The United States is sending senior officials to Israel for a week of high diplomacy. There are wide gaps to be bridged. Iran will top the agenda when American Secretary of Defense Robert Gates arrives in Israel on Monday. Gates is expected to urge Israel not to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, saying the planned U.S. dialogue with the Islamic Republic deserves time to bear fruit.
Posts Tagged ‘Islamic Republic’
Melody Moezzi: The Basij Are Cordially Invited to Join the Opposition
Thanks to their new duties, which include increasingly violent and inhumane acts, reports of Basiji taking protesters up on their invitations to join the opposition movement are growing.
Rabbi Abraham Cooper: Must it be Business as Usual as the People of Iran Hang in the Balance?
Citizen lobbies and elected representatives have to ask this simple question: do we have to do business with people who do business with the Mullahs?
Mark Fowler: Iran: Regime intentions revealed – What’s next?
It is time to step back, take a deep breath and evaluate. The great unknown in the lead-up to the Iranian presidential election was the…
The Progress Report: Reestablishing American Power
In a major speech Wednesday, Clinton described a vision of American power embedded within a robust system of multilateral institutions: “smart power.”
Rafsanjani attacks Tehran regime
Iranian riot police used batons and teargas today to break up defiant protests after prayers in Tehran, where Hashemi Rafsanjani, one of the country’s most powerful clerics, warned that the regime was “in crisis” and urged a release of prisoners detained in post-election unrest.
Rafsanjani, a bitter rival of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, broke his month-long silence to issue a stark warning that the Islamic Republic had lost popular support. His carefully crafted address stopped short of directly attacking Khamenei or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose victory in June’s presidential poll has been widely denounced as a fraud. But its message was still strong.
“Today is a bitter day,” Rafsanjani declared from the pulpit at Tehran University’s sprawling prayer ground. “People have lost their faith in the regime and their trust is damaged. It’s necessary to regain people’s consent and restore their trust in the regime. Everyone has lost.”
Mir Hossein Mousavi, the moderate former prime minister who says he won the election, sat in the front row with other VIPs as Rafsanjani spoke. Mehdi Karoubi, a reformist cleric who was also a candidate, was there too — and was jostled by thugs afterwards.
Mousavi and Karoubi both insist the Ahmadinejad government is illegitimate. Khamenei has publicly backed the incumbent, hoping to see off the biggest challenge to the regime since the Iranian revolution 30 years ago.
Tens of thousands of Mousavi supporters, many wearing the green wristbands that became the symbol of his election campaign, packed the prayer ground, the stage for a peculiarly Iranian combination of religion and politics, prayer and agitprop. Rafsanjani’s first sermon since the disputed election was keenly awaited but was not broadcast on state TV. Foreign media access is now severely restricted. The mobile phone network was again completely blocked to disrupt communications between demonstrators .
“Doubt has been created [about the results],” Rafsanjani said. “There is a large portion of wise people who say they have doubts. We need to take action to remove this doubt. Where people are not present or their vote is not considered, that government is not Islamic.”
This passage needed little decoding: Khamenei and the guardian council, a clerical body which supervises elections, have declared the contest free and fair, dashing hopes of a re-run. Still, Rafsanjani – often accused of sitting on the fence – did not call outright for an annulment.
His words were repeatedly interrupted by slogans from the rival camps as well as by whiffs of teargas fired by security forces and which drifted in from the surrounding streets. Hardliners chanted the traditional “death to America” while opposition supporters countered with azadi (freedom) as well as “death to Russia” – a reference to the government’s ties to Moscow.
The chanting died away only after the speaker urged the crowd “not to contaminate the position and the sanctuary of Friday prayers”. Rafsanjani wept as he spoke of prisoners, and of the Prophet Muhammad as one who brought justice, and a man who “protected the rights of all those under his rule” – more thinly-veiled criticism of the government.
“Rafsanjani’s main message was for Ayatollah Khamenei,” said the analyst Baqer Moin. “Rafsanjani wanted to tell him, ‘You’d better be humble and try to find a way out of the current crisis.’”
The crowd at Friday prayers is usually made up extremely conservative government loyalists. But many Mousavi supporters were young women wearing the loose hijab head-covering shunned by the devout. Some had green-painted fingernails.
“This was not a normal Friday prayer,” said Fariba, a 24-year-old student. “The regime has killed people and we have got more united. They have not silenced us. Ironically, I thank Ahmadinejad for making us unite against him.”
The crackdown on the media was only partially effective. An unprecedented number of videos posted on YouTube on a single day showed masked protesters starting fires in the streets, or handing out flowers to policemen.
Teargas was fired at Mousavi supporters on their way to prayer but clashes with police and basij militia intensified afterwards. At least 20 people were arrested, witnesses said. Among those detained was Shadi Sadr, the prominent women’s activist and human rights lawyer.
Iran’s ex-president attacks regime
Iranian riot police used batons and teargas today to break up defiant protests after prayers in Tehran, where Hashemi Rafsanjani, one of the country’s most powerful clerics, warned that the regime was “in crisis” and urged a release of prisoners detained in post-election unrest.
Rafsanjani, a bitter rival of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, broke his month-long silence to issue a stark warning that the Islamic Republic had lost popular support. His carefully crafted address stopped short of directly attacking Khamenei or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose victory in June’s presidential poll has been widely denounced as a fraud. But its message was still strong.
“Today is a bitter day,” Rafsanjani declared from the pulpit at Tehran University’s sprawling prayer ground. “People have lost their faith in the regime and their trust is damaged. It’s necessary to regain people’s consent and restore their trust in the regime. Everyone has lost.”
Mir Hossein Mousavi, the moderate former prime minister who says he won the election, sat in the front row with other VIPs as Rafsanjani spoke. Mehdi Karoubi, a reformist cleric who was also a candidate, was there too — and was jostled by thugs afterwards.
Mousavi and Karoubi both insist the Ahmadinejad government is illegitimate. Khamenei has publicly backed the incumbent, hoping to see off the biggest challenge to the regime since the Iranian revolution 30 years ago.
Tens of thousands of Mousavi supporters, many wearing the green wristbands that became the symbol of his election campaign, packed the prayer ground, the stage for a peculiarly Iranian combination of religion and politics, prayer and agitprop. Rafsanjani’s first sermon since the disputed election was keenly awaited but was not broadcast on state TV. Foreign media access is now severely restricted. The mobile phone network was again completely blocked to disrupt communications between demonstrators .
“Doubt has been created [about the results],” Rafsanjani said. “There is a large portion of wise people who say they have doubts. We need to take action to remove this doubt. Where people are not present or their vote is not considered, that government is not Islamic.”
This passage needed little decoding: Khamenei and the guardian council, a clerical body which supervises elections, have declared the contest free and fair, dashing hopes of a re-run. Still, Rafsanjani – often accused of sitting on the fence – did not call outright for an annulment.
His words were repeatedly interrupted by slogans from the rival camps as well as by whiffs of teargas fired by security forces and which drifted in from the surrounding streets. Hardliners chanted the traditional “death to America” while opposition supporters countered with azadi (freedom) as well as “death to Russia” – a reference to the government’s ties to Moscow.
The chanting died away only after the speaker urged the crowd “not to contaminate the position and the sanctuary of Friday prayers”. Rafsanjani wept as he spoke of prisoners, and of the Prophet Muhammad as one who brought justice, and a man who “protected the rights of all those under his rule” – more thinly-veiled criticism of the government.
“Rafsanjani’s main message was for Ayatollah Khamenei,” said the analyst Baqer Moin. “Rafsanjani wanted to tell him, ‘You’d better be humble and try to find a way out of the current crisis.’”
The crowd at Friday prayers is usually made up extremely conservative government loyalists. But many Mousavi supporters were young women wearing the loose hijab head-covering shunned by the devout. Some had green-painted fingernails.
“This was not a normal Friday prayer,” said Fariba, a 24-year-old student. “The regime has killed people and we have got more united. They have not silenced us. Ironically, I thank Ahmadinejad for making us unite against him.”
The crackdown on the media was only partially effective. An unprecedented number of videos posted on YouTube on a single day showed masked protesters starting fires in the streets, or handing out flowers to policemen.
Teargas was fired at Mousavi supporters on their way to prayer but clashes with police and basij militia intensified afterwards. At least 20 people were arrested, witnesses said. Among those detained was Shadi Sadr, the prominent women’s activist and human rights lawyer.
Melody Moezzi: Hey DJ Rafsanjani, Play Us Some Ayatollah Khomeini
At the heart of Iran’s Islamic Revolution was a stencil duplicator and a tape recorder. These were the Ayatollah Khomeini’s Facebook and Twitter.
India flip-flops on peace dialogue
SHARM EL-SHEIKH (Reuters/AFP/APP) – Pakistan and India agreed on Thursday to work together to fight terrorism and ordered their top diplomats to meet as often as needed to try to rebuild ties damaged by last yearÂ’s Mumbai attacks.
But Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, speaking after talks with his Pakistani counterpart Yousuf Raza Gilani in Egypt, ruled out a resumption of formal peace talks, known as the ‘composite dialogue’, that Islamabad has been seeking.
“Composite dialogue cannot begin unless and until terrorist heads which shook Mumbai are properly accounted for, (and) perpetrators of these heinous crimes are brought to book,” Singh told a news conference after talks with Gilani.
“The starting point of any meaningful dialogue with Pakistan has to have their commitment not to let their territory be used for terrorist activities against India,” Singh added.
“If acts of terrorism continue to be perpetrated, there is no question of a dialogue, let alone a composite dialogue.”
Singh’s comments appeared to contradict a joint statement with Gilani in which the two leaders stipulated that action on terrorism ‘should not be linked’ to the composite dialogue process.
In his briefing to the media, Singh said: “There should be serious, honest efforts to bridge the gap that separates the two countries.”
The joint statement, issued after the meeting between Singh and Gilani, said they had agreed to cooperate in the fight against terrorism. “Both leaders affirmed their resolve to fight terrorism and cooperate with each other to this end,” the statement said.
“Prime Minister Singh reiterated the need to bring the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks to justice and Prime Minister Gilani assured that Pakistan will do everything in its power in this regard.”
It added: “Action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and these should not be bracketed.”
The joint statement said the foreign ministries’ top civil servants, India’s Shivshankar Menon and Pakistan’s Salman Bashir, ‘should meet as often as necessary’ and report to their countries’ foreign ministers.
Singh said the meetings of the top civil servants would be used to determine the nature of the future dialogue.
Singh said Pakistan has provided an updated status dossier on the investigation of the Mumbai attacks and had sought additional information and evidence in this regard. Singh said the dossier was being reviewed.
On his talks with Gilani, Singh added: “I reiterated to him that we are willing to go more than half the way provided they create the conditions for a meaningful dialogue.”
In their statement, Gilani vowed Pakistan ‘will do everything in its power’ to bring those behind Mumbai to justice and Singh said India was ‘ready to discuss all issues with Pakistan’.
The joint statement described terrorism as ‘the main threat to both countries’ but the two premiers also agreed that action on terrorism should not be linked to peace talks.
The statement described talks as ‘cordial and constructive’ and said the two premiers covered the whole range of bilateral relations ‘with a view to charting the way forward’ in ties.
“Prime Minister Singh said that India was ready to discuss all issues with Pakistan, including all outstanding issues,” the statement said, adding that both countries agreed to cooperate in fighting terrorism.
“Both the leaders agreed that the two countries will share real time, credible and actionable information on any future terrorist threats,” the statement said.
“Prime Minister Gilani mentioned that Pakistan has some information on threats in Balochistan and other areas,” the statement said. Singh reiterated India’s interest in a stable, democratic Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
The joint statement said: “Both leaders agreed that the real challenge is development and the elimination of poverty. Both leaders resolved to eliminate those factors which prevent our countries from realising their full potential.”
Talking to reporters after the meeting that lasted around three hours, including delegation level and exclusive one-on-one talks, Prime Minister Gilani said Pakistan also raised the issue of threats in Balochistan and other areas.
Gilani said he asked India that all core issues need to be discussed and composite dialogue should not be bracketed with terrorism.
He said both the leaders have recognised that ‘dialogue is the only way forward’ and agreed that the foreign secretaries should meet as often as necessary and report to the two foreign ministers who will be meeting on the sidelines of the forthcoming UN General Assembly.
Earlier, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh received Prime Minister Gilani when he arrived at the venue. The two leaders warmly shook hands and had a photo-op before starting the talks at Maritim Jolie Ville Resort.
The talks were held amidst hopes that the peace process might be reinvigorated to bring stability to the region.
The two leaders were supported by delegations including Minister for Information and Broadcasting Qamar Zaman Kaira, Education Minister Mir Hazar Khan Bijarani and Minister for Science and Technology Azam Khan Swati, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Nawabzada Malik Amad Khan, PML-N MNA Anusha Rehman and Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir.
The Indian delegation included Foreign Minister SM Krishna, Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon, National Security Adviser MK Narayanan and Special Secretary Vivek Katju.
ThursdayÂ’s talks in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh was the third high-level encounter between the two neighbours since the Mumbai assault.
“It’s a good step forward and it’s a way out of the impasse that the two sides found themselves in after Mumbai,” said C Raja Mohan, professor of South Asia studies at Singapore’s Nanyang Technology University.
Analysts said the statement had kept the nature of future dialogue open.
“They have affirmed their faith in dialogue without making any commitment on the precise nature of dialogue which means it’s open-ended and India will make its decision about dialogue when it is satisfied with Pakistan’s performance on terrorism,” said Hasan Askari Rizvi, a Lahore-based independent analyst.
Diplomats described the meeting as a breakthrough. The body language of the two prime ministers was very positive before the meeting reflecting that some agreement has been reached behind the scenes.
The one-on-one meeting between the two leaders lasted over an hour.
Monitoring Desk adds: Federal Information Minister Qamar Zaman Kaira said that Prime Minister Gilani has raised the issue of meddling from Indian side in the affairs of Balochistan during his meeting with Prime Minister Singh besides conveying his stance that peace talks between the two countries be not linked to terrorism.
Talking to a TV channel, Kaira said that the Prime Minister made it clear to his Indian counterpart that solution to all the issues be found through dialogue.
He said menace of terrorism be curbed and focus be placed on addressing the problems facing the people of two countries.
Kaira hoped that meeting between the both Prime Ministers would help end the deadlock and would be instrumental for establishment of peace in the region. More headway would be made in this direction during the forthcoming Secretaries and Foreign Secretaries level talks between Pakistan and India, he underlined.
US offer to Iran ‘not indefinite’

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is to warn Iran that the US will not extend its offer of engagement "indefinitely".
In a foreign policy speech to be delivered later, Mrs Clinton will say that Iran needs to respond to President Barack Obama’s overtures now.
If it does not, Iran could face more penalties and isolation over its nuclear programme, she will say.
She will say Iran used "deplorable" means to quash post-election protests.
Violent street protests broke out after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was re-elected in the 12 June disputed election.
Some 17 people were thought to have died during days of clashes.
"Neither the president nor I have any illusions that direct dialogue with the Islamic Republic will guarantee success."
Hilary Clinton
Mr Obama has talked of engagement with Iran but has not made clear how that might take place.
Shortly after coming to office in January, Mr Obama said: "If countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fists, they will find an extended hand from us".
In her speech in Washington on Wednesday, Ms Clinton will say: "We remain ready to engage with Iran, but the time for action is now.
"The opportunity will not remain open indefinitely."
The US fears Iran’s nuclear programme is a cover to build atomic weapons, a charge Iranian officials deny.
Enriched uranium can be used to make atomic weapons, but can also be used in nuclear power plants.
Mrs Clinton will say the Bush administration policy of isolating Iran did not stop it moving towards developing nuclear weapons.
"Neither the president nor I have any illusions that direct dialogue with the Islamic Republic will guarantee success.
"But we also understand the importance of trying to engage Iran and offering its leaders a clear choice: whether to join the international community as a responsible member or to continue down a path to further isolation."</p
This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.
Diane Tucker: Iranians Worldwide Roll Out Green Scroll Against Ahmadinejad (PHOTOS)
AUSTIN, TX — When a reporter asked Vaclav Havel to comment on the election protests in Iran, the former Czech president said, “Expressions of solidarity…







Martin Amis’s Iran fantasia
Amis’s understanding of Iran is shallow and his take on Islamism superficial. Is this the best western liberalism has to offer?
Some 20-odd years ago, not out of any sense of patriotism or self-defence, young Iranians with bombs strapped to them dived under advancing Iraqi tanks. Khomeini promised them a few dozen virgins you see. Now, as Martin Amis tells us today, that evil genius’s followers, hungrier than ever, are combining apocalyptic zeal with advanced nuclear engineering to usher in the Messiah, destroy western civilisation, and kill every remaining Iranian who isn’t a mullah or mindless fanatic.
The myth that madness has motivated Muslims throughout 1,400 years of history and continues to drive political Islam today is a pretty old one, and I must say it is getting rather boring, so it’s especially hard to understand how a figure as prolific as Martin Amis can still make a good living out of it. Nonetheless, it seems that Amis is again ready to wear the fashionable Islam expert hat, this time gracing us with his profound insights on Iran, which even if dead wrong are at least momentarily entertaining.
Amis obviously shouldn’t take up political forecasting as a second career. Consider his phrase ” … what we seem to be witnessing in Iran is the first spasm of the death agony of the Islamic Republic.” But haven’t we had this “first spasm” before? When the Mujahideen-e Khalq blew up the offices of the Islamic Republican party taking out the entirety of Khomeini’s vanguard? Or when the old fellow finally died? Or the student protests in 1999? No, really, this is it. Rafsanjani is leading prayers alongside Mousavi – it will all be over soon.
Amis makes the same mistake as countless others have done about the nature of the mysterious Mousavi: “Had Mousavi won, Obama would have rewarded Iran.” Is that the same Mousavi who before the election answered “the west should stop asking for the impossible” in response to a question about halting Iran’s nuclear energy programme? The same Mousavi whose website’s header boasts a portrait of Khomeini and whose every communiqué calls for a reclamation of the Islamic revolution?
Amis’s historical naivety is also noteworthy: “The 1979 revolution wasn’t an Islamic revolution until it was over … it was a full-spectrum mass movement, an avalanche of demonstrations and riots.” True, but it is rather curious, then, that decades of communist and nationalist resistance, not to mention the thousands abducted and murdered by the Shah’s secret police only drew out the masses after the megalomaniac sent his forces to the dusty city of Qom to beat up a few kids at a religious school and then kicked an old cleric out of the country.
Among the more sinister schemes in Amis’s essay is his narrative history of the soul of “one of the most venerable civilisations on earth … divided between Xerxes and Muhammad.” Nothing could sound worse than an English writer in the 21st century defining the essence of a foreign people in this monolithic way. With the same impulse for reduction and sheer negligence he manages to completely mistake Khomeini’s participation in a centuries-old Sufi poetic tradition that analogises spiritual ecstasy with material intoxication for some kind of repressed Persian angst. Even my own undergraduate students don’t make that mistake.
But more troubling than the follies of a novelist turned pundit is that Amis’s hyperbole represents the sad way in which the liberal intellectual tradition reacts to the challenge of a viable alternative to its secular humanist hegemony. In that vein, Amis’s comments on Iran must be seen as part of a growing intellectual reaction that in the face of decades of rising Muslim political power seems capable only of producing stomach-churning multicultural apologists or Islamophobic ideologues.
Finding the real explanations to the events in Iran and the rest of the Muslim world, where political-religious experiments unfold in dozens of contexts daily, requires first interrogating our own myths and superstitions. Reason, democracy, independent thinking, and human rights – timeless universals or complex socio-historical constructions? Only then one might proceed to understand the ways in which secularism and religion, reason and insanity, modernity and Islam have all been partners locked in step on the road to the present day. There is no mystery as to why secular fundamentalists like Amis look at Islamism through the lens of the Protestant reformation – the sight of a religiously-inspired alternative to secular materialism would make a mockery of the last few hundred years of European history.
Any attempt at getting it right would also require recognising that Muslim projects in Islamism are being carried out not by medieval zombies turned contemporary robots but by real, breathing people who happen to be motivated by the same feelings of fear, dignity, rage, and hope that stir the rest of humanity. I, perhaps naively, ask at least this minimum from anyone in a position of influence who wants to talk seriously about Islam and the Muslim world.
That Amis shares the paranoid alarmism of Netanyahu and his foreign minister and is one of many suppliers of the discursive fodder needed for 21st century Euro-American imperialism is not the truly disturbing issue here. Nor is the fact that Amis has given us nothing more than false consciousness with which to understand the truly frightening world around us. More troublesome is that at this profound juncture in human history, one of liberalism’s greatest sons can do no better than to respond in this fearful, superficial way.