[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great

[Dr. Mohammad Sahimi]

Iran's Antidemocratic Forces - Part I: Their Treatment of Shirin Ebadi
By Dr. Mohammad Sahimi, Los Angeles


Iran's future in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United State, and the subsequent invasion and occupation of Iraq by the US, have been subjects of intense debates among Iranians, both within and without Iran. The debates have taken on new urgency in the light of the bitter confrontation between Iran's reformist movement and the radical right over the elections for the seventh session of the Majles, and the subsequent elimination of the vast majority of the reformists from the Majles. Taking advantage of these developments, the Iranian die-hard royalists - that faction of the monarchists whose only goal is restoration to power of the Pahlavi dynasty - have been promoting a "national coalition" or a "united front" of supposedly all the forces that are opposed to the present situation in Iran.

Are the die-hard royalists sincere in advocating their "national coalition?" Their deed speaks much louder than their words: These are the same people who advocated (and still continue advocating), explicitly or implicitly, US military attacks on Iran following the September 11 terrorist attacks and President Bush's famous "Axis of Evil" speech.

At the same time, Dr. Shirin Ebadi, the 2003 Nobel Laureate for Peace and an internationally-recognized and admired champion of human rights, visited southern California from May 14-17. The die-hard royalists - these "champions" of democracy - called on people, using their radio and satellite TV stations in Los Angeles, to demonstrate against her! Many of these short-sighted political dwarfs who are hungry for power, had never ever heard of Nobel Peace Prize before Shirin Ebadi received this Prize!

These developments have only reinforced what this author expressed in an article a year ago. On May 6, 2003, this author posted a piece on Payvand.com in which he argued that the real Axis (as opposed to the imaginary Axis that President Bush discovered two years ago) - evil or otherwise - is the one that effectively exists between Iranian die-hard royalists, the Israeli lobby in the US, and the radical reactionary right in Iran. It was also pointed out that, whereas the alliance between the die-hard royalists and the Israeli lobby in the US and its supporters is organic, the one between the die-hard royalists and Tehran's radical right is due to their similar positions regarding democratic values and ideals: These two groups may have different reasons for being for or against something, but the net effect of their positions is the same.

Evidence, which is now well-known, was also presented in the May 2003 piece that pointed to an - until then - not much noticed alliance between Iran's die-hard royalists and another group, namely, the neoconservatives in and out of the Bush Administration who were the driving force behind invasion of Iraq. This connection is further discussed in Part II of this article. The connection between the neoconservatives and Israel's Likud Party led by Ariel Sharon is now widely known (see, for example, the article posted on Payvand by Dr. Ismael Hossein-Zadeh; see also Michael Lind's review of the book, An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror, by two neoconservatives, David Frum and Richard Perle, in The Nation magazine, February 23, 2004, page 23).

The present article is Part I of a two-part series on Iran's antidemocratic forces, and in particular the radical right and the die-hard royalists. It is a follow-up to the May 2003 piece, and is motivated in part by the very large number of supporting e-mails that this author received for the views described in that article. Although it is likely that, similar to May 2003, this author will again receive a few hate mails, the issues discussed in the present piece are, in this author's opinion, too important to be ignored out of the "fear" that a few people may send hate e-mails to this author.

It should be pointed out that a few days after the May 2003 piece was posted, an article was published in the Financial Times of London whose author, Mr. Guy Dinmore, kindly wrote to this author and pointed out the many similarities between his article and last year's piece. Whether Mr. Dinmore also received hate e-mails of the type that this author received is unknown!

In this author's opinion, the events of the past year have given further credence to the existence of the proposed Axis. Among them, however, three sets of events particularly stand out: One is awarding the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize to Dr. Shirin Ebadi. She has taken strong, principled positions regarding many important national and international issues, which have angered both the die-hard royalists and Tehran's radical right.

The second set of events consists of the confrontation between Iran's reformists and the radical right over the elections for the seventh session of the Majles. The invasion of Iraq and its aftermath over the past year, and their possible implications for Iran's future, constitute the third set. This author believes that these events and the reaction of the die-hard royalists and Tehran's radical right to them clearly illustrate the fact that these two seemingly different groups envision the same thing for Iran, namely, an undemocratic, authoritarian political system in which the role of people is minimized, if not annihilated altogether.

Before the similarities between the reactions of the radical right and the die-hard royalists to the various principled positions that Shirin Ebadi has taken are described, I would like to point out that I fully recognize people's right to agree or disagree with Shirin Ebadi, as well as criticizing her if they do not agree with her and her positions. Moreover, I believe that we must, in fact, analyze and critique, if necessary, Shirin Ebadi's positions regarding various issue. In addition, the mere disagreement of a person or a political group with Shirin Ebadi does not necessarily imply in any way that that person or group is antidemocratic. However, a person's or a political group's disagreement with Shirin Ebadi does not give that person or group the right to viciously attack her, as happened here in Los Angeles, on May 14, after Shirin Ebadi finished her speech at the University of California in Los Angeles. It is this aspect that this author, as well as many other people, are opposed to.

Let us now begin with the reaction of Tehran's radical right and the die-hard royalists to awarding the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize to Shirin Ebadi. After over seven months, the radical right still continues to condemn this award most vehemently, declaring it a conspiracy against Iran (read against the radical right!). It has labelled Shirin Ebadi an agent of the US; a spy; a blasphemer. It has attacked her in the most vicious way for reasons as simple as, (1) she not wearing the hejaab while outside Iran, and (2) shaking hands with a man!

How about the die-hard royalists' reaction to Shirin Ebadi winning the Nobel Prize? A short time after the initial euphoria over the award, after it became clear that she would not use her international stature to recklessly attack Iran's radical right while still living in Iran, the die-hard royalists, using their satellite TV channels, began viciously attacking her, and still continue to do so, calling her names (some of which cannot even be translated into English!). They asked people to demonstrate against her in Los Angeles, because they despise her principled positions regarding many important issues. But, the most glaring aspect of their behavior is the commonality of their positions with those of the radical right in Tehran.

(a) Shirin Ebadi has stated many times that Islam and democracy are not in a fundamental conflict, for which she has been treated with contempt by both the die-hard royalists and the radical right, as both groups despise a progressive interpretation of Islam, and any talk of a link between Islam and democracy.

As a practicing muslim, this author believes in progressive interpretations of Islamic teachings offered by such Islamic thinkers as Mahdi Baazargaan, and Drs. Ali Shariati, Haashem Aghaajari, and Mohsen Kadivar. Their views are not necessarily identical (and in fact their views clash sometimes), but they all espouse progressive Islam. It is within progressive interpretation of the Islamic teachings that Shirin Ebadi (herself a practicing muslim) does not find a conflict between Islam and democracy. She sees no reason to choose one over the other, believing that one can be a good muslim and a democrat at the same time. However, AT THE VERY LEAST, she, as a practicing muslim AND champion of human rights, is entitled to her opinion. While we are all free to disagree with her regarding this issue, and are also entitled to the right for criticizing her, our disagreement or criticism does not give us the right to viciously attack her.

Shirin Ebadi has forcefully argued that what has been done by Osama bin Laden and his criminal terror group and allies has no relation with true teachings of Islam. She has asked the following critical question that her critics have not been able to respond to: Why is it that when the Serbs murdered hundreds of thousands of muslims in Bosnia, nobody attributed those crimes to ALL christians; why is it that when Israel denies the Palestinians their internationally-recognized rights - the rights that are based on the legal and binding authority of the United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 - and confiscates their lands and resources, nobody attributes these to ALL the jewish people? It is this type of double standards that Shirin Ebadi is against. Whether or not one agrees with Shirin Ebadi's position regarding this issue, it is clear that such double standards do exist.

At the same time, Shirin Ebadi has declared time and again that we should try to de-emphasize the differences between different religions, but emphasize the similarities between them, in order to contribute to a dialogue between various religions which will ultimately contribute to world's peace.

(b) Several months before the Majles elections, Shirin Ebadi said that people should not boycott these elections. She was then attacked viciously by the die-hard royalists, as they had called for a boycott of the elections. Tehran's radical right had also hoped for the boycott except, of course, by its own supporters!

Shirin Ebadi told this author that what she meant was that the elections should not be boycotted if they are competitive and fair. In fact, she supported the sit-in of the present Majles deputies, and did not vote in the Majles elections, after it became clear to her that they do not meet her standards.

(c) In a visit with the Majles deputies during their sit-in four months ago, Shirin Ebadi declared that the sixth session of Majles has been one of the best parliaments that Iran has ever had since the Constitutional Revolution of 1906, for which she was attacked by both the die-hard royalists and the radical right: The latter considers many of the deputies as spies, agents of foreign governments, and counter-revolutionaries, while the former view them as agents of the radical right!

(d) Shirin Ebadi declared that although she fully supports a peaceful resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and condemns terrorism (as do all reasonable people), she views that conflict as a war between rock and weapon. She was then harshly attacked by the die-hard royalists who do not want to hear any criticism of Israel, and by many of Tehran's radical right who thought that she did not go far enough in her criticism of Israel!

Who, in his/her right mind, can dispute what Shirin Ebadi has said about the war between Israel and Palestinians? While it is true that radical Palestinians have carried out many terrorist attacks and have murdered hundreds of innocent jews who were going about their daily lives (attacks that must be, and have been, condemned by all reasonable people), those attacks do not change the fundamental balance of forces on both sides, namely, the powerful Israeli armed forces against the essentially (comparatively speaking) unarmed Palestinians. In the blurred vision that the die-hard royalists have of our world we must constantly speak of violations of human rights in Iran (which we must), but not about violation of the Palestinians' rights by Israel!

(e) The die-hard royalists harshly attacked Shirin Ebadi's speech in Oslo, Norway, when she accepted the Nobel Prize. Why was she criticised? Because, according to her critics, Shirin Ebadi spent too much time talking about major international human rights issues, but not enough on Iran! These critics expected her to transform her Oslo speech to an indictment of Tehran's radical right, and then go back to Iran to be thrown in jail! Shirin Ebadi was also attacked by the radical right for not criticising the US strongly enough!

Shirin Ebadi has told this author many times that she will never go into exile. She is a product of the Iranian culture and society. She was educated in Iran, formed a family in Iran, and has achieved what she has by actively participating in the social and political processes going on in Iran. She knows that the easy way for her would be leading a safe and comfortable life in exile, issuing, like her die-hard royalist critics, SECULAR FATWAAs from the comfort of her home in Los Angeles, or Maryland, or Paris, or London. But, as she has said herself, she could never have been so proud of her achievements, had they come to her easily. Moreover, the Oslo speech of Shirin Ebadi, as a Nobel Laureate (and not merely as an Iranian human rights advocate), could not have been narrow and focused just on Iran. Rather, she viewed that speech one for ages - one that would be recorded in the annals of Nobel Peace Prize speeches - read by the future generations.

The lies that the die-hard royalists and the radical right have been spreading about Shirin Ebadi only reinforce the view that they are, as it is said in Persian, the two sides of the same coin.

In addition to the above, some well-respected Iranian journalists, analysts, and others have criticized Shirin Ebadi for focusing her criticism only on the US. This author believes that such critcisms are unwarranted, for the following reasons:

(i) Shirin Ebadi has only criticized the US FOREIGN POLICY, not the US.

(ii) One of the most important issues, if not the most important one, facing the world today is what to do with the situation in Iraq. Ever since it became clear that the original reasons that we were presented with for invading Iraq, namely, Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction and its links with Osama bin Laden, are bogus, the Bush Administration has been justifying the invasion of Iraq by claiming that the goal of the invasion is establishing a democratic political system in Iraq. Once such a claim is made, its link with universal values of human rights cannot be avoided. It is from this angle that this author believes Shirin Ebadi has been criticizing the US invasion of Iraq.

(iii) Shirin Ebadi has, in fact, criticized other countries (including France and England) for what she believes to be their violation of human rights in those countries.

Some well-respected Iranian journalists and others have criticized Shirin The disgusting treatment of Shirin Ebadi by the die-hard royalists and Tehran's radical right is not, of course, the first time that a group, or a state, has willingly attacked and dismissed the Nobel Prize of its OWN compatriot or citizen. Other examples are provided by Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi (1991) versus Burma's military junta; Messrs Neslon Mandela (1993) and Archbishop Desmond M. Tutu (1984) versus the apartheid regime in South Africa, and Dr. Andrei D. Sakharov (1975) versus the communist regime in the old Soviet Union. They were all awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, yet were vilified by their own regimes and their supporters. In addition, one should remember Mr. Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, who was awarded (in 1970) the Nobel Prize in Literature and described vividly the Russian gulags (forced labor camps), for which he was the target of the anger of the Soviet Union; Dr. Lev D. Landau, the great Russian physicist who was so terrified by Joseph Stalin that thought that receiving the Nobel Prize in Physics, which he was eventually awarded in 1962 after Stalin's death, would be his only defence against getting murdered by Stalin, and Mr. Wole Soyinka of Nigeria who was awarded (in 1986) the Nobel Prize in Literature, but had to flee his country after General Sani Abacha took power in Nigeria through a military coup, and convicted Mr. Soyinka (in absentia) of treason!

Where are these noble human beings now in the conscience of humanity? The world pays tribute to Mandela, Tutu, Sakharov, Solzhenitsyn, Landau, Aung San Suu Kyi, and Soyinka, but has nothing but despise for the apartheid, communist, and military regimes of their countries (all of which are now only an ugly part of the history), and refuses to deal with the military junta of Burma. Likewise, Shirin Ebadi, who has done nothing but bringing pride, joy, and honour to Iran, is respected by humanity.

In Part II of this article entitled, "Iran's Antidemocratic Forces. Part II: Know-nothing-ism, the 'Matrix', and Regime Change in Iran," other aspects of their similarities will be discussed.

About the author:
Mohammad Sahimi is Professor and Chairman of Chemical Engineering at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles

[stefania]

Thanks !! I am going to expose these Evil men on my blog !

Let's expose them wherever we can !!

If you have any blog, do the same !
_________________
Referendum AFTER Regime Change

"I'm ready to die for you to be able to say your own opinions, even if i strongly disagree with you" (Voltaire)

[Guest]

how many times did he use ' die-hard Royalists ' ?

the guy would love to terror one of them royalists if he could get a wink from ayatollahs . look at this IRI Agent, he's the typical IRI Mafia of Information in US. A true **** head a Terrorists in Disguise

[blank]

Another one of the closet IRI........and on the payroll

[redemption]

Got an idea - lets just ignore this crook! - better not to give the IRI or Ebadi lovers more credit than they deserve.. ignoring them is the best policy most of the time!!!!
_________________
IRANIANS UNITE
PERSIA LIVES ON!!
FREE IRAN NOW!

[9karevatan]

redemtion is just too good
_________________
iran iranam iraaanam
ke az to daram in jaanam
janam fadayat
mikhanam
payande baadi IRANam!!!!!!!

[stefania]

[trainspotter9]

I agree with him.

I don't see how you can think he's an IRI agent. That is ridiculous. What kind of IRI agent criticizes Iran's religious government?

Anyways, I am with the writer on these points;

Shirin Ebadi is making the right moves. She is staying legitimate in Iran by only advocating for small changes. Big things come from many small steps. Try to move too fast and the plan will backfire, like it did when the Shah tried to modernize the nation too fast (maybe if hadn't respected human rights, it would have succeeded).

Iran's religious right is fukkin the country with its imposition of bullsht religion on the country and its corruption by which it steals Iranian wealth.

Some royalists outside of Iran are advocating actions that would harm the country. Any kind of invasion or attack on Iran by an outside force would only hurt the Iranian people and strengthen the regime. An example of this is the Shah regime of Iran; it was at its weakest when the Iranian economy and military were at their strongest.

Anyways. What I think would be best for Iran is to advocate vehemently for the separation of Islam and State, and for the increase in tranparency and reduction in corruption. This can be done through the current government, with alot of struggle. Eventually the tide will overwhelm the flood-gates, and there will be a mini-revolution in which the Islam is severed from the state.

I DON'T believe lobbying for sanctions against Iran and attacks on Iran by the U.S. will do anything except bring Iran's economy and infrastructure back.

[lemonjuice&onion]

You sound like the author of the article - and that worries me....

[phenphone]

Shirin Ebadi is a traitor to the Iranian people..

[stefania]

"small changes"....


How many years is the Iranian people to wait ?

Listen, you can't play with the lives of million Iranian Hostages..

it's so easy for you living in the comfort of the Western cities..

what about the 75-years old Siamak Pourzand chained to a hospital's bed ,denied of medical care and so on ??

how long do they have to wait ??

There's no time to waste..

25 years are "enough"..
_________________
Referendum AFTER Regime Change

"I'm ready to die for you to be able to say your own opinions, even if i strongly disagree with you" (Voltaire)

[Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi]

[Spenta]

Well the piece is written by:

[stefania]

Sen. Kennedy with Mr. Nemazee:




Here's an article from payvand..

http://www.payvand.com/news/03/jul/1171.html

Iranian American Political Action Committee Holds Kick-Off Reception in Washington DC

By Lee Howard Hodges, Staff Writer
www.iranianamericanpac.org
Washington DC, July 23, 2003--The newly created Iranian American Political Action Committee (IAPAC) held a kickoff reception July 22 at the Phoenix Park Hotel in Washington, DC. The reception was a huge success, attracting well over one hundred attendees. The crowd was so large that the room in which the reception was held was filled to overflowing. The reception was attended by three United States Senators-The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, The Honorable Charles E. Schumer of New York, and The Honorable Thomas R. Carper of Delaware, as well as by distinguished Iranian Americans from many sectors of American society.


The program began with introductory remarks by Hassan Nemazee, the founder of IAPAC. Mr. Nemazee, who is also the Chairman and CEO of Nemazee Capital Corporation, emphasized the accomplishments of Iranian Americans in most areas of American life. He noted, however, that in politics, Iranian Americans have yet to assume a prominent role. Mr. Nemazee stated that IAPAC's foremost purpose is to ensure that Americans of Iranian descent have an influential voice and presence in the American electoral process by promoting and supporting the election of candidates for federal, state and local office, regardless of their party affiliation who are attuned to the domestic needs of the Iranian American community. Mr. Nemazee also emphasized that "IAPAC is a political action committee focused on the needs of our community in the United States and is not focused on U.S. policy towards Iran, establishing ties with or legitimizing the government of Iran."


Also representing IAPAC was Morad Ghorban, who serves as the political director of IAPAC. Mr. Ghorban, who immigrated to the United States from Shiraz as a child, emphasized his American patriotism, while noting that"...there will always be a little piece of Shiraz in my heart." In discussing IAPAC, Mr. Ghorban noted the importance of PACs in the American electoral system. He also emphasized that IAPAC will work to promote the interests of Iranian Americans in a non-partisan manner by making financial contributions to both Republican and Democratic candidates running for political office. Among the chief issues of concern to IAPAC, Mr. Ghorban said, are immigration reform and civil liberties.

The discussions of IAPAC provided by Mr. Nemazee and Mr. Ghorban were interspersed by speeches from each of the three Senators in attendance. Each senator spoke of his pleasure at the growing political assertiveness of Iranian Americans which IAPAC symbolizes. The Senators also provided personal anecdotes which illustrated their connections to Iranian Americans and to other Americans who have roots in the Middle East.

Senator Kennedy spoke of his strong efforts to combat hate crimes against Iranian and other Americans. The Senator also emphasized his personal ties to the Middle East, noting the Lebanese heritage of his wife, Victoria Reggie Kennedy, and the ascent of his wife's family to prosperity. Senator Carper spoke warmly of his associations with Iranian Americans and his commitment to work with the Iranian American community. Senator Schumer noted that with the formal inauguration of IAPAC, Iranian Americans are following a pattern of entry into American political life that is common for most immigrant groups. Senator Schumer also spoke of his commitment to work with and engage Iranian Americans in the political process and the need to combat racism in American society.
_________________
Referendum AFTER Regime Change

"I'm ready to die for you to be able to say your own opinions, even if i strongly disagree with you" (Voltaire)

[stefania]

Who is Hassan Nemazee?


And why does he want John Kerry in the White House?


http://www.crushkerry.com/article113.html


If we know anything about John Kerry, it's that he will do anything for a buck. His love life is proof positive. The 'elegant,' French-ish Senator seeks only the company of heiresses with vast fortunes at the ready or wealthy Hollywood starlets.
We also know his lust for political cash has put him in league with shady characters like Chinese money launderer Johnny Chung. But this time John Kerry may have gone too far.

Please click READ MORE ...

One of John Kerry's presidential campaign Finance Chairmen is a fellow named Hassan Nemazee . He's been a generous Democrat contributor in the past. He raised $250,000 for Al Gore in 2000. During the 1990's he gave more than $150,000 to the Democrat National Committee. And he made a generous contribution of $60,000 to Bill Clinton's legal defense fund.

Well, okay, so what? There's a lot of funny-money Democrat contributors out there, you might say. Ah, but very few with such an unwholesome relationship with the Mullahs that run the Islamic Republic of Iran, we would reply.

Indeed, Hassan Nemazee is the co-founder of the Iranian American Political Action Committee, which seeks to 'normalize' relations with the tyrannical regime foreign policy expert Michael Ledeen calls the 'Terror Masters.'

What influence has Nemazee's money had on John Kerry? On December 3rd, Kerry told the Council on Foreign Relations he 'will be prepared early on to explore areas of mutual interest with Iran." He also chastised the Bush administration for not cutting deals with the Islamo-fascist regime. "It is incomprehensible and unacceptable that this administration refuses to broker an arrangement with Iran for a mutual crackdown on both terrorists groups," Kerry stated. He was speaking of al Qaida and the terrorist insurgence in Iraq.

But this means John Kerry is either completely ignorant of simple, obvious facts or that he has been bought and paid for with Nemazee's money. How on Earth can we trust the Mullahs enough to 'broker and arrangement'?

For example, what about all those other terrorists groups that Iran actually finances? The State Department says Iran has given millions over the years to groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. We know with absolute certainty they financed the 1996 Khobar Tower terror bombing. And Iran is helping to fuel the passions of hate and murder in Fallujah as we write this.

Simply put, Iran is a terrorist nation, not simply a 'terror-sponsoring' nation. Normalizing relations with the clerical regime would be tantamount to raising a white flag in the war against terror.

Oh, but they are moving toward democracy, friends of Kerry say. Oh, right. This after they expurgated over 2,400 reform candidates from the ballot and shut down what little press freedom they have in Iran during the last 'election.'

It seems incredible that John Kerry would sell out America's safety and security in the world for Nemazee's blood money. But don't take our word for it. Read John Kerry's own e-mail sent by his campaign to the governing Mullah's in Iran:

"It is in the urgent interests of the people of the United States to restore our country's credibility in the eyes of the world. America needs the kind of leadership that will repair alliances with countries on every continent that have been so damaged in the past few years, as well as build new friendships and overcome tensions with others."

Repair alliances with Iran? Even the comically timid UN suspects they have developed nuclear weapons. The Mossad says they are the biggest threat to Israel's sovereignty.

Sadly, even elements within the Bush administration -- Colin Powell, chiefly - have hinted at 'normalization.' We here at crushkerry.com believe they are the central spoke in the "Axis of Evil" and need the regime needs to be destroyed from inside or, if necessary, outside.

Not John Kerry, though. He and his key adviser Hassan Nemazee just want to be friends with the terror masters.


_________________
Referendum AFTER Regime Change

"I'm ready to die for you to be able to say your own opinions, even if i strongly disagree with you" (Voltaire)