Generation Tehran

If you want to see different face of Iran you can watch these movies.

 

Link for part 1 

 

 

 

Link for part 2 

 

 

 

Link for part 3

 

Obama: What does his election mean to the futures of Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan?

Event:

Wednesday, November

12

Obama: What does his election mean to the futures of Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan?

6-7:30 p.m. in Room 308

A roundtable discussion with reporters from the region on expectations for an Obama presidency in countries deeply affected by the previous administration.

With Iranian journalist Roozbeh Mirebrahimi, Iraqi journalist Alaa Majeed, Jordanian journalist Rana Sweis, and Afghani journalist Farida Nekzad. Moderated by Scotti Williston, senior producer in residence at the CUNY J-School.

For information or to RSVP, contact Amy Dunkin at 646-758-7826.

From this link.

Obama & Khatami

Cartoon from Iranian Cartoonist : Nikahang Kowsar   This link 

Q&A: Iran’s Islamic Revolution Had Western Blessing

From IPS:

Interview with Iranian journalist and author Roozbeh Mirebrahimi

Roozbeh Mirebrahimi (left) and Abbas Amir-Entezam.

NEW YORK, Jul 26 (IPS) – In his new book on the covert history of Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, award-winning journalist Roozbeh Mirebrahimi says that Western powers, including the United States, accelerated events by recognising and supporting religious revolutionary forces, forcing the shah to leave the country and averting a coup by Iran’s army.

In 1953, the United States had deposed the popular government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq and his cabinet via a CIA-backed coup d’état. Anti-communist civilians and army officers supported the coup.

Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s second departure from Iran, almost a month before the victory of the revolution in February 1979, had dramatically raised concerns among the leaders of the revolution that Washington would try to stage another coup to bring back the shah, who had fled to the United States. However, diplomats who were at the centre of events say that an accommodation was reached between Western countries and Iran’s Islamic clergy.

In an interview with IPS correspondent Omid Memarian, Mirebrahimi said that the role of the West in facilitating the revolution has been largely ignored, particularly by the Iranian government itself. His Farsi-language book, “Untold Aspects of the Iranian Revolution” (Khazaran, 2008) is based on an extensive interview with Abbas Amir-Entezam, the spokesman and deputy prime minister in the interim cabinet of Mehdi Bazargan in 1979.

Amir-Entezam, now Iran’s longest-serving political prisoner, was an ambassador to Scandinavian countries during the hostage crisis at the U.S. Embassy. He was accused of spying for the U.S., arrested and sentenced to death in 1981. This was later reduced to life in prison without possibility of parole. Critics suggest the charges were retaliation against his early opposition to theocratic government in Iran.

IPS: There are rumours of a meeting between the French president’s representative and Ayatollah Khomeini in Paris, prior to the revolution. What was the significance of this meeting?

RM: While Khomeini was in exile in Neauphle-le-Chateau near Paris and leading the revolution, he was asked by the current world powers to meet and to have a dialogue. He raised some demands, including the shah’s removal from Iran and help in avoiding a coup d’état by the Iranian Army. On the other side of the table, the western powers had certain demands too. They were worried about the Soviet Union’s empowerment and penetration and a disruption in Iran’s oil supply to the west. Khomeini gave the necessary guarantees. These meetings and contacts were taking place in January of 1979, just a few days before the Islamic Revolution in February 1979.

IPS: What made these same western countries turn against Khomeini and others just months after 1979 Revolution?

RM: Western powers had been monitoring the political and social changes inside Iran for a long time. They had been trying to understand the internal changes in Iran through the forces they had in Iran or the people they would send to Iran, such as [former U.S. attorney general] Ramsey Clark. They had realised that Iranian society was on the verge of a fundamental change. They chose to accommodate this change. After recognising the opposition groups, they facilitated them with opportunities such as media coverage. Through this action, changes accelerated with an unexpected speed. In the next stage, in order to prevent the Soviet Union from taking advantage of these changes, amongst all existing opposition groups they chose the religious forces to stand against communism, which was anti-religion by nature.

IPS: But why after the revolution did they turn against them?

RM: I would say because of the revolutionary atmosphere inside Iran and actions of the empowered radicals, this relationship faced challenges.

IPS: Why did U.S. officials trust Ayatollah Khomeini enough to negotiate with him?

RM: [William H.] Sullivan, the U.S. ambassador to Iran, was keeping a very close watch over Iran’s internal affairs and analysing all the developments. All the army and military affairs, all the macro-level decisions and reactions by the Shah’s regime, all the activities of the religious forces, activities of the communists, and all other revolutionary forces were monitored by him. According to documents and books published in the United States and other western countries, around September 1978, four months before the revolution, it was clear that the shah could no longer stay, and that they should be looking for a way to reach an agreement with the opposition. All the contacts and dialogues picked up pace during this time. The religious forces that were surrounding Khomeini at the time were people like Yazdi, Bazargan, Bani sadr, Ghotbzadeh or among the clergy, people like Beheshti and Motahhari… They were educated and relatively technocratic and the west felt that they could rely on them. After the revolution, this trust and relationship remained intact until the invasion of the U.S. Embassy.

IPS: Why did the hostage-taking occur at a time when the new government under Ayatollah Khomeini had a normal relationship with the U.S.?

RM: Ayatollah Khomeini was opposed to radical actions such as invading the U.S. Embassy. For example, this was not the first time the U.S. Embassy was occupied. Right around those early days of the revolution, during the first 10 days, the U.S. Embassy was occupied for the first time by the leftist forces such as Khalgh and other parallel forces, but this received a very strong reaction from Ayatollah Khomeini who sent Ebrahim Yazdi to the embassy to get the revolutionary occupiers out of there. During the second incident, Khomeini was caught off-guard after the incident had already taken place. Pressure by the radicals at that time caused Khomeini to react by standing behind it. That incident caused Prime Minister Bazargan to resign. Prior to this incident, the relationship of the new government with the west was still quite normal. We should not forget that exactly one day after the revolution, the United States officially recognised the new government.

IPS: So what kind of an impact did all this have on the Islamic Revolution?

RM: This book has several features. First, it reexamines the Islamic Republic’s portrayal of the history of the revolution, which is a red line in today’s Iran. Secondly, Amir Entezam himself has always been a red line for the regime, which has tried so hard to erase his name from all official records. Thirdly, a person from the new generation, born in the year of the revolution, has done all of this research. And I’m very happy that after five years of all kinds of bans and obstacles, this book is getting published.

(END/2008)

The Folly of Attacking Iran: Lessons from History

Look at a movie on this link.

Position of Elected Institutions in Iran

Roozbeh Mirebrahimi -Roozonline-  2008.05.13

We read in the news that the head of the Expediency Council, Ali Akbar Hashemi ‎Rafsanjani, said in a speech that “moving forward, the Expediency Council will ‎implement more supervision on the administration’s policies.” ‎

The economically-oriented “Sarmaye” newspaper quoted Rafsanjani on Tuesday, “In ‎implementing Article 44 of the Constitution and the 20-year development plan, a great ‎deal of emphasis has been placed on human capital and expert management, the meaning ‎of which is that the era of trial and error has ended and we must be professional and move ‎according to plans.” ‎

Like always, Ahmadinejad’s opponents, including many reformists, welcomes the news ‎and, most likely, were overcome with joy because, “after all, this administration must be ‎controlled somehow.” ‎

The main point, however, is whether such welcomes are based on consistent analytical ‎foundations, meaning that, because Rafsanjani is now opposed to the administration, this ‎development is acceptable; or vice versa, because we are opposed to Ahmadinejad, we ‎must accept with open arms anything that curtails him. ‎

First of all, I believe that reformists who welcomed the Expediency Council’s supervision ‎have forgotten how loudly they screamed that unelected institutions are curtailing the ‎power of elected institution when similar developments were about to take place during ‎the previous administration’s reign. It does not matter who heads these institutions. ‎What is important is that we should not welcome any development that weakens semi-‎democratic institutions. Rather, we should continually empower such institutions against ‎unelected institutions. ‎

There is much criticism to be made about the undemocratic essence of institutions like ‎the presidency and the Majlis in the Islamic Republic system. Nevertheless, one should ‎never welcome the weakening of elected positions, such as presidency, by unelected ‎institutions headed by the supreme leader. ‎

photos and New year

I was not here(My English blog) for a long time.

Laura Secor and i hade panel about Iran at CUNY G.School of Journalist yesterday.

I think it was good.

We were in Iranian new year which named Norows.

On last Sunday we went to the Iranian day parade in New York City.It was great.

You can see my photo of this progeram here and here.

Iran’s Former foreign affairs minister sent letter to Senator MacCain

Dear Sir,

Senator MacCain’s recent remarks on Iran at a panel discussions (I.T. 9 – 10 February) in which he expressed concern over the Iranians ambition, “which are as old as history: a Persian domination of the region” was to me heart breaking. Such remarks could have conveyed an ambiguous message in these crucial days to the American people. His remarks are also disappointing to the majority of the Iranians as to the senator’s knowledge and understanding of Iran’s history, past and contemporary.

By assuming the fact that the aspirations of all nations, including those of the Iranians do not change with the going and the coming of an administration or regime, I do not recall any historian has recorded “as old as history” an ambition of the domination of the region by the Persians.

Having had the privilege of working closely from 1959 to 1979 with seven American Presidents from both parties, with all of whom I am proud to say I had most cordial friendships, I never came across a similar remark by any of them that my country at any time in its more than two and half thousand years of proud history and peaceful co- existence had an eye on the neighbouring territories or indeed the ambition of dominating them. On the contrary, it was Iran that throughout the same period of her existence had been invaded by foreign adventurers, beginning by Alexander the Great in 335 B.C , the Arabs in 633–656, the Mongols in the 13 Century, the Afghans and the Russians in the 18th and 19 centuries – up to the last occupations of a neutral and defenceless Iran by the British and Russian armies during the first and second world wars.

In fact throughout post Second World War era and up to 1979 the emergence and existence of a powerful Iran was the core of the US policy under various administrations, both the Republican and Democrat, as a vital source of maintaining peace and stability of the Middle East and Western Asia. The 1979 revolution in Iran may temporarily have had certain adverse consequences on the balance of such Iranian factor of stability, but surely it has no origin in the alleged historical ambition.

Having had the bitter experience of the past invasions from east and west, north and south of the glob, the sole choice for the Iranians to deter the would be aggressors had been and is to become powerful enough to defend their land, dignity, integrity and sovereignty. This was last proved in the 1980s invasion of southern Iran by Saddam’s Iraqi army; notwithstanding the generous support provided by the west and the east as well certain regional oil rich nations to the dictator of Baghdad.

Astonishingly, the distinguished Senator’s remarks were made at a gathering well familiar with the Persian history; the least with the Cyrus the Great first Declaration of the Human Rights and his treatment of the Jews in Babylon, paving their return to the Promised Land.

Ironically, your paper in reporting Senator MacCain’s lecture on the Persian history, noted side by side a dispatch from Tehran back precisely 100 years ago; in February 1908 in its “In Our Pages” column: “of the sitting of the (Persian) National Assembly as a very stormy one due to further entry of Russian Cossacks in the Persian territory of Azarbyjan” on a pretext that need no amplification!

Yours truly,

Ardeshir Zahedi

Villa les Roses
Montreux
Switzerland
13 February 2008
H.T. Ardeshir Zahedi was the Shah’s ambassador in Washington twice in the late fifties and early seventies and was Iran’s foreign affairs minister 1967 to 1970.

Tehran paper attacks Ahmadinejad

By Sadeq Saba
BBC Iranian affairs analyst

In a rare attack on Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a hardline newspaper has accused him of behaving immorally towards his political rivals.

The Islamic Republic daily, close to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, has said Mr Ahmadinejad’s behaviour is dangerous for Iran.

The publication is seen as a newspaper with impeccable Islamic credentials.

The attack would be difficult to imagine without at least tacit support from Ayatollah Khamenei.

In a hard-hitting editorial on Wednesday, the Tehran paper said the president’s treatment of his critics was immoral, illogical and illegal.

Losing support

It was referring to a recent speech by Mr Ahmadinejad when he described people opposed to his nuclear programme as traitors and accused some senior former nuclear negotiators of spying for foreigners.

The paper said Mr Ahmadinejad was using this tactic to discredit his political rivals prior to the parliamentary elections due early next year.

It called on Iran’s judiciary to perform its duty and punish people who make baseless allegations and cause public anxiety.

Such a direct personal attack against President Ahmadinejad is indeed rare in official media in Iran.

It shows that the Iranian president is not only losing support among ordinary people because of economic hardship, he is also angering part of the establishment for using the nuclear issue to bolster his personal power.

Death for the sake of Love!

 

Perhaps that morning when she woke up to get ready to meet her fiancé in a park in Hamedan city, she was thinking of many things but no was that only one day after this visit her soulless body will be delivered to her family.

 

Zahra Bani Ameri was a 27-year old MD who was passing her residency and practical training in Hamedan. She was there to cure her patients and free them of their pains. But the Islamic-deeds division of government security guards related to Islamic militia – Bassij – in the morning of October 12^th, a day before Eid ul-Fitr (the last day of the month of Ramadan), arrested Zahra along with Hamid, her fiancé; they were walking in park and got arrested under a pretext allegation of illegal and non-Islamic relationship. One day after Zahra’s arrest, on October 13^th her body was delivered out of the Bassij station and to her family. 

After Eid ui-fitr’s holiday, the students of Bo Ali Sina University who just got back to their daily classes were shock by the news of Zahra’s death: by Bassij’s account she strangled herself in her cell. The universities Internet station spread the news. Soon after this public exposure the contradictory reactions of authorities began.Journalists, social right activists and bloggers came to the front and started questioning those involved. Bassij’s and the state prosecution office’s claim of her committing suicide became a puzzle which did not match the facts.  

Why was she arrested? Was the arrest legal in the first place? Under which basis Bassij kept her under arrest more than 24 hours? If it is true that she committed suicide what was her motives? Base on the forensic pathology report the time of death was at 9 pm on October 13^th, but websites and bloggers report that Zahra’s brother had a telephone conversation with her, exactly 30 minutes before her time of death. Her brother says that they talked couple of times and Zahra appeared normal in all of them; there was no sign of suicide or depression on her voice. Why do the authorities’ have divided statements?  Why suddenly after two weeks the forensic pathology’s report changes and declares that Zahra was a virgin contrary to the previous reports?  

All these information were published by the Bo Ali University’s website and couple of other websites concentrating on women’s rights and by women’s right activists. The issue of virginity becomes a crucial concern n this case. It is important because based on some of the reports and rumors Zahra was raped while under arrest.  

The latest news confirm that Shirin Ebadi, Iranian lawyer, human rights activist and the winner of Nobel Peace Prize in 2003 has accepted the case for Zahra’s family and is following the case. Dr. Zahra’s family has filed a lawsuit against the Islamic-deeds division of government security guards related to Islamic militia – Bassij. On of Zahra’s friends and coworker writes on her blog: “ her arrest because of having bad Hijab (Non Islamic Outfit) and wearing too much make up is ridiculous. She always wore a long smock with closed-scarf. She was religious and very devoted. And to slur over her blood in this manner is outrageous.