Hardline Shiite cleric and the spiritual and religious father of members of the administration said during a speech he delivered at ayatollah Khamenei’s office in the city of Qom that opponents to the rule of the Islamic republic supreme leader are “moharebs” [enemies of God] and that “Democracy, freedom, and human rights have no place” in Islamic theology.

The religious leader of the Shiite Taliban, who has resumed delivering speeches among military and paralimitary forces and his followers after several months, said, “Today, if people came and surrendered and submitted to the rule of the guardian of all Muslims, others who disrupt, make trouble or seek to carry out a coup must be stopped with the use of force.”

 Mesbah Yazdi, who is also a member of the Association of Teachers of Qom Theological Center (Jame Modaresin Hoze Elmie Qom), declared that the imposition of “Islamic laws are mandatory following submission,’ adding, “Some say, we are Muslims and want to implement Islamic laws. Executive work and management also requires an Imam, and when people submit to their Imam, and an Islamic government was established, and the holy order has materialized, if, after that, someone protested, he must be confronted and put in his place. Also, implementing Islamic laws requires implementing Islamic penal laws. If someone is a thief, his hand must be amputated, and this is not a place to back down for cultural reasons against people who promote corruption.”

This hardline cleric who is referred to as the “theoretician of Shiite violence” said in another part of his speech: “Another one of the Islamic government’s duties is to protect Islamic principles; because an Islamic society must have a proper appearance, and sexual or moral deviants or promoters of any other kind of corruption must be suppressed.”

Mesbah Yazdi also clarified his definition of a “mohareb,” noting, “Private behavior is a separate topic, but if they openly come to the streets and scream, or if someone attacks people with a weapon, here there is no more room for advice; because someone who carries a weapon and is attacking people is a mohareb, and a mohareb is punished by death or amputation of hand and feet or exile, depending on the ruler’s determination. Here we can’t bring in … freedom or democracy or human rights, because this is not the place to talk about those things.”

Earlier, Mesbah Yazdi openly supported Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, even elevating him to God’s level, saying, “When the president received the supreme leader’s confirmation, obeying him is like obeying God.”

Many Shiite grand ayatollahs, including the late ayatollah Montazeri, have challenged Mesbah Yazdi’s interpretation of Islam, especially since last year’s post-election crackdown.

Since last year’s presidential election, which pitted ayatollah Khamenei as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s supporter against the reformists, Mesbay Yazdi has repeatedly and openly supported Ahmadinejad and the office of the supreme, increasing his activities and speeches with the supreme leader’s approval.

In his latest remarks, former Parliament speaker and reformist presidential contender Mehdi Karoubi supported the recent complaint filed by seven senior members of the Mosharekat and Mojahedin of Islamic Revolution parties relating to “illegal interference” of security and intelligence agents in the June 2009 presidential election. He also invited the regime to a “debate” and announced the compilation of an “analysis of elections over the past twenty years.”

In his remarks yesterday, the sixth Majlis speaker once again identified the Guardian Council as the main agent of “fraud” in the election, noting, “The main problem has to do with this oversight [agency], which is not impartial. It is clear to everyone that they [Guardian Council members] did not remain impartial, and that their hands are stained with betraying people’s votes.”

Karoubi latest criticism is voiced while, at the time this report was completed, Karoubi’s house was under siege as it was surrounded by over 50 plainclothes agents and members of the Basij. According to Mr. Karoubi’s official website, concerns about his physical safety have reached a new high with the presence of unidentified plainclothes agents and members of the Basij, who are hiding their identifies by covering their faces.

Karoubi, who was speaking to a group of reformist youth activists yesterday, commented on his recent meetings with the families of the post-election victims: “In these meetings, one is moved by the discussions with the families of the post-election prisoners, injured, wounded and martyred victims, especially when the discussion is about unknown individuals who have suffered so much in the turmoil. Not much information is still available about some of them, or if there is, not enough attention has been paid to their cases. They are still dealing with difficulty with the problems that they have faced and the limitations that have been imposed on them.”

Mehdi Karoubi, who has consistently protested the fraud in last year’s election, said again yesterday, “Some argue that there was fraud while others insist that there wasn’t. But we say, not only was there fraud, but it was widespread, much more than one or two million votes and that the result was pre-determined before the election. It was determined that the other side must have 25 million, and this side must have a few million, and one side must have about 300 thousand votes. The point was that some people were planned to be presented as defeated.”

The sixth Majlis speaker then addressed the regime directly: “You know yourselves that you don’t have enough support among the people, or that you have little support. I am willing to start with anyone that you say, from anywhere that you say, from coffee shops to cinemas and shrines, from north to south, east to west, on car or by foot, to visit cities and everything in between, to see and ask people whom they support.”

Mehdi Karoubi is among the opposition leaders who have been beaten and harassed by unknown agents several times over the past year for participating in public rallies and events. Along with Mir-Hossein Mousavi, he has requested but failed to obtain permits for public gatherings from the government repeatedly over the past year.

Attorney Nasrin Sotoudeh spoke to Rooz after her office was raided by Iran’s security agents and announced in her exclusive interview that she was given a summons to appear in court within three days on charges of “assembly and conspiracy to disrupt national security and propaganda against the regime.”

Noting that she views the charges as “baseless and absolute lies,” Sotoudeh said that she will decide whether to appear in court after consulting with her attorneys and examining the legal validity of the summons.

Since the disputed June 2009 presidential election, attorneys in Iran have been subjected to heavy pressures, with some jailed and others forced to leave the country. The raid on Ms. Sotoudeh’s house and the confiscation of her files, documents and personal belongings is the latest instance of this trend.

Abdolfatah Soltani and Mohammad Ali Dadkhah are two other prominent attorneys who spent months in the infamous Evin Prison on national security charges and are still subjected to pressures. Mohammad Oliyayifard remains behind bars, while Mohammad Seifzadeh is awaiting his trial later this summer. Khalil Bahramian was summoned to the Evin Prison for questioning some time ago and subjected to interrogation, and Saleh Nikbakht has an open case at the judiciary’s branch in the Evin Prison.

Perhaps for these reasons, Ms. Sotoudeh said, “The gentlemen plan to put so much pressure on lawyers to make legal defense, especially of political defendants, impossible.”

Sotoudeh, whose mobile phone was confiscated for the second time on Saturday, told Rooz, “On Saturday evening I was in my office when four agents arrived. Simultaneously, six other agents went to our house where my husband and children were staying. They showed me a warrant to search my office and house, which was issued by Evin Prison’s acting prosecutor, Mr. Farahani. The warrant said, ‘Visit the defendant’s office and house to collect evidence and documents and confiscate evidence of crime.’”

Ms. Sotoudeh noted that her mobile phone was confiscated for the second time: “The first time was after Arash Rahmanipour’s execution and was later returned. But now they confiscated my mobile phone again during the Sautrday raid. Despite the objections that my husband and I voiced to the agents, unfortunately they confiscated my husband’s work tools, including his computer hard drive, as well as my daughter’s computer case and my son’s personal CDs. They raided my husband’s room and my children’s personal rooms, which was absolutely illegal.”

Ms. Sotoudeh, who represents many journalists and political prisoners, including Isa Saharkhiz, Keyvan Samimi, Zia Nabavi, as well as Shirin Ebadi, denied the charges against her. “I don’t accept any of these cliché charges. There was a cliché before to accuse all activists, including labor, civil, students, etc., of propaganda against the regime. After last year’s election, they added another cliché charge, conspiracy and assembly against national security. As a lawyer, I declare that these charges are false and humorous, not just as applied to me, but as applied to everyone who is behind bars because of them: Ahmad Zeidabadi, Keyvan Samimi, Heshmatollah Tabarzadi and many others,” she told Rooz.

In an open letter to human rights activists Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani’s son Sajjad Ghaderzadeh asserted that his father’s murder files were missing and expressed concern about the possibility of a setup through which evidence had been planted and files were altered. Sakineh received international attention recently because of her stoning sentence that was on the verge of execution.

He provided the letter to Rooz for publication, and asked, “Why do they extract false confessions from my mother by force and broadcast them? Why have they prevented my mother from seeing her attorney or us since then? Is it not because signs of torture are still visible on her body and they do not want any witnesses? Are they delaying visitations until the signs are healed? Why do they plant false evidence against my mother? Why do they open a case that was previously closed? Why have my father’s murder files gone missing? Why do they not allow my mother’s case to proceed normally like any another case?”

Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani is 45 years old woman and has been behind bars in a Tabriz prison since 2006.

Initially after her first trial she was sentenced to 90 lashes by a criminal court in the city of Osku for adultery. But after the punishment was carried out, another court in the Azerbaijan Sharghi province reopened the case of Mrs Mohammadi’s husband’s murder case and sentenced Sakineh Mohammadi to stoning for adultery. This sentence has been suspended due to wide international protests. Today, despite the suspension, her fate remains unknown and precarious.

Following is the full text of Sajjad Ghaderzadeh’s open letter, addressed to “human rights defenders across the universe”:

I, Sajjad Ghaderzadeh, am at awe about judiciary officials. Because he participated in a lawful interview, the defense attorney who represented us in the past (Mr. Mohammad Mostafaei), has been forced to flee the country, and leave his home and property behind, in order to protect his own life. Now, Mr. Houtan Kian is under the most extreme police and psychological pressure, and subjected to the harshest threats and summons for revealing unlawful elements related to our mother’s case.

Why do they extract false confessions from my mother by force and broadcast them? Why have they prevented my mother from seeing her attorney or us since then? Is it not because signs of torture are still visible on her body and they do not want any witnesses? Have they delayed visitations until the signs are healed? Why do they plant false evidence against my mother? Why do they open a case that was previously closed? Why have my father’s murder files gone missing? Why do they not allow my mother’s case to proceed normally like any another case? We are truly disappointed that we were born in the Islamic Republic; and that we were abandoned by our own family after the sham show on the Islamic Republic’s television; and that we are forced to tolerate this life of humiliation. Life killed us¾death, where are you?

Sajjad Ghaderzadeh

While several senior Islamic Republic officials have emphasized the “necessity of unity in recent days, one of Ahmadinejad’s aides yesterday announced that the chief executive did not wish to participate in the Expediency Council sessions, despite ayatollah Khamenei’s request for Ahmadinejad do to so. Meanwhile, seyed Hassan Khomeini, who was recently widely criticized by green movement supporters for speaking to Ahmadinejad at a state function, refused to attend a gathering yesterday at the revolutionary founder ayatollah Khomeini’s shrine and did not welcome Ahmadinejad.

Since coming to power, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has not attended any of the Expediency Councils sessions. Recently, he went as far as labeling the Council’s decision to allocate two billion dollars to the Tehran subway project “illegal”¾an unprecedented move viewed by experts as a show of opposition to the Council’s chairman, Hashemi Rafsanjani.

Nevertheless, the conservative website Khabar Online reported yesterday on “Ayatollah Khamenei’s desire for Ahmadinejad’s participation in the Expediency Council session.” The website quoted Morteza Nabavi, the editor-in-chief of hardline daily Resalat and a member of the Council as saying, “I am among those who view the president’s participation in the Council as necessary, because the policies that are ratified in the Council are very important and influence the administration’s planning. I think, aside from the fact that this is a legal demand, and that, I as a citizen, and naturally other people, have that demand, the supreme leader also has that demand.”

Domestic media outlets yesterday reported Nabavi’s remarks while Mehdi Kalhor, an advisor to Ahmadinejad, said in a tone that typifies that of other administration officials: “Ahmadinejad doesn’t like to go.”

He told the Mehr news agency, “I was the first person who had asked Ahmadinejad, why would not attend Expediency Council’s meetings. Ahmadinejad told me that he did not like the, to which I told him that he did not have to like them, and then asked him whether he liked every one at the UN when he visited it. I told him that people voted for him and paid his salary expecting him to participate in Expediency Council’s sessions.”

Ahmadinejad’s refusal to abide by the “supreme leader’s demand” as expressed by Morteza Nabavi captured the headlines yesterday while seyed Hassan Khomeini, ayatollah Khomeini’s grandson, also refused to attend a gathering at ayatollah Khomeini’s shrine attended by Ahmadinejad.

Domestic news outlets, including ISNA student news agency, briefly reported the cabinet’s attendance at ayatollah Khomeini’s shrine and said that Ahmadinejad was welcomed by seyed Hassan Khomeini’s secretary, Hamid Ansari.

The atmosphere present among the Islamic Republic’s senior leaders and figures, including seyed Hassan Khomeini’s treatment of Ahmadinejad, and his refusal to abide by ayatollah Khamenei’s demand point to the leader’s failure in mending the rifts among the regime’s senior leadership, even on the surface; a failure that renders repeated calls to unity ineffective.

In his latest remarks, Mir-Hossein Mousavi noted that “The Iranian people’s green movement has brought compassion and closeness among different sectors of society,” adding, “With all our differences of opinion, beliefs, cultures and ethnicities, we will gradually cease to stutter and will converse with one another with more ease.” The green movement leader, who was meeting with family members of the veterans of the Iran-Iraq war, also commented on the complaint filed by seven senior members of the Mosharekat and Mojahedin of Islamic Revolution parties against the “illegal interference” of military and intelligence officers in the 2009 presidential election, noting, “Those who are complaining of accusations against them are taken to prison and the accuser and institutions supporting him remain beyond the judiciary’s reach.”

Criticizing the divisions among political factions on the basis of “wrong policies,” Mousavi said, “The political factions that were previously divided as a result of wrongful policies, are now gradually coming closer to each other. They negotiate with each other and sit around the same table. What brings them together is their struggle for freedom, justice and reaching an understanding to protect the rights of the nation. The barriers that separate outsider and insider are gradually fading away and instead there is interaction and dialogue.”

Mousavi continued, “The corrupt movements that today ridicule sacred religious beliefs in cyberspace are rooted in the billions of Tomans (about 1000 Toman bring in a US Dollar in the open market) spent in the name of cyber warfare and the cyber army. In the same way that they transferred the national media into divisive and one-sided outlets with their meddling, they now want to contaminate the green movement’s cyber presence with their viruses in order to weaken our Islamic nation’s trust in this beautiful window of opportunity that has been opened, but this conspiracy will have a reverse effect.”

The former prime minister added, “The regime is now unable to create the necessary changes within itself according to global and domestic changes, and this is natural, because the most effective element for achieving the desired changes is the people’s involvement in all affairs and a respect for their right to determine their destiny and their rights as citizens. Even old political treatises equated oppression to destruction.”

In another part of his speech, Mr. Mousavi criticized the incarceration of “the country’s freedom-seeking and resistant children,” comparing Iran’s modern-day prisons with the dungeons of infamous Abbasid caliphs Mansour Davanighi and Harun al-Rashid.

Mousavi was referring to Mohsen Aminzadeh, Behzad Nabavi, Mostafa Tajzadeh, Abdollah Ramezanzadeh, Feizollah Arabsorkhi, Mohsen Safaei-Farahani, and Mohsen Mirdamadi, seven senior members of the Mosharekat and Mojahedin of Islamic Revolution who filed a complaint against military and intelligence officials for their illegal interference in the June 2009 presidential election. Mostafa Tajzadeh and Mohsen Safaei-Farahani, who were awarded temporary releases, have since been returned to prison.

In the end, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, who continues to protest the tenth election results along with Mehdi Karoubi, said, “it is the people’s votes that can save the country from its current crisis and return energy and liveliness to the public.”

With the arrival of Ali Darabi to replace Morteza Mir-Bagheri, a change was made to the state radio and television broadcasting corporation’s most important deputy director’s position. The change was not unexpected given ayatollah Khamenei’s remarks last fall upon the reappointment of Ezatollah Zarghami at the helm of the state radio and television broadcasting corporation, when he said he expected to see “signs of change” in the first year of Zarghami’s reappointment.

According to Jame Jam daily, in his welcome ceremony Zarghami described Darabi as an “individual with precious media experience who can contribute to effectuating the new intentions at the organization.”

According to Alef website, affiliated with Ahmad Tavakkoli, Ali Darabi is “charged with leading nationwide networks toward professional development by fostering televised debates, criticism, and free discussions.” During Zarghami’s first appointment, Darabi was a member of the radio and television broadcasting corporation’s policy council before being appointed to head the corporation’s provincial and parliamentary affairs divisions.

Darabi, who held close ties with seventh Majlis lawmakers, holds a PhD in political science. He believes that “the Iranian nuclear case is a case initiated by imperialism against the Islamic Republic. Defending terrorism, violating human rights, suppressing freedoms and defending prisoners rights, interference in other countries’ affairs, discrimination and other limitations related to women’s rights are among other cases in international organizations and institutions that imperialist powers who control them do not intend to close them.”

Previously in an article titled, “The Line of Imam, from Claim to Reality,” Darabi had written that more than 85 percent of participants in the tenth presidential election (in 2009) had voted for Ahmadinejad, as the “people’s elected and selected president”¾writing that the election “was a gigantic success that could have prepared a golden and unprecedented opportunity for the Islamic Republic, in both domestic and foreign areas, and could perhaps have resolved 30-year knots formed since the Islamic Republic. But alas, certain individuals and factions that received a giant “No” from the people joined forces with others under the banner of certain defeated candidates to fan the flame of ‘election fraud’ and make the victory bitter for the great Iranian nation. Undoubtedly, the main role of foreign spy agencies and propaganda machines in the fiasco will become clearer and clearer over time.”

He finished the article by concluding that the “conspiracy movement and its supporters have no relation to the Imam and act in contradiction to the Imam’s actions and ideas.” That was one of the largest lessons of the June 2009 presidential election.

Ali Darabi is said to be an influential member of the Isargaran party, which is also referred to as the supreme leader’s party.

In his speech yesterday, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad implicitly referred to Hashemi Rafsanjani and Nategh-Nouri as “corrupt” politicians and announced that “overthrowers have not been punished yet.” Overthrowers is the term he uses for the leaders of the reform movement in Iran. Ahmadinejad made these remarks to a small group of people at an event that was boycotted by even right-wing and military groups because of the “engineered invitation from Mashaei,” a reference to Ahmadinejad’s senior trusted advisor. Nevertheless, the administration’s official news agency described the meeting as an “intimate gathering between the president and various student groups.”

At the meeting, Ahmadinejad spoke about events leading up to the election: “I revealed the names of corrupt politicians in the debates,” he said. In the nationally televised presidential debates in 2009 incumbent Ahmadinejad mentioned Hashemi Rafsanjani and Nategh-Nouri in his debate with Mir-Hossein Mousavi, a gesture that was criticized even by ayatollah Khamenei at the famous June 19, 2009 Friday prayers.

According to Jahan News, Ahmadinejad commented on his decision to show Zahra Rahnavard’s picture by saying, “Some people told me that showing a woman’s picture was an act of haraam [religiously forbidden], but what I showed was just a photocopy of her identification papers and didn’t show anything in particular.”

Raja News quoted Ahmadinejad as saying, “While the conspirators continue their activities, some people think that they are finished and they must attack the administration … and can’t find a wall shorter than Ahmadinejad’s wall.”

Without naming Rafsanjani by name, Ahmadinejad said, “The fight against corruption has not ended. The thieves and overthrowers have not been punished and are active. So if we don’t act in time, the conspiracies will overcome us. Thus it is imperative that we move on ahead to make ourselves immune from the reach of conspiracies. The important issue is not to build an empire when we attain power, even though unfortunately this was done again in the ninth administration.”

He added that, “Some people played in the enemy’s field without paying attention to the country’s most pressing issues. Today, the biggest overhaul in our country’s economic and cultural underpinnings is taking place; the fundamentals are changing and a true revolution is happening in our culture. As such, peripheral issues cannot overshadow the main issues…. The real battlefield in the world is over global supremacy and globalization. Today, Iran supports globalization more strongly than Westerners.”

According to unpublished reports on online media portals affiliated with the conservative camp, Ahmadinejad’s latest meeting with a group of “students” was not free from controversies. The controversies relate to the infighting in the conservative camp over Mashaei, which Mir-Hossein Mousavi has referred to as a “war of words.”

Jahan News explained some of the behind-the-scenes controversies that led to the meeting’s boycott by some government factions: “Prior to the meeting, the person that contacted students to invite them to the meeting was the former manager of the website Nowsazi and editor-in-chief of Hemmat magazine. It must be noted that this is the first time that students are invited via telephone and unofficially. This person also played a key role in managing the president’s interactions with journalists.”

Hemmat magazine (short for Tactical Nuclei of Resistance) was an extremist magazine supporting Ahmadinejad which unleashed massive attacks on Hashemi Rafsanjani in two back-to-back issues last year but was immediately suspended on ayatollah Khamenei’s orders. The magazine’s editor-in-chief, Ali Sinaian, was also summoned to court following the suspension.

These days mark the 31st anniversary of the start of the war in Iranian Kurdistan, an event that offers useful and instructive lessons in the history of Kurdistan and Iran. This war which later came to be known as the “Kurdish War” was officially launched on August 19, 1979 on the orders of ayatollah Khomeini and brought about huge consequences, many of which remain till today. The event has impacted and shaped political and social relations between Kurdish people and other Iranians. The war is so important that it must be seriously and constructively debated and critiqued at different levels, politicians, intellectuals and people, so that we can derive useful lessons from it. By opening a serious and constructive dialog, not only will the repetition of such catastrophes be prevented in future, but it could also lead to greater understanding and accountability by political leaders.

This writing is more for the non-Kurdish people of Iran, i.e. those who still blame the Kurdish people and hold the Kurdish parties and political leaders to be the principle wrongdoer in the war. To address this, I raise a few questions: Have we asked ourselves without any prejudice, why and how did this war begin? Do you, like the leaders of the Islamic Republic, believe that the Kurdish war was against infidels? Do you still believe that the Kurdish war was against separatism? Have you ever heard the calls and messages of the Kurdish people? Why do you think that before the start of the war ayatollah Khomeini and other senior officials of the Islamic Republic opposed the simple call for “Dr Ghasemloo,” the secretary general of the Kurdish Democratic party who had called for a one-hour talk with the people of Iran about the situation in Kurdistan and the demands of the Kurdish people through the national radio and television channel? Why do you think that leaders of the Islamic Republic did not respond to the open letter of the central committee of the Kurdish Democratic party in the spring of 1980 which had told the leaders of the Islamic Republic that if they stopped their war against Kurdistan, the Kurdish Democratic party was ready to send its thousands of pishmarg (Kurdish warriors) to the fronts to join the armed forces in its war against Iraq? Do you today believe that the demands of the political parties which consisted of self administration of Kurdish regions by the election officials of the Kurdish people, the teaching of Kurdish language in schools and universities, freedom of political parties, etc within the framework of self administration are undemocratic demands? Why do you think that years after the war in Kurdistan had begun, authorities ignored even the recommendations of the then prime minister - Mr. Mousavi recently confessed that he was against the dispatch of the military into Kurdistan – and the war in Kurdistan was even more important to them than the Iraqi war? It is necessary that political leaders, advocates of change in Iran, and the Iranian youth find answers to these and numerous other questions without prejudice or justifications of the war.

The time has now arrived for everything to be scrutinized or the slogan “the past is the light to the future” will be meaningless.

Just a few days ago on the occasion of the 65th anniversary of the founding of the Kurdish Democratic Party said that today it is no longer relevant who is a better critic of the Islamic Republic, because the ineffectiveness of the regime is clear to most people. Today what is important is to be effective in the process towards democracy in Iran. But the fact is that if those who want change and democracy do not honestly and realistically critique important and landmark historic events, such as the Kurdish war whose political, social and psychological impact remains till today, they cannot recognize the obstacles to democracy and thus propose effective breakthroughs. During the last year as the pro-democracy movement of the Iranian people has entered its serious and decisive phase, this question has been repeatedly asked at different levels of the Kurdish people: the Kurdish people have continuously remained at struggle with the Islamic Republic, but why is it that they have not fully involved in the green movement? We disagree with this assessment that the Kurdish people have not involved with the green movement. Not only have we been involved in the green movement to our utmost, but we have even paid a price for this. This is a valid question if it is free from political underpinnings in the solution it seeks to suggest. It would be very illogical to believe that Kurdish people, its intellectuals, political parties and leaders have over the years viewed democracy in Iran to be the guarantor of their own lost rights and demands, and also believe that the current movement of the people of Iran is the start of a serious pro-democracy movement of all Iranian but at the same time not participate in this event despite all the sacrifice that they have given for the attainment of their democratic demands during the last decades. For this reason the response to the above question is enlightening. So because one can definitively say that one of the key reasons concerns the distrust that the Kurdish people have, which itself is rooted in the long and cruel war against the Kurdish people. This war was launched by leaders of the Islamic Republic through the manipulation of the religious and patriotic feelings of its supporters and the spread of lies and rumors against the Kurdish people and the pro-democracy movement in Kurdistan.

Therefore, today it is necessary for the Iranian people’s pro-democracy movement and all those who honestly desire democracy in Iran to seriously and responsibly critique the Kurdish war and other similar events in the country. Most Kurdish people and social and political Kurdish activists believe that the Kurdish war was related to the fear that the rulers had from the serious, democratic and civil demands of the Kurdish people at the time. Therefore, the only way to prevent the repetition of this historic catastrophe is tied to understanding and accepting the legitimate democratic demands of the Kurds. Today we must accept to respect the will of the groups and communities that constitute Iran and define them in terms that they themselves with to be defined. We must recognize their rights and demands as they define them, and not set agendas for them, which is the democratic way. The requirement for future democracy in Iran is the acceptance of and respect for these rights and demands. The Kurdish war offers lessons that help understand this because the war was launched against the Kurdish people by those who oppose democracy.

While, since the beginning of the new Iranian year, the Majlis and the administration have had serious disagreements over issues ranging from implementation of the laws to Azad University to the subsidy reform plan, the Majlis and the administration participated in a joint meeting yesterday to display their readiness to resolve their differences. The meeting was held following remarks by ayatollah Khamenei on the importance of unity.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad attended the joint meeting yesterday to calm tensions after months of disagreements and infighting. But, in light of the recent disagreements between the two branches over the implementation of laws passed by the Majlis, on Monday Ahmadinejad set a condition for implementing laws, saying to lawmakers, “If you pass good laws, the administration will do its best to implement them well.”

The remark confirmed his previous remarks that he would implement only those laws he deems to be “good.”

It is said that the joint meeting was held to on the insistence of ayatollah Khamenei. Calling on the Majlis and the administration to display unity, Khamenei had said in a speech last Wednesday: “No one must speak in a manner so as to foster pessimism about the administration, Majlis or judiciary among the people.”

Ali Larijani supported the supreme leader’s position yesterday, saying that the remarks were “timely and necessary.”

In recent weeks and months, after the administration violated the law by refusing to implement several bills passed by the Majlis, in a bid to show his determination to check the president’s behavior, Majlis speaker Ali Larijani independently ordered the implementation of several bills, angering Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

In the latest instance, despite the administration’s protest, the eighth Majlis speaker allocated two billion dollars to the Tehran subway project’s budget. The central bank refused to dispense the money and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the allocation illegal and refused to implement it.

Previously, Ali Larijani had ordered the implementation of a bill requiring the government to hold the eleventh presidential election and the fourth city council elections simultaneously.

But Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not remain silent. Relying on previous shows of support from the supreme leader in similar political crises, in mid-summer Ahmadinejad announced that he has asked ayatollah Khamenei to resolve the difference between the two branches.

Pointing to ayatollah Khamenei’s recent remarks, however, experts believe that the unlike previous times the supreme leader has not intervened on Ahmadinejad’s behalf in this latest instance.

Some experts dismiss yesterday’s joint meeting as a sham display of unity. They regard internal disagreements in the right-wing camp to run too deep to be resolved by a meeting.  

On Saturday, a report came out of Tehran the most important element of which the phrase, “finally.” Russia and Iran began delivering fuel to the Bushehr nuclear reactor after a three-decade delay. The Islamic Republic television broadcast the operation live, boasting to the public that in just a month 1000 megawatts of nuclear-generated electricity will enter Iran’s power grid¾exactly at a time when repeated power outages have left the Iranian people frustrated. At the same time, experts began wondering whether the Islamic Republic will continue its enrichment policy after the plant’s opening.

Two months ago, no timeline for the Bushehr plant’s operation existed; a point of constant criticism by principlist media outlets.

Now, however, experts note that Russia has “finally” finished the project in order to deprive Tehran of an excuse to enrich uranium to further levels.

Since 1995, when Russia accepted to cooperate with Iran in completing the Bushehr nuclear plant, the plants operation has been delayed several times. Western diplomats often claimed that Russia uses the nuclear plant as a leverage to manage its relations with Iran and the West. Russia has received payments of around one billion dollars to complete the plant, which was scheduled to go online in 2006.

Finally, Ali Akbar Salehi and Sergei Kiriyenko attended a press conference yesterday to announce the launching of the Bushehr nuclear plant.

According to France Presse, Sergei Kiriyenko, head of Russian state nuclear energy corporation, said, “Moscow will completely hand over the Bushehr power plant’s management to Iran within the next two to three years.”

According to Kiriyenko, during the first phase of operation, Iran and Russia will jointly operate the plant, with the number of Iranian personnel equaling that of Russian personnel.

Ali Akbar Salehi, chief of Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, said at the press conference, “Russia’s cooperation in completing the Bushehr power plant will save the that country’s name in Iran’s golden history and will make Russia an eternal part of Iranian history.”

He added, “Tehran fully trusts Russia to provide the fuel for the Bushehr power plant.”

Experts believe the Russia’s decision to complete the plant is intended to deprive Iran of an excuse to continue its enrichment activities. Russia’s cooperation comes at a time when the two countries’ relations have hit a low, with Russia suspecting that Iran is intending to develop nuclear weapons.  In May, the Russian president Dmitri Medvedev announced that the Islamic Republic edging closer to developing nuclear weapons.

The Russian president’s remarks were made after Russia supported the imposition of the fourth round of Security Council sanctions on Iran; a move that was prompted complaint from Islamic Republic officials.

Perhaps because of the heavy propaganda by the Islamic republic or perhaps because the media was not as developed as it is today, the Kurdish party Komeleh was for years a synonym for armed men who engaged in violence and terrorism in the mountains and cities of Iranian Kurdistan with the goal of separating Kurdistan from Iran. But after the events that have taken place in Iran since June 12, 2009, political and social activists in this country who are now in the millions because of the green movement, have discovered a different image of Komeleh.

The secretary general of the Komeleh party Abdollah Mohtadi has played a very important role in making this image credible. He talks to the media, categorically defends the territorial integrity of Iran, talks of peaceful and civil struggle for the attainment of democratic demands of all the Iranian people, defends the green movement and its leaders, and stresses on the negation of violence and oppression. He views all the claims of beheadings carried out by Kurds to be the creation of the propaganda machinery of the Islamic republic and believes that during the last year the people of Iran have witnessed the lies spread by this machinery. Her are the excerpts of the interview.

Rooz: The Komeleh Party and the Green Movement! Is this not strange?

Abdollah Mohtadi: No, I do not believe it to be strange. I view the green movement to be a rightful and democratic movement, and we support any such movement. Even though this movement has not cut its nuptial cord from people who I think are official reformers and is still connected to them, I do not view the green movement to be the simple extension and continuation of what has been known as the reformist path in Iran. On the contrary, I believe that impasse of that model of reforms and ineffectiveness of its methods in its confrontation of dictatorship and the inability of reforms to create change at the top, has caused the green movement to take shape from the bottom through the public to attain its demands.

Rooz: Do you mean that you do not see any structural link between Iran’s reformist movement which specifically began on May 23 1997 and the green movement? I ask this because Mr. Mousavi and Mr. Karoubi as the leaders of the green movement have stressed the continuation of reforms in general and the behavioral change of the regime specifically

Mohtadi: I did not mean that the two have no connection. I said the green movement is not the simple continuation of the reforms. The similarity in terms and slogans between the two does not mean there is complete unity in meaning, goals, content and methods between the two.

Rooz: So what is the difference between the two?

Mohtadi: I view the biggest and fundamental difference between the two movements to be in the direct and independent participation, or not participation of people in the struggles and the political battles. The formal reformist movement excluded the direct participation and role of the people’s movement, and the events of July 9th and others have shown that government reformers and particularly the strategy of Mr. Khatami was not endorsing the people’s movements and their presence in the streets as a way for them to pursue the materialization of their demands. Their operational method was to negotiate at the top and in most cases retreat from their positions. Pressure from below for them was restricted to a few actions or limited and socially manageable threats. It was clear that that approach was not effective and would not yield results

Rooz: So you believe that during the reform period of the two parts of the strategy of exerting pressure from below and negotiating from above, only the latter was implemented?

Mohtadi: Basically that was the case and because of this by denying itself the support of people, the so called reform movement in fact deprived itself of the second part of the strategy. When there is no popular movement there is also no force to backup the negotiations and what is left is nothing but empty threats.

Rooz: You say that the green movement has not yet cut itself off from the reform movement and you speak of their differences, but if you believe in their differences so where is the connection then?

Mohtadi: One of the key differences in my view is in the methods of their struggle to attain their demands. The green movement has primarily based the foundation its movement on the direct participation of the public in resolving political issues. This in fact has been the specific feature of the green movement whereas the reformist movement did not believe in the political participation of people, in the direct role and impact of social movements and did not wish to challenges the political system in this manner.

Rooz: What other inherent differences do you see in these two movements?

Mohtadi: Right from the moment the green movement was formed, many of the previous norms and values changed fundamentally. In fact, the green movement itself saw many of its own red lines come to light. By comparing the value, meanings and goals of these two movements you can see the fundamental differences between them.

Rooz: Such as what?

Mohtadi: Where in the reform movement did you see something called the negation of  velayat faghih (rule of the clerics)? Or where did they specifically call for the death to the dictator and the rejection of dictatorship? Or so much talk of unconditional democracy or civil society without an Islamic civil society? Where did the reform movement talk so clearly about the equality of men and women? Where did it talk so clearly about the separation of religion from government? The dialogue today is all about democracy, civil society, rights of citizens, and equality of rights between men and women, and even amendment of the constitution. Another difference is that the cleavage between the opposition outside the country and the domestic opponents has disappeared and one can say they have now joined hands, their language and debate has come closer and much of the distrust between them has collapsed. As a Kurd I can say that another change is the collapse of the high wall that had been fabricated about the Kurdish people. I can say that much of the lies that the Islamic republic had fabricated about the Kurdish people for the last thirty years and which had been accepted as facts, has disappeared like cotton in the eyes of the youth of today. These are big changes that differentiate the green movement from the reform movement. I still want to stress that these differences do not mean that the green movement does not have some of the features of the reform movement.

Rooz: But newspapers and intellectual forums were full of such discussions during the reform period.

Mohtadi: You are right. Newspapers and intellectual circles during the reform period were full of such discussion which is a positive fact and that contributed to the foundations of the current movement, but the discussions were never as clear as they are now and they did not have the scope and depth of the current dialog. And they never moved from the periphery of society to the center. It is this current movement that has taken these discussions on democracy to the masses and people realized that freedom is as necessary and essential to them as is their supper bread and the air they breathe. As Marx said when an idea or theory goes to the masses it turns into a material force, and it was only when the issues moved to the people that democracy attained its real and invincible power.

Rooz: But it does not appear that there is tangible consensus as yet on the need for a constitutional change both, in the body of the movement or its leaders.

Mohtadi: Yes. Some may have explicitly talked of changing the constitution while others have said that the constitution is not written in stone. But the reality is that this constitution admits velayat faghih principle has been challenged through specific actions, in the measures that the movement has taken, and also at the conceptual level.

Rooz: Let’s return to the first question. What exactly is the party affiliation of Komeleh with the green movement, or at the higher level the relationship between Kurds and the green movement?

Mohtadi: As I said, in my view this is a righteous and pro-democracy movement by the people which has till now shown a great deal of flexibility, potential for growth and the ability to see through the shortcomings of earlier government reformers. Every day, it grows in size, focus and gradually resolves its own limitations. On the other hand, Komeleh is a party that has always laid importance to all real democratic and righteous movements of the people and has greatly valued them and supported them, even if that movement from our perspective contained certain limitations or impurities or was not in congruence with all of our views. Therefore, it was only natural that Komeleh would announce its categorical support for the green movement right from the beginning because it viewed the demands of the movement over its lost votes to be right.

Rooz: But you boycotted the tenth presidential elections?

Mohtadi: That is correct, but this is no reason not to defend the rights of those who did take part in it. It is possible not to take part in an election for whatever reason, but this does not mean that you are indifferent to the irregularities of the election in your country. What was the issue in the last election? Was it not that the regime was basically not willing to recognize the vote of the people, it engaged in massive fraud and in general was not and is not to accept the people’s right to self determination? We knew from the beginning that the regime does not recognize this right, and so it was natural that Komeleh would defend the demand for this democratic right of the people. There are reasons why we did not take part in the elections and their explanation would need more time.

Rooz: My take on this is that if the green movement succeeds in forcing the Islamic republic to hold free elections in compliance with all its rules, then Komeleh would also take part in them.

Mohtadi: The whole debate revolves around this “if.” In other words, if the measures for such an election are taken, if the elections are truly held freely, without any appointed supervision, without the elimination of any views, under international supervision, similar to what takes place in all the democratic countries of the world, I believe that not only Komeleh but all everybody must take part in them. But I am not very optimistic about this.

Rooz: So you do not believe that even the green movement can impose this on the regime?

Mohtadi: It can. Very powerful popular forces can under certain conditions impose something, but doing this on the Islamic republic translates into taking the first step in the disintegration of the regime because all evidence and observations show that in a truly free election in Iran, people will vote for individuals other than those currently in power.

Rooz: But what if through these free and democratic elections the outcome turned out differently then what you expect, would Komeleh then accept it?

Mohtadi: Without any reservations we must accept it. This is the rule of democracy. But my view is that this will not happen. If people were going to vote for the current rulers, then there would be no need for this fraud, crackdown, bloodshed, killings, tortures, prisons, etc. In fact, even prior to the recent events and before the last vestiges of public trust in the rulers collapsed, the regime well knew that its candidates would not get the vote which is why it resorted to this massive rigging. It is possible that in a completely free election people would bring in Mr. Mousavi and I believe such an outcome must be accepted. After that, other political, social and other demands must be pursued in a civil and non-violent manner. I doubt very much that the regime will accept such elections, unless the green movement presses this on the regime with full force.

Rooz: Mr. Mohtadi. Is Komeleh Party a violent terrorist group?

Mohtadi: No, absolutely not. Attributing this to Komeleh’s past or present is not true. In the beginning of the revolution, with the order of Mr. Khomeini on August 19, 1979 a massive assault was made on Kurdistan without any reason and on a fabricated pretext  which forced the Kurdish people to widespread resistance at all levels using every available means, including armed resistance. This resistance is not terrorism under any circumstances  and I view it as a legitimate self defense of the Kurdish nation. This can be proved. For example, nobody has seen a suicide operation by Kurds during the last 30 years. No bomb has exploded amid ordinary people and there is not even a single instance of Kurds attacking innocent people.

Rooz: But there were many news reports and rumors about Kurdish violence in the beginning of the revolution.

Mohtadi: These rumors are the work of the propaganda machinery of the Islamic republic. Have the lies of the government media not been clearly demonstrated to everybody during the last year and a half? This was not the first time that the propaganda machinery of the Islamic republic was resorting to lies. But since the other people of Iran were not fully aware of the realities of their time, the world of news, information and communications was not as developed as it is today, the media did not have the means it has today, and the legitimacy of the Islamic republic among people was not as low then as it is today. Those lies were partly accepted and then they gradually became accepted by the whole public, without having any reality.

Rooz: So all of these stories are rumors?

Mohtadi: Mr. Yazdanpanah. The innocent people of Kurdistan have been the victims of regime imposed violence since the founding of the Islamic republic. The ruthless violence that was imposed on the heroic people of Tehran last year has existed for the Kurdish people since thirty years ago. The Kurds have not been the initiators of violence, but its victims. Prisons, torture, rape, executions of youths in groups without trials, firing squads for the youth at hospital walls in Paveh, massive executions in Sanandaj whose images earned the photographer a Pulitzer Prize, the massive killing of villagers in Gharane and many other villages, the shelling of defenseless people with heavy artillery, along with the purges of teachers and workers, the imposition of forced exile to Kurdish families and many other similar realities have been the normal methods used by the regime in Kurdistan. Let me give you just one incident that took place in recent years. In the summer of 2005, just one month after the election of Mar Ahmadinejad in the first round, a Mahabad resident was brutally murdered such that Passdaran Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) tied his body to a car and dragged him this way through the streets. This in turn led to wide protests by the Kurds. The first one was in Mahabad. People were so angry that some youth wanted to take revenge, but the representative of the Komeleh party requested the residents of Mahabad  not to resort to violence and engage in reprisals and instead pursue their demands in civil and non-violent ways, and expand their protests to all the Kurdish cities. And this is exactly what happened and for one full month we witnessed political and civil protests against these violent acts in all Kurdish towns. Instead of responding to these calls, the government resorted to extreme violence against the Kurds so that in the town of Saghez they even used helicopters to fire at protesting people thus killing men and women. This is how the regime has always responded to the Kurdish people.

Rooz: So why did Komeleh party not take this non-violent attitude against the regime’s oppressive measures?

Mohtadi: In the beginning of the revolution until just before the order to attack Kurdistan in 1979, we were civil and peaceful, which continued. After the attack, it was impossible to continue that.

Rooz: But before August 19, 1979, the military base in Mahabad was occupied by Kurdish pishmarg (armed men) in the fist weeks of March of 1979. This took place just a month after the victory of the 1979 revolution. Don’t you think both sides played a role in creating this attitude of distrust.

Mohtadi: Look, one can possibly say that the attitude of distrust goes back to the first months of the revolution and has existed on both sides. But I still believe that the reasons for the crackdown in Kurdistan, which was initially specifically targeted and confined to the local region, which finally led to the August 19, 1979 full scale assault on all Kurdish areas is not the reason.

Rooz: You accept that there was mutual distrust among Kurdish political groups and the officials of the Islamic republic. The sparks for the larger military operations began with the invasion of Mahabad’s army barracks. What other events influenced this assault?

Mohtadi: As I said, I believe that the real reason for the regime’s crackdown in Kurdistan was that the regime in those days noticed that the Kurds were playing a different tune, which in fact was the case.

Rooz: What different tune? What were your differences with the newly-founded regime?

Mohtadi: In Kurdistan it wasn’t the ayatollahs who were in power. In Kurdistan they were not burning down liquor stores or cinema theatres, and the Bahais were not bothered. Except for one specific case, religious parties were not the issue. The two principal parties that counted in Kurdistan, i.e. the Komeleh and the Kurdish Democratic Party, and despite the differences they had, they were both secular. The Kurdish movement was essentially a political movement that pursued its democratic demands. In the Kurdish movement, women had freedom of activity and many were active, the press was free, leftists, communists, liberals, religious groups, nationalists and others all could say what they wanted to. In fact, while it is true that the Kurdish nation actively participated in the Iranian revolution (of 1979), but an Islamic revolution never took place in Kurdistan. The newly established religious despotic regime that came to power could not tolerate such a democratic situation in Kurdistan. Our kind of life had no place in the despotic velayat faghih (rule of clerics) that intended to take over all of Iran and so had to be attached, sooner or later, and destroyed. The oppression and oppression of Kurdistan was one necessary step for the establishment of dictatorship all over Iran.

Rooz: But it appears that the main Kurdish political and opposition forces completely stayed disengaged from having relations with the Islamic republic during the last 30 years. Kurdish parties boycotted the April 1, 1979 referendum on the Islamic republic, just as they stayed away from the 2 Khordad elections (that brought reformist Mohammad Khatami to the presidency in 1997) and the 2001 presidential elections. Don’t you think that these boycotts some of which later proved to have been good opportunities for organizing the protesting opposition movements, provided the necessary excuse to the regime to eliminate you from political and social relations?

Mohtadi: I do not believe that we have to be a permanent boycotter or a permanent participant in elections. At the same time I do not oppose that people, political parties including the Kurds, should take advantage of conditions that come up to improve the conditions. But the instances that you mention such as not taking part in the referendum on the Islamic republics, which were incidentally led by the Komeleh that other parties followed, is one of the proud decisions of the people of Kurdistan. Based on what reason did we have to participate in that referendum?

Rooz: But 99 percent of the people of Iran voted positively for the Islamic republic.

Mohtadi: This is absolutely not the case. The Kurds did not take part in that referendum, and do the Kurds constitute only 1 percent of Iran? This fact alone shows that these numbers are incorrect.

Rooz: Are you saying that all the Kurds refrained from taking part in the referendum on the Islamic republic?

Mohtadi: No, I am not saying that, but a larger part of the Kurdish people, and I can confidently say more than 60 percent, did not take part in that referendum. Even then, I think that a large percent of that 99 percent will have to be readjusted.

Rooz: By Kurdish people do you mean the residents of the Kurdistan province or the western regions of the country with Kurdish populations?

Mohtadi: I mean all the Kurdish people.

Rooz: So you completely reject the 99 percent number for the referendum?

Mohtadi: Completely. We were in Kurdistan and watched the elections closely and in detail. The ballot boxes were really empty and one can categorically say that there was a complete boycott in many Kurdish regions. But since the regime needed a big lie to show a 99 percent vote, it claimed that number. In general, the referendum for the Islamic republic did not meet any principles of democracy and it was clear that the rulers of the time wanted to misuse the wave of emotions that followed the revolution and the hope that many people had in the regime (except the Kurds). Contrary to democratic elections, there were no opportunities for dialogue in that referendum, Hizbullah stood above everyone’s shoulders to ensure that the votes did not go astray. I want to stress here that I do not mean that every election has to be boycotted. It is possible that you as an opposition may find situations that the regime creates or that are inadvertently created, that you should use. I do not disagree with this in principle.

Rooz: Komeleh and other key Kurdish parties have announced their support for the green movement through joint declarations or individually. You too have emphasizes this on many occasions. I want to ask you when you support the green movement as a political force, what exactly are you supporting?

Mohtadi: During the entire last year, the Kurdish political community has been discussing in detail what should the strategy of Kurds be regarding the green movement.

Rooz: What is your specific position on this?

Mohtadi: From the first day, the Komeleh party and I, have held the view that while adopting a critical position, we must have solidarity with the green movement. The main reason for this is that perhaps nobody has suffered from a lack of democracy in Iran as much as the Kurds. Generally, deprived groups such as workers, women, ethnic groups, Bahais, and others have suffered from dictatorship in Iran and at the same time they benefit the most when democracy is established in Iran. This is the reason why these groups have to be at the forefront of the struggle to establish democracy in Iran. Specifically on the subject of Kurdish support for the green movement, I must say that Kurdish people must be concerned more than the groups for democracy because its victory would be in their interest as well.

Rooz: But it appears that the Kurdish support for the green movement has been limited to words or are there specific actions and measures that they have taken in this regard?

Mohtadi: Look, the way Kurds think which our non-Kurdish friends need to understand is that Kurdish people have been single-handedly struggling against the regime for the past 30 years, something that has caused much death and money, while nobody really assisted them. So there is also a deep-rooted lack of trust. There have been plenty of rumors circulated regarding violence that is attributed to us and they have tried to make people believe that. Another point is that Kurdistan is much more security-dominated than other parts of Iran and Tehran. Aside the recent months, the situation in Kurdistan during the last thirty years has been very security-driven. Furthermore, the green movement has not displayed any goals/slogans for the Kurdish people and has made no effort to win their trust. This was not understood correctly in the beginning. The initial religious element of the movement had not attraction for the Kurdish people and in fact was a deterring factor. These realities and also the fact that the leaders of the green movement are themselves the well known individuals affiliated with the regime’s past, have left a wide negative view among the Kurds which all prevented attachment to the green movement in the first months. Also, other provincial towns have not had a wide participation either and Tehran has remained the center of the movement while the presence of the Kurds in the demonstrations of Tehran was significant and conspicuous.

Rooz: Does the distrust still exist?

Mohtadi: No, not like before. The extensive solidarity that was displayed over the execution of five individuals in May and the wide media coverage of the successful public strike and demonstrations in Kurdistan are reasons for breaking this distrust. The mass demonstrations in Kurdistan which was supported by many political and social groups, gave the Kurds this feeling that there was a possibility to create conditions in which the Kurds would not be isolated and where all people of Iran would supporter their rightful demands. I think this was the necessary signal that was sent to the Kurdish people.

Rooz: Do you think Mr. Mousavi as the leader of the green movement and its other leaders have succeeded in implementing its key goals of representing the rights of all Iranian people?

Mohtadi: I have said before that aside his ideological considerations and his associations with the regime in the past, which I and others do not accept, the resistance that he and Mr. Karoubi have shown in their demands are their strengths. Also, their relative flexibility in accepting other horizons, discussion and demands, I view the green movement to be positive. Certainly their performance to advance the movement is not free from criticism and their retreat in two or three instances is a serious weakness. As far as the Kurds are concerned the denouncement by green movement leaders of the execution of the Kurdish activists was a positive step. But generally, the gentlemen have said little about Kurdistan.

Rooz: Mr. Mousavi recently expressly said that moving troops into Kurdistan in the first years of the war was a mistake that should not have taken place.

Mohtadi: I view this statement by him as a step forward, but also believe that he must present more explanation about the 1980s in general and present more critiques and speak more frankly. I also believe that while Mr. Mousavi was not prime minister when the army was moved into Kurdistan and Mr. Bazargan’s government was in power (Mr. Bazargan also had said that he heard of the army’s move into Kurdistan on the radio), he owes an apology to the Kurdish people.

Rooz: So even though you view Mr. Mousavi to be not responsible for the move, you think he should still express his apologies to Kurdistan?

Mohtadi: I believe that even if he was not involved in making that decision, he can still announce its inappropriateness and explain that during his premiership during the war period a lot of crimes were committed against the Kurdish people, even though he had no direct personal involvement in the events. He owes that apology.

Rooz: You said the invasion of Kurdistan took place before he came to power and there are documents implicating him in the oppressive measures against the Kurds and he has already said that moving in the army (i.e. occupying the region) was wrong. Don’t you think his apology is without cause?

Mohtadi: I would like to draw your attention to the apology that many German leaders after World War II made regarding Hitler’s crimes. An example is Willy Brandt who was against Nazism and Hitler’s regime. He fled Germany during the war and even fought against the Nazi’s but when he became the chancellor he apologized for the crimes that were committed in the name of Germany during World War II. Other German leaders did the same thing later. When the crimes in Kurdistan were committed, Mr. Mousavi was a senior leader in Iran and he can come out and say that he had no hand in the oppressive measures in Kurdistan then and present his explanations. I view him as an honest man and believe that he has to be given the chance to defend himself even though the regime was responsible for the atrocities and he was one of its senior officials. His apology will have a deep impact on the Kurdish people and the other ethnic groups in Iran who will believe that a future Iran will be better place for them.

Rooz: You believe that the green movement wants to remove the velayat faghih. Have you seen this view in the leaders of the movement?

Mohtadi: This movement is not crystal clear, just as are other movements. It is not made up of one single dimension. Social movements are normally made up of complex mixtures which represent many different views and demands. I did not say that the green movement has rejected velayat faghih but the movement is not just what the leaders are. The body of the movement has in practice rejected this principle and this was demonstrated in the massive demonstration in Tehran. Also, many elite, writers and thinkers of the movement call for an amendment of the constitution and the elimination of the velayat faghih. Certainly there are also those in the movement who are calling for limiting the powers of the velayat faghih. In any case, the views of everybody have changed over this issue.

Rooz: Do you think that if Mr. Mousavi comes to the conclusion that the body of the green movement wants to eliminate velayat faghih he too would accept it?

Mohtadi: Honestly, I have no personal knowledge of him. I do not know.

Rooz: What do you think?

Mohtadi: Till now Mr. Mousavi has shown relative flexibility in accepting the democratic and popular demands of the green movement. If he did not have this flexibility there would have been deep divisions in the movement and much discord. His flexibility in accepting new horizons of the movement has to a large extent prevented the split inside the pro-democracy movement.

Rooz: Mr. Mohtadi! Do you view yourself as a member or supporters of the green movement?

Mohtadi: I think I would like to say that I am a supporter of the green movement and that I am in solidarity with it. As a leftist justice-seeker and also as a Kurd I have greater demands than the green movement and have my own responsibilities. Many others could be in the same position and this is one of the features of a wide pro-democracy movement that people with different views, social classes, plans and interests all participate in it and support it. I believe that this pro-democracy movement has crated a new opportunity for the Kurds to present their demands and the Kurds should be able to present these in the movement.

Rooz: What specifically are these demands? What are the exact political and social demands of the Kurdish people? Specifically, do the Kurdish people want to break away from Iran, or do they want self administration or federalism?

Mohtadi: Their demands may be different from their wants. Like any other ethnic group, The Kurds have the right for own self determination and if they desire, to have their own government. But this is neither their desire nor those of the Kurdish groups. The propaganda about separation of the Kurds and that the Kurdish people are separatists has been a big lie in the last 30 years. The Kurds want a joint life but one where there is no discrimination and where people have equal rights in Iran. In the words of Jean Jacque Rousseau a new social contract has to be written in Iran. We must review once again how we want to live as part of one community. If we disregard the deep differences in religion, ethnic background, race, language etc in Iran and try to crate a government that is super-central and views everybody through one lens, we will have the same results that we have had for years. What the Kurdish people want is a federative system for all the people of Iran where all sub-nationality groups and regions have their own local governments.

Rooz: While maintaining the territorial integrity of Iran?

Mohtadi: Absolutely so. I do not doubt that there are elements and views that want separation from Iran but violence against them is rejected as well and they too must have the right to freely express their views.

Rooz: Are such people among the Kurds in the majority or minority?

Mohtadi: In minority. The key parties and the Kurdish people have never wanted separation from Iran during the last 30 years and do not have such a plan or goal in their plans or manifests. On the contrary, I believe that a federative system is the best  and perhaps the only way to guarantee democracy and at the same time keep the unity of Iran.

Rooz: Do you have any communications with the leaders of the green movement so that you can express your views to them?

Mohtadi: No, I have no personal contacts with them.

Rooz: Some government news sites in Iran have claimed that you are in contact with the leaders of the green movement.

Mohtadi: No. I have never announced such a thing and this is not true. These are the newspapers and websites that belong to the present authoritarian and totalitarian government  who think that by publishing such lies can pollute the political environment and then possibly prepare the ground for their plans.

Rooz: Do you have an interest in creating such a channel of communication and have done anything about it?

Mohtadi: No. I have done anything regarding this and believe that we must let events take their natural course.

Rooz: Has the thirteen Komeleh Congress met?

Mohtadi: No, but it will soon.

Rooz: A website affiliated to the Revolutionary Guards recently wrote that Komeleh had announced at its congress that it was ready to provide financial and military assistance to the green movement.

Mohtadi: If they are talking about Komeleh, then we have not even held our thirteenth congress and I do not understand where this idea of military support to the green movement could come from.  This is absolutely not true. But I do believe that all pro-democracy groups in Iran should be in contact with each other and must cooperate to form a grand pro-democracy coalition of movements inside and outside Iran.

Rooz: Komeleh and other key Kurdish groups have officially announced that they have abandoned armed struggle and are now in the civil and peaceful phase of their movement to attain their rights. At the same time, these groups maintain their armed pishmarg (fighters). Is there a contradiction here?

Mohtadi: No contradiction. We have not had any armed operations for 18 years now. But we do keep our armed pishmarg in camps and at sizes that are currently necessary. There are many reasons for this and I believe these can be appreciated.

Rooz: Such as what?

Mohtadi: Fist of all I would like to say that during the last 15 years some 400 Kurdish political activists have been killed inside Iraq by military and security agents of the Islamic republic, whose details are all available. When Mr. Khatami came to power, some of the practices of the regime were stopped and the numbers (of assassinations) dropped, but the threat still remains. I ask you: how do you continue to survive without protecting yourself under these conditions, let alone engage in political activities? So the pishmarg forces are first for the defense of the members of the parties and its institutions.  Furthermore, we have witnessed the formation of Islamic terrorist groups, Shiite and Sunni, in recent years who are closely tied to the Islamic republic who also execute many terrorist operations inside Iraq.

Rooz: So the Kurdish pishmarg are merely defensive forces?

Mohtadi: Precisely. In the Kurdish battle with the Islamic republic, if the latter sense that Komeleh and the Kurdish Democratic Party have completely disarmed their pishmarg forces, they will battle ordinary people even more than in the past. On the other hand, the Kurdish people need to feel psychologically that they too have supporters and protectors and that they are not helpless vis-à-vis the regime. We do not want to weaken the Kurdish government in Iraq by engaging in armed operations. We respect the security of the Kurdish people in Iraq and do not want this to be threatened by the Islamic republic. Note that even without any armed operations by the Kurds, the Islamic republic has continuously bombarded and shelled the border and residential Kurdish areas. In summary, we do not regret our armed resistance in the initial years of the (1979) revolution but have for a while not had armed activities on our agenda.

In exclusive interviews with Rooz, three principalist lawmakers (idealogues from the president’s political faction) noted that “Ahmadinejad’s viewpoints are unacceptable to Majlis representatives” and declared that chief executive officer had to abide by the law.

Yousef Ghasemi, representative from Lahijan, seyyed Salman Zaker, representative from Oroumieh, and Mohammad Hossein Farhangi, representative from Tabriz in the Islamic republic Majlis are the three principalist lawmakers who spoke with Rooz about disagreements between the Majlis and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the latter’s refusal to execute laws passed by the legislature.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been criticized both for refusing to issue executive order for passed laws by the Majlis to the relevant executive agencies¾forcing Majlis speaker in certain instances to communicate the law to government agencies himself¾as well as for refusing to implement the law altogether. Ali Larijani likened Ahmadinejad’s behavior to that of a bully, while Ahmad Tavakoli, the head of the Majlis’ Strategic Research Center, officially accused Ahmadinejad of dictatorial behavior. Another principlist lawmaker, Ali Motahari, also condemned Ahmadinejad’s behavior as inappropriate and a sign of dictatorship.

Ahmadinejad’s supporters in the Majlis have strongly reacted to such criticisms by principlist lawmakers. Lawmaker Fatemeh Alia went as far as calling for criminal prosecution of Tavakoli and Motahari.

However, principalist lawmaker Yousef Ghasemi was not as blunt and tells Rooz that, “Mr. Motahari and Mr. Tavakoli are correct. They are very informed people and we also say that the administration must abide by the law and, by accepting issues, change its viewpoints.”

This principalist lawmaker adds, “The administration’s views are unacceptable to us in their extreme and radical form. We see some deviations that must be corrected and reformed.”

Mohammad Hossein Farhangi, plays down the arguments and says the disagreements between the Majlis and Ahmadinejad’s administration are “normal and exist all over the world.” He adds, “Sometime ago we visited South Korea and saw harsh disagreements between the parliament and the administration over the budget there. At the same time, we believe that there is not enough dialogue and discussion between the Majlis and administration; meaning that, in proportion to the decisions that are made, discussion is limited to certain areas, and one thing that causes disagreements is this very issue.”

Seyyed Salman Zaker, however, tells Rooz, that Mr. Motahari and Mr. Tavakoli should have respected the rules of criticism.

But Zaker adds, “One reason for so much disagreement is that there is not enough communication between the two branches. The heads of the two branches in fact don’t have any meetings with one another, which is something that must be resolved.”

Nevertheless, Zaker says, “According to the law, lawmakers have the right to publicly comment on any issue, but we must be mindful of the country’s situation and our enemies.”

When asked if that criticism applies to Ahmadinejad also, Zaker says, “He should also be careful, and not speak in a manner that, on one hand can be manipulated by the enemy while on other, violates ethical norms.”

Seven of the detainees arrested in the aftermath of last year’s presidential elections last week drew up and submitted a complaint letter to the heads of the judiciary and the judiciary organization of the armed forces. In their relatively long grievance they shed light on some aspects of last year’s electoral coup and expose other facets of the event through their analysis and documentation by referencing the speech of a military-security official to the point that one can perhaps say that the speech, which was apparently made to politically ideologize its supporters and justify the actions of the suppressors through a security-ideological logic, will most likely turn into a major political headache for the perpetrators of the coup, while also causing more loss of legitimacy, credibility and trust of the ruling gang because of the disgrace it has brought to them.

The reality is that the writing and submission of this complaint to judiciary officials and its open publication could be interpreted as a turning point in the current atmosphere and since the abatement of the waves of challenges and rapid political tensions witnessed last year. Regardless of the response that the judiciary may embark on, the event itself will leave a lasting political impact on the ruling elite and the opposition, and in the final count the public will be the judge of what the military-security official on one side and the victims of the electoral coup on the other have claimed. The validity or erroneousness of the claims is something that only time will tell.

But before evaluating and predicting the possible responses of the judiciary to the complaint, it is important to note that the very act of writing and publishing this complaint speaks of the failure of the security-military methods in suppressing the protest movement so much that after the passage of a year since last year’s interrogations and fake cases the regime is still held accountable by the public and must respond to the claims of those very people it prosecuted. If one takes into account the fact that these complainants were immediately arrested after last year’s presidential election and then subjected for months to directed interrogations in solitary cells, and that some of them are currently spending their prison term while others await their heavy sentences, yet they embark, without any reservations, to write and publish a complaint against the apparent and hidden individuals who directed their arrests, one can see how successful last year’s electoral coup was. In other words, the publication of the complaint has once again and like the days and weeks following the rigged elections of 2009, put the public and reformers in the seat of complainants and the regime and its extremist supporters in the seat of the accused, solidifying the continuation of the protest movement in the deeper mind of Iranian society and guaranteeing its further growth.

To get a more tangible image of the current conditions in the country, it may suffice to compare last year’s suppressive measures with other similar events such as the 1953 coup d’etat to realize the effectiveness of such suppressive methods and the success of the coup perpetrators in crushing the protest movement. While the planners and implementors of the electoral coup who have held all political, military, security, economic and administrative powers view themselves as the winners and to be in control of events, the victims of the coup whom the public respects and revears as national heroes have critiqued for the public every single act that the ruling faction undertook in its illegal and engineered elections, and then submitted this as a documented complaint to the head of the country’s judiciary. Under these circumstances the roles of the complainant and respondent have reversed, and while the public which views the official judiciary orders to lack credibility because of public distrust and lack of independence and impartiality of the institution, makes its own judgment on the situation, the regime too, despite its formal rejections, accepts the reality which is precisely why it is afraid to be openly judged by the public and particularly through legitimate and legal means, and is not accepting to hold free, fair and competitive elections or issuing permits for peaceful and legal demonstations for protestors precisely because its know well what the public thinks of the nature and record of its actions.

This is something that was known since the reform period and has been repeated. From the serial murders of the regime to the massive closure of the media, from the events that took place on July 9, 2009 to the Berlin Conference and the massive arrests of of the summer of 2003, from the fake cases against the Iran Freedom Movement and national-religious figures on charges of overthrowing the regime and the execution judgments for Dr Aghajari on comical charges of being at war with God, to many other similar measures, at no time has resort to such actions, in such amateur ways, led to a better image of a regime in the eyes of the public, but has in fact produced just the opposite. During this period those in power have done everything they could, but have received nothing but thin air in return.

Last year’s engineered elections are a good example of this assertion and despite the counter-security and suppressive measures to control the crises have not untied this knot and in fact have only postponed the eruption of more protests. The speech of a senior military-security official which was made with the purpose of solidifying the illegitimate position of the ruling gang, has after its publication turned into a serious document to prove the interference of the military-security forces in the presidential electoral process and its drive to eliminate the political opponents and rivals of an extremist ruling faction. This document is neither negateable nor defensible. The publication of this complaint by seven victims of last year’s electoral coup based on the remarks of this military –security official as one planner or executioner of this coup is the best example and evidence of the failure of such actions. Now we must patiently wait to see what tools the rulers will resort to in order to flee from this political-security disgrace.

Rooz has conducted an exclusive interview about the latest condition of Kurdish political prisoner Rahim Rash with his son, Souran Rash. Rahim started his hunger strike 26 days ago to protest his arrest. Noting that his father’s condition is “severe,” Souran says, “My father was tortured at the Oroumieh jail and will continue his strike to protest the torture and his continued arrest. He is extremely slim and can’t walk on his own.”

The excerpts of the interview appear below.

Rooz: Mr. Rash, what is the latest news that you have of your father? Is he still on hunger strike?

Souran Rash (Rash): On Sunday¾two days ago¾my family visited my father. My father said he is still on strike. In fact he has been on a hunger strike for 26 days now.

Rooz: Where did you visit your father? How was his physical condition?

Rash: My father was transferred a few days ago from the Islamic Passdaran Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) prison in Oroumieh to the Mahabad general prison, right after his physical condition started deteriorating severely. My family visited my father at the Mahabad general prison. My mother said that my father was extremely slim and in a severe condition. They have transferred my father several times to the prison clinic and administered ivy to him but his condition is such that he can’t stand on his feet on his own and walks with help from other people.

Rooz: Did your father say anything about his charges or his treatment by security agents?

Rash: Verbally they said my father was charged with “acting against national security” and “moharebeh” (enmity with God). My father said during the visit that he was tortured and mistreated at the Oroumieh jail.

Rooz: Was your father tortured when he was on hunger strike?

Rash: Yes! My father went on hunger strike one day after his arrest, and the strike continues to this day. My father was tortured at the IRGC intelligence’ jail in Oroumieh. My father even said that his torture and mistreatment were among the reasons why he was continuing his hunger strike, although we don’t know the details about the torture.

Rooz: Did you ask your father to end his hunger strike?

Rash: During this time, both prison officials and my mother and brother have asked my father to end his strike. My father went on strike right after his arrest, but he became more determined to continue after he was mistreated in jail.

Rooz: Even though his condition is worsening?

Rash: Yes. My father was arrested in 1997 also and held at the Saghez prison. Then too few people believed that my father could go on hunger strike for 36 days. Then too we brought our father home from prison on stretchers. The news coverage was very limited back then because the Internet and the media weren’t as widely used as now. But my father was acquitted and freed. This time too my father insists on continuing his strike until he is released.

Following the establishment of the Psychological Operations Headquarters (POH) which is composed of representatives from twenty government ministries, the Islamic Passdaran Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) commanders and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, POH’s director Masoud Jazayeri called for the creation of the “ministry of soft war” composed of IRGC members, even though he characterized the threat of war as a mere “show.” The POH openly supported Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during last year’s presidential election and was involved in the post-election crackdown.

Masoud Jazayeri, who was speaking about foreign military threats with the IRNA news agency, said, “America, England and other White House allies’ aggressive psychological and soft war operations against the Islamic republic of Iran have never been so widespread and intense. Clearly, the enemy’s aim is to inflict damage and destroy. A country that is under attack must make the necessary preparation to neutralize the enemy’s plots and activities.”

The Joint Chiefs of Staff’s cultural affairs director added, “One of the ways of combating the enemy’s soft war and media campaign is to establish an independent ministry to devise policy, lead, coordinate and manage executive operations in this strategic and important field as well as to manage the public diplomacy.”

He then elaborated on the proposed institutional structure of the ministry: “Inside the country, people do not regard themselves as being separate from the IRGS. The public trust in and acceptance of the IRGC is our largest asset. Relying on this resource, the IRGC will be the final victor in its struggle against the enemy’s soft war.”

The POH began its operations in February 2009, shortly before the kickoff of the presidential election campaign and the mobilization of reformists. POH members include representatives from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ministries of foreign affairs, culture and Islamic affairs, science, research and technology, communication and information technology, the IRGC, police, Islamic Republic army, radio and television, Islamic culture and communication association, the IRGC’s Imam Hussein University, Supreme National Defense University, Malek Ashtar University, Ahl-e Bayt International Council, and editors of several media outlets close to the administration. Since its inception, the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s cultural director, Masoud Jazayeri, has served as the POH’s director.

In recent years, especially last year, government officials have clarified the scope of the “soft war” and “those who serve the enemy in that war,” suggesting the potential ministry of soft war’s scope of operations.

The intelligence ministry’s deputy in foreign affairs has listed the names of 62 organizations and institutions as participants in the soft war. Many human rights organizations such as the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center and Human Rights Watch are included in the list as illegal organizations supporting the soft was against Iran.

On the same day that Javid Kian, the defense attorney for four women who face possible stoning or execution in Tabriz, asked for international support to save the lives of Sakineh Mohammadi, Maryam Ghorbanzadeh, Kobra Babai and Azar Bagheri in an exclusive interview with Rooz, Iran’s national television station IRIB broadcast a program showing Sakineh Mohammadi “confessing “to have an affair and murdered  her husband, and even accused her other defense attorney Mohammad Mostafai of taking advantage of her.

Kian, who spoke to Rooz along with Mostafai, announced that Sakineh’s children had been put under pressure adding that the video film that was shown of her was under duress. He reminded the country’s judiciary and that it could not justify its actions through violence, force, duress and the creation of fake situations.

Mrs. Mohammadi was Beaten

Sakineh Mohammadi was shown on television was shown recriminating herself on television after the stoning court judgment had been suspended by the judiciary.

After the “20:30” program on IRIB which showed Mrs. Mohammadi “confessing” to her crimes, her attorney Kian told Rooz, “They (prison officials) took Mrs. Mohammadi to room 37 in Tabriz prison and extracted confessions from her incriminating herself. But the so called confessions did not take place under normal conditions but, based on the news that I have, were extracted under severe duress which included harsh beatings. Another dangerous thing they did is that they also took video clips of her family members and relatives against Mrs. Mohammadi.”

Kian said that judiciary officials had gone to Mrs. Mohammadi relatives’ house, who were deeply religious, and captured video clips in which the relatives said that Mrs. had committed adultery for which she had to be punished. “Relatives also put pressure on Mrs. Mohammadi’s children asserting that she had disrespected the honor of the family and therefore had to be stoned, this way also exerting psychological pressure on them.”

Attorney Kian revealed that he had heard from his other clients who were kept in the same prison ward as Mrs. Mohammadi that the latter had been put under pressure and beaten severely, forcing her to appear in the self-incriminating television program.

Speaking about the current condition of Mrs. Mohammadi’s case, Kian said, “Our last request from the court was to annul the trial and it had been agreed that they would inform us in 20 days, but unfortunately my colleague Mr. Mostafai’s issue came up. Then, the security department of the judiciary suspended the case, which was finally passed on to Mr. Saeed Mortezavi who sent the file to the security department of the judiciary noting that Maryam Ghorbanzadeh’s case had to be processed first and then Mrs. Mohammadi’s.  These two cases have nothing to do with each other. This way, Mrs. Ghorbanzadeh’s life is in danger and now that international attention is focused on Mrs. Sakineh Mohammadi, they want to execute Mrs. Ghorbanzadeh.”

Forty five year Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani has been in Tabriz prison since 2006 after she was arrested on sentenced to 90 slashes for coming adultery in branch 101 of Osko’s criminal court. After the execution of the sentence, when the sixth branch of Easter Azerbaijan’s criminal court was deliberating the case of the murder of Mrs. Mohammadi’s husband’s, Mrs. Mohammadi was tried again and this time sentenced to death by stoning.

After the international uproar against the stoning sentence of Mrs. Mohammadi, her sentence was suspended, but the head of Tabriz’ judiciary announced that Sakineh Mohammadi had been sentenced to death in her husband’s murder case. The defendant’s defense attorneys have rejected the sentence.

Mrs. Mohammadi’s son Sajad Mohammadi Ashtiani had told Rooz earlier, “They (the judiciary) had told us earlier that my mother’s case was under investigation and that it was possible that she would be retried. Nothing has been definitively told to us and we do not know what sentence they will issue instead of the stoning verdict.”

Mohammad Mostafai’s Response to the 20:30 TV Program

After Mrs. Mohammadi was shown on television making the self-incriminating statements, Rooz spoke with her attorney Mohammad Mostafai who is currently in Norway and this is what he said. “Everyone knows that whenever someone’s life is in danger, regardless of whether they have passed a sentence of execution or stoning on the victim, the person is forced to accept whatever her captors ask her to do in front of television cameras in the hope of saving her life. Regarding Mrs. Mohammadi too, I am certain that this has been the case. But I must also say that the issue of murder in her case is ruled out because the murder case is different from the adultery case. What is important is that when the relatives of a victim give their consent and withdraw their charges, execution or reprimand for the perpetrator is completely negated. This has nothing to do with the kind of crime that has been committed. So retribution for murder has been removed because the relatives of the murder victim has said they do not wish to press or pursue charges. But judiciary officials are highlighting the murder through the national radio and television network as a way to justify their own actions. My question is why are they not talking about the stoning sentence and do they not announce that Sakineh as asked for forgiveness on three occasions. Why are they not saying that 2 of the five judges have ruled Sakineh to be innocent because of the absence of evidence of adultery.”

In response to a question of why must a person who faces imminent death by stoning be brought before television cameras and told to make incriminating statements against herself. “Why do they not talk to her attorney on television? They claim that I have not met Sakineh, whereas I am her attorney and have seen her many times and spoken with her as many. I have an official power of attorney to represent her, which is in her dossier. I do not understand why there is so much official publicity and what are they trying to prove.”

Mr. Mostafai concluded that if the judiciary accepts his client’s request for an amnesty, none of this hue and cry would exist. “Government and judiciary officials need to know that nothing will move forward through violence, duress, and lies. I do not care what Israel or the US says or what they do. I am concerned and want to save the life a person from death. Meanwhile, some people outside the country too are taking political advantage of this, while others look at it completely from a human perspective and are silently doing what they can (to help save a life). I have nothing to do with those who are misusing this situation.  I love my country. Instead of making these fake documentary videos, they need to take the right steps in the interests of the country, the regime and Islam.”

Maryam Ghorbanzadeh’s Life is in Danger

Speaking about Maryam Ghorbanzadeh, another prisoner facing execution, attorney Kian says, “All the attention is focused on Sakineh Mohammadi’s case while the life of Mrs. Ghorbanzadeh is in danger as well. With the protests that have risen against the stoning sentence for Mrs. Mohammadi,  the stoning sentence for Mrs. Ghorbanzadeh was changed to execution about a month and a half ago. Her sentence has been sent to the execution office and may be implemented any moment. This woman may be killed any time.”

“Mrs. Ghorbanzadeh’s case is similar to Mrs. Mohammadi’s. She is in prison and had been sentenced to stoning. After all the hue and cry over the stoning sentence for Mrs. Mohammadi, Mr. Nowbakht, the deputy prosecutor of Tabriz sent Mrs. Ghorbanzadeh’s case to branch 12 of the provincial criminal court out of fear that the same fate awaited this case. The court changed her sentence from stoning to hanging,” Kian said.

Kian said that all he could do was to request that the trial be discarded, which he said he had done. He expressed uncertainty of whether they would accept the request or not. “Unfortunately, the file is currently in the execution office of the court,” Kian said with concern.

Speaking about Mrs. Ghorbanzadeh’s case, the defense attorney said, “Mrs. Ghorbanzadeh’s husband was paranoid who is dangerously suspicious so that he would give Mrs. Ghorbanzadeh sleeping pills before himself leaving the house, and he would lock all the doors of the house. He was divorced twice before, and both of his former wives filed for divorce because of his illness. He did the same thing with Mrs. Ghorbanzadeh who could not leave her house for months until she established close relations with someone outside her marriage, who then kills her paranoid husband. I must say that Mrs. Ghorbanzadeh has nothing to do with the murder. The murderer too has been free on bail.”

Kian continued describing the case in these words, “After the murder, Mrs. Ghorbanzadeh takes up a temporary marriage with this person she knew. The relatives of her dead husband however, arrange for the arrest of Mrs. Ghorbanzadeh’s temporary husband in an effort to deny her husband’s inheritance. When officials went in to arrest Mrs. Ghorbanzadeh’s husband, they found a video film that reveals the sexual relationship that she had with this man. The judge in branch 12 of Tabriz’s criminal court used this to sentence her to death by stoning. Our defense indicated that these two individuals were temporarily married when the movie clip was taken, which was attested by the date of the marriage certificate that was in the dossier.”

After mentioning that Mrs. Ghorbanzadeh was arrested when she was pregnant, attorney Kian said, “Three months ago, when Mrs. Ghorbanzadeh was six months pregnant, they forced her to undergo an abortion because a pregnant woman cannot be executed. We protested to this in the strongest terms and argued that a gene was a full person after three months and that removing it was committing murder. But they did not care and the attention that had focused on Sakineh Mohammadi made these gentlemen rapidly pursue the case of Mrs. Ghorbanzadeh.”

Kian said that his client had a very low morale. “Maryam’s psychological situation is not good and it has deteriorated after the abortion. She is now in danger of being executed, so you can imagine how she feels.”

Azar Bagheri is another Victim

Azar Bagheri is another client of attorney Kian who has been in prison since she was 14 years old. She was arrested on the protests filed by her husband and is now facing a stoning sentence.

Kian explained her case in these words. “Mrs. Bagheri was arrested ten years ago. We have tried everything in her case but she has been given the death by stoning sentence six times. More recently, they changed her sentence to lashing and the case has now been sent to the supreme court. If the court upholds this, then she will be free from the stoning sentence. Her 100 lashes, however, are to be executed on a naked body which in most cases leads to damage to the spinal cord.”

He explained that her case rested on that “Mrs. Bagheri’s husband owed money to a person. One day he invited the man to his house, and beat up his wife and the man, and then called up the police claiming that the two of them were having an affair. In fact this was jus a conspiracy plot to rid himself of his debt owner. Her case has been changed from stoning to lashes because we succeeded in showing that the whole scenario was a conspiracy by Mrs. Bagheri’s husband and that there was no affair in question.”

Death by Stoning for Kobra Babai

Mrs. Kobra Babai is another client that Kian has. Her husband had been executed in Tabriz on changes of being a homosexual. She herself now faces death by stoning. Kian has said that her sentence too has been sent to the execution office.

According to attorney Kian, Mrs. Babai’s husband Rahim Mohammadi too was not a homosexual and had not committed homosexual acts. He had created this story to blackmail someone. This failed and he was arrested. So Mrs. Babai is twice a victim and so she is in a dreadful psychological state right now and take dangerous medicine. So she too could be stoned any time.

At the end, Kian asked the international community for assistance and attention to save the lives of these four women, adding that there is nothing else he can do now for them.

After seven members of the reformist Mosharekat Party and the Mojahedin of the Islamic Revolution Party filed separately filed complaints against “lawbreaking military officers during the tenth presidential election” and emphasized the occurrence of an “electoral coup” – citing statements of a senior commander in the Islamic Passdaran Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) – the Mosharekat party on Friday released an open letter to the judiciary chief calling on him to either investigate the coup or “resign.”

In its open letter to Ayatollah Sadegh Larijani, citing the statements of the senior IRGC officer, Mosharekat wrote, “The widespread distribution of taped statements from Commander Moshfegh, a senior figure at the Sarallah base, removed the curtain from the electoral coup in the tenth presidential election and proved the truth of the green movement leaders’ claim that the election was engineered. This individual, who speaks frankly, ignorantly and with a drunkenness from power, about organizing the coup, clearly admits to actions that cannot be referred to as anything other than a coup in any school of political thought.”

Mosharekat’s letter refers to the statements of a senior intelligence officer at nationwide conference for the clergy in Mashhad last year. In his statements, the officer accused figures such as Hashemi Rafsanjani, Mohammad Khatami, Mohammad Mousavi-Khoeiniha and Mir-Hossein Mousavi, as well as reformist parties such as the Combatant Clergy Association, Line of Imam Coalition, Mosharekat, Mojahedin of Islamic Revolution, Kargozaran, Hambastegi and Mardomsalari of plotting to overthrow the Islamic Republic and “toppling ayatollah Khamenei from supreme leadership.” In his statements, the officer declares several times that “we,” knowing the plan, “foiled their [the reformists’] plot and didn’t allow them to continue.”

Although the IRGC officer’s statements were made last fall, the taped recording of his remarks was widely distributed beginning in early summer this year. Previously, Mir-Hossein Mousavi commented on the remarks, characterizing them as an attempt to justify the regime’s post-election repression and dismissing them as “full of blatant lies and cheap tales.”

Last week, seven senior members of the Mosharekat Party and the Mojahedin of Islamic Revolution Party, who were simultaneously arrested last year following the election and are currently either in jail or on temporary release, used the senior IRGC commander’s remarks as evidence to file a complaint against “a group of military” officers who broke the law during the tenth presidential election.

In their latest letter to the judiciary chief, Mosharekat party wrote, “Now that it has been uncovered that the person who was introduced as the president reached that post through a coup (and not just fraud), lacking any kind of legal or Islamic legitimacy, it is your duty to forward the matter to the supreme court for investigation.”

The letter added, “We hereby also request from your dear brother, the head of the legislative branch, to carry out his duty with respect to examining this person’s qualification, although he is illegitimate as is given the clear and detailed admission to the coup from coup perpetrators themselves.”

As the struggle between the Majlis and the administration over the latter’s refusal to implement legislation passed by the parliament heightens, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad confirmed for the first time yesterday that the “differences are serious.” He also revealed that he had written a letter to ayatollah Khamenei to resolve some of the “problems” and that, in response, the leader of the Islamic regime had ordered the creation of a separation of powers workgroup to determine the “lines delineating the legislative and executive branches.”

The head of the administration, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, made the announcement yesterday at the conclusion of a cabinet meeting where the recent differences between the Majlis and the administration were among the topics discussed. “The issues that are raised are not quarrels. The talk about taking away the authority of the president and giving it to someone else is just not possible. No one can violate the clear letter of the Constitution or dare to limit the supreme leader’s powers. The [Guardians) Council will not accept it and then they’ll take it to the [Expediency] Council. This is not legal.”

Referencing that others “say that this administration violates the law,” Ahmadinejad said, “It takes between 20 days to one month for legislation that comes out of the Majlis to reach the president’s desk. There was no problem with this in the past. Even though civil procedure laws had provided 5 days for this, everybody was patient and the government too took its time. But now they are demanding that this be done within five days. One must understand that this is not the president’s only job. He has thousands of tasks. The president is very busy. So what if it took a little longer than the five days, say seven days for the executive branch to issue the executive orders. Do we have to say that the administration is acting unlawfully?”

Ahmadinejad said that he had written about some of these differences to the supreme leader, and stressed that “the leader had written a letter to the Guardian Council asking it to establish a workgroup for this. The group is currently examining the issue and will send its opinion to the supreme leader who will determine lines between the executive and legislative.”

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad added, “These discussions are serious discussions and have posed problems for the country’s management, because it can’t be the case for the administration to take a decision based on its legal powers and for the work to be stopped by a Majlis bill.”

He concluded by saying that “these are serious issues and they have created problems in the management of the country because you cannot continue this situation where the government makes decisions, based on its authority, and then the Majlis stops it through legislature.”

In the past two months, differences between the Majlis and the administration over the announcement and implementation of laws have increased markedly.

In the latest instance, Majlis speaker Ali Larijani personally forwarded legislation to the country’s major newspapers for publication after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad failed to sign executive orders within the prescribed time limit.

Differences between the Majlis and the administration have existed over the last years, but they reached new levels last spring after a meeting between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and members of Majlis’ Article 90 [of the constitution] committee. In that meeting, Ahmadinejad openly accused the Majlis of passing many bills (130 in total) that were “unconstitutional” or “un-Islamic” and announced that he would not implement them. Since then, things have only gotten worse between the two branches and the leader of each.

Mir-Hossein Mousavi, a green movement leader, announced during a meeting with a group of students from Qom, Khorasan-Razavi and Chaharmahal Bakhtiari provinces that according to the constitution, “Voicing demands, wishes and the right to assembly are among people’s clear rights and no one can deprive them of these. Therefore, whenever people deem it necessary, they will use that right and will not await a message from me or people like me.” Speaking at a meeting in the presence of Zahra Rahnavard, Mousavi commented on the news that political prisoners had ended their hunger strike, by saying that, “The meaningful and hope-giving strike that prisoners undertook will gradually clarify its influential consequences and I congratulate these brave prisoners who broke their strike and saw its consequences.”

In another part of his message, Mousavi commented on the spread of lies and depression in society, noting, “Today, the green movement has the power and capacity to resolve all the ethical concerns that friends point to, of course out of their sense of care and national duty.”

“We must note that social deviations come because of bad thoughts and particularly lies and the deceptive attitude that autocrats have imposed on the public in this country. That is why I believe that the green movement’s moral and high values can decrease deviances in society. We now witness that those committed to the green movement’s high values are extremely respectful of ethical principles,” Mousavi said.

In another part of his message, the former prime minister said, “A full and unconditional return to the Constitution means that one cannot attend to one portion of the Constitution and ignore the others. Disregarding certain provisions, especially those concerning the nation’s rights, makes other articles meaningless too, because the Constitution is a national covenant.”

Mousavi emphasized, “Today we are in a situation where not just the Constitution, but even simple and defective prison guidelines are violated by prison guards.”

At this meeting, representatives from the provinces each shared aspects of their province’s social and political conditions with Mousavi. The representatives were especially concerned about issues such as holding student meetings under heavy security and police presence in universities, beating and harassment of students by plainclothes agents in universities, and the extreme pressure imposed on political groups and organizations in the countryside.

The youth participating in the meeting also expressed their concerns regarding the economy and standard of living, rampant unemployment and the prevalence of drug addiction and other social ills with Mousavi.