on that fateful day. However I also added that such an apology could not given in an effective and meaningful manner with the present leadership as it forcibly imposes its will on the Iranian people and therefore cannot act as their legitimate representative on the international stage.

There is no doubt that the United States has violated Iranian sovereignty by traversing this piece of military hardware through Iran's air space. The regime however has undermined Iran's claim to its right of sovereignty. As it not only harbours but – as in the case of Vahidi – has actually given a ministerial position to a man who is wanted by the Argentinian authorities and Interpol for planning the bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires which killed 85 people and injured several hundred more. Not only was this incident a terrorist act executed on foreign soil it is also the most significant and heinous acts of violence on Argentinian soil since the homicide bombing of Israels Argentine embassy in 1992 of which Hezbollah is suspected of organizing and executing.

So in conclusion, whilst the United States has blatantly disregarded Iran's sovereign integrity the ruling regime in Tehran has consistently and self-consciously been degrading and undermining it

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.

Corrie Street

By Paul Iddon

The naming of a street in Tehran after the American political activist killed in Gaza has both highly positive and highly negative aspects to it.


Rachel Corrie Street, Ramallah

A street in Tehran has been named posthumously after Rachel Corrie, the American activist who was killed while protesting the Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip in 2003 during the latter stages of the Second Intifada. The decision to name the street after her was just earlier this week.

I wrote a column shortly beforehand entitled 'Neda & Rachel' where I pointed out that apologists for the present Iranian regime have often cited Rachel Corrie as a way to try and divert arguments away from the brutality that the Iranian regime has exercised against its own people and furthermore argued along the lines that, a regime that oppresses its own people and ignores their heartfelt grievances whilst at the same time backing the most fanatical, fascistic and violent forms of Palestinian militancy has therefore relinquished any form of credibility when it states that it cares about the ordinary people of Palestine.

I wrote this article to reiterate that very point as I think it is an important one. However I also want to add I don't disapprove of a street being named after Rachel Corrie. As an activist she did go the extra mile in trying to show the world what it was like to live day by day in a dangerous place such as Gaza, and she done this by meeting the normal Palestinian people and listening to them and trying to understand the grievances they were burdened with. This in itself was an incredible feat for such a young woman who is well deserving of a tribute such as that of having a street or location named in her honour.

The more reactionary opponents and critics of the present regime in Tehran will probably jump on this story and demand to know why there hasn't been a street named after Neda Soltan, the innocent woman who was callously murdered by one of the many Basij thugs rampantly harassing peaceful demonstrators on the streets of Tehran after the June 2009 elections. I think this is a cheap and inflammatory question, and the answer is very obvious when you look at it from the present leaderships perspective.
Think about it, if you were part of a decaying senile fanatical dictatorial regime like that of Khameini's I sincerely doubt you'd prohibit a street being named after the woman your brutal and suppressive paramilitary forces murdered, who in death went on to symbolize the oppressed (her name, the Persian for 'voice' has been a symbolic and unifying outcome of her death for many Iranians) and also those forced on pain of imprisonment (where official policies include rape and torture) to continually remain passive and deferential to this regime in the face of mounting oppression.

The day when we will have a Neda Street is the day the present regime will be where it belongs, the history books, I for one am looking forward to that day, and I know it is bound to come sooner or later, and when it does those who knew and admired Rachel Corrie for her courage and wish to further her cause can be genuinely proud of having a street named in honour of her in a country steeped in over 3,000 years of culture, civilization and literature.

Rachel Corrie certainly can't be ventriloquised by me, but I can and will say this;
From her standpoint as someone who took a decisive stand for the human rights of Palestinians that were neglected at the hands of the Israelis I would wager a person from an identical or similar objective standpoint wouldn't accept the blatant abolition, destruction and disregard of human rights in Iran simply because the present regime there also denounces the policies (as well as the mere existence) of the State of Israel.

But that's just my two cents...

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

Neda & Rachel

By Paul Iddon

Debunking a shallow political argument used by the shameless defenders of the Iranian regime in their attempt to belittle the brutality and oppression it afflicts upon its own people.

Rachel Corrie & Neda Agha Soltan

A tendency I find amongst many who defend the present Iranian regime is to divert attention away from the brutality the regime has exercised against its own people by instead pointing the finger at how harshly the Palestinians have been treated at the hand of the Israelis. On a personal level I've seen someone trying to belittle the murder of Neda Soltan by instead opting to point an accusing finger at Israel over the death of Rachel Corrie, who was an American political student activist who was killed when she was crushed to death by an Israeli Army bulldozer in Gaza.

While their deaths were similarly tragic there is a clear differentiation, in the sense that Rachel Corrie was an American citizen who after becoming enthralled in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict found herself highly sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, this sympathy coupled with her political activism took her to the Gaza Strip during the Second Intifada, (a very dangerous time to say the least) where she was killed when she attempted to stop the bulldozer that ran over her from demolishing Palestinian houses by stepping in its path.

She was by all means a political activist who was killed while putting herself in harms way thousands of miles from her home, Neda Soltan on the other hand was generally considered to be for the most part apolitical, however she was like most of her compatriots was infuriated at the injustice the regime was presenting them with. Furthermore during the height of the political turmoil following the June 2009 elections in Tehran she was brutally murdered, when driving to participate in a protest in Tehran and upon discovering her car air conditioner had a fault she subsequently proceeded to step out onto the street a few feet away from a large conglomeration of protesters to escape the blistering heat when she was suddenly shot in the chest by a Basij gunman. The rest is history.

My central point is the difference between being as politically orientated as to go out of your way to protest the actions of another countries policy (Corrie's protesting of Israel's treatment of Palestinians) and getting killed while putting yourself in harms way doing so is in stark contrast to being apolitical and getting killed on a public street in the capital city of your own country for the simple act of taking a breath of fresh air. This to me is clearly a night and day difference.

Another underlining point this argument flat out presumes is that the Iranian regime is fit to represent the plight of the Palestinians, while at the same time suppressing its own people from publicly voicing their discontentment with their states foreign and domestic policies. A good example of this took place during the 2009 Al Quds Day ceremony where those in attendance as per tradition all came together in solidarity and chanted slogans stating in effect that they will give their blood and their lives for Palestine and bring an end to the 'Zionist entity' in Jerusalem, demonstrators who showed up at this parade solemnly chanted; “no to Gaza and Lebanon, I will give my life for Iran.”

This in effect clearly showed they were sick of the regime trying to subvert the discontent felt by them by fomenting hate for Israel and staunchly supporting the most extreme examples of Palestinian militancy and terrorism all while ignoring their genuine and heartfelt grievances with how the state in which they live is run.

I'm not going to insinuate or attempt to pretend that in death Neda hasn't been romanticized and used as a tool for the gains of the various democratic and anti-regime groups prevalently attempting to bring about an end to the present regime. But in death she has become symbolic of the cynical cruelty the regime has shown itself capable of inflicting upon innocent citizens.

The First Intifada in the Palestinian territories that begun back in 1987 put an abrupt end to the popular conception of Israel metaphorically being David battling Goliath (Goliath in this case being the millions of neighbouring Arabs hell bent on destroying Israel), this widely held perception was brought to an end by images and video clips of angry discontent Palestinians as young as 8-years-old throwing stones at heavily armoured Israeli tanks and bulldozers in their defiance against Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories.

Neda Soltan in death has similarly stopped cold the present Iranian regimes capability of making any credible or believable claims to be neither legitimate, sane, or even merely humane.

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

Satellite Racket

By Paul Iddon

One of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards many ways of harassing and bullying civilians while remaining immune from any scrutiny.



Azar Nafisi's brilliant written and insightful memoir Reading Lolita in Tehran is certainly a must read for anyone interested in a well written insider critique of what it is like to live (as a woman in this case) under the Islamic theocracy in Iran which like the protagonist in the novel Lolita Nafisi asserts is guilty of the "crime of solipsizing another person`s life."

One of the darkly humorous incidents Nafisi describes in her book is one involving possession of a satellite dish in the household she lived in. One day five armed strangers started a gunfight with a neighbour from their garden and a group of Revolutionary Guards sought to use their property to apprehend these assailants. The worries of the inhabitants of Azar's home are mind boggling, she describes how they didn't fear for their lives because of the five or so gunmen, but they were in fact worried because they like a lot of normal Iranian citizens had something to hide, something they were visibly guilty over, that being the crime of possessing a satellite dish.

Today the Revolutionary Guards have a number of ways in which to confiscate or destroy peoples satellite dishes, sometimes even posing as electricity or water maintenance men to get people to let them into their apartments under the guise of letting them check their water meters etc, to then only have them burst in and neither confiscate their dishes or smash them and proceed to fine or (in some rumoured cases) arrest the owner, I've even heard that Revolutionary Guards have on some occasions abseiled down from rooftops of apartment blocks to smash satellite dishes that residents placed on the outside windows or balconies of their flats.

These said Guards have self-evidently come a long way from their conception around the onset of the Khomeini reign as Supreme Leader, today there is an estimated 220,000 of them and apart from being just a branch of the Iranian military and controlling the paramilitary Basij militia (the thugs who mercilessly beat peacefully demonstrating protesters with batons) the Revolutionary Guards have a multibillion dollar empire and do in some regards operate as if they are a state within a state, and virtually have impunity from the law with regards to consequences for a variety of actions which they undertake. They've also maintained a monopoly on smuggling operations in and out of Iran, as they arrest any form of competition. Therefore giving themselves control over the alcohol and opium rackets and other the black-markets, this brings to light a very disturbing question, are there Revolutionary Guard cells who are providing these satellite dishes the government deems to be illegal to civilians through the black market they control, and then later coming back to harass those who unknowingly brought their dishes off those same Guards in the first place?
And furthermore is this kind of activity not merely tolerated by the government but actually sanctioned by it?
With what we know and the ruling regimes reputation for constantly lowering the depths to which they will sink I somehow doubt the answer to these two questions would be “no”.

Another question that arises is what is it exactly the regime doesn't want the Iranian people to see?
One of the most successful television shows aimed at the large amount of discontented young Iranians is Parazit (Persian for static, which is an allusion to the fact that the Iranian regime has tried to jam foreign satellite transmissions) the satirical news show started by two Iranian expatriates living in Washington D.C. whose works have become very popular in Iran, viewers and fans there access it through those illegal satellite dishes (which the show is broadcast to via Voice of America), the internet or bootleg DVD's, the show regularly pokes fun at the Iranian politics and some of the absurd cultural aspects that are embodied in the Islamic Republic.

In a heart-warming and delightfully amusing interview on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (of which Parazit is modeled after) one of the creators in response to Jon Stewart asking how they can successfully rip on the Iranian regime on a weekly basis answered his question with this priceless statement:

“Ahmadinejad came to Columbia, one of the most respected schools of all time and he stood in front of the whole world and said there are no gays in Iran, that's all you need to have, from then on you have a show!”

This clearly sums up the regime in a nutshell, it doesn't take itself seriously, so with this in mind one wonders why we pay heed to their hateful pronouncements and sinister piffle.

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