'Mossad Hitman' in TV Tell-All; Banned in Iran: Novelist Paulo Coelho

Iran Fights Back to Beat Iraq

Tabnak | Jan 11

Three-time champions Iran stormed back from the shock of conceding an early goal to grab a 2-1 victory over archrivals and holders Iraq at the AFC Asian Cup on Tuesday.

With United Arab Emirates and Korea DPR playing out a 0-0 draw earlier, Iran top Group D after the first round of games. Iman Mobali was the hero for Iran, his free-kick - which looked like an intended cross - drifting in with six minutes left for an emotional win that his side just about deserved, according to a report by AFP from Doha, Qatar.

There was a brief period of silence before the highly-anticipated clash at a half-full Al-Rayyan Stadium for 77 people who died on Sunday evening in an Iran plane crash.

Beating Iraq Very Special: Iran Coach

AFP (via Times of India) | Jan 12

Iran on Wednesday basked in the glory of coming from behind to defeat holders and great rivals Iraq at the Asian Cup with their coach calling it "a very special" victory.

"When these two teams play each other there's so much rivalry and history, so it's very difficult to get the players to concentrate and focus on football and it becomes a fighting game," said Afshin Ghotbi.

"I was very happy my players were able to concentrate and could get this very special three points."

Iran, traditionally one of the major powers in the region, have not lifted the Asian Cup since 1976 and the pressure is firmly on the 46-year-old Ghotbi to bring that long barren run to an end.

Persian Films on Show in Boston

Iran Daily | Jan 12

The 17th edition of the annual Boston Film Festival will screen award-winning productions by Iranian directors at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts.

This year's festival will kick off on January 14, 2011, with Babak Jalali's 'Frontier Blues'. Set in 'Iran's Turkmen community, the film tells the stories of four men and features a cast of nonprofessional actors, Presstv reported.

Mohsen Abdolvahab's 'Please Do Not Disturb', Reza Haeri's 'All Restrictions End', Fardin Sahebzamani's 'There are Things You Don't Know', Alireza Davoudnejad's 'Salve' and Mohammad Rasoulof's 'White Meadows' are also among the films which will be screened during the event.

Supported by the ILEX Foundation and one of the most important venues of the contemporary Iranian cinema in the US, the 2011 Boston Festival of Films from Iran will run until January 29.

OPINION & ANALYSIS

Netanyahu Walks Back Dagan et al

Ali Gharib (Lobelog.com) | Jan 12

Just off the news that a parade of high-ranking Israeli officials, including the outgoing Mossad chief Meir Dagan, have been pushing back their Iranian nuclear timetable, right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held a meeting with foreign press in which he emphasized that Israel is still very much focused on Iran.

Fox News has the story under the headline "Israel's Main Concern: Iran, Iran and Iran." Notice the bad writing and typo at the end of the paragraph ([emphasized] by me), where what was surely meant to be a "credible military option" has become "incredible military option." Fox's Yael Kuriel:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with foreign press representatives on Tuesday, where he described Iran as the main concern for governments in the region. He further asserted that Iran "is determined to move ahead despite every difficulty, every obstacle and every setback to create nuclear weapons". While congratulating the US government insisting on imposing economic sanctions, he stressed that "those sanction have not yet achieved their objectives". The only chance that these sanctions will achieve their objectives is if the sanctions were to follow by incredible military options.

The Day There Is No Bomb

Sever Plocker, Yediot Senior Editor (Yediot via Coteret) | Jan 9

One of the most historically important statements to have been made in the past ten years in the State of Israel made headlines in the Israeli media on Friday for a single day. It elicited a few reactions and a few brief analyses -- and disappeared. The statement was ascribed to (and was not subsequently denied by) the outgoing Mossad director, Meir Dagan.

Dagan, a suspicious super-cautious individual who routinely prefers to err on the side of pessimism, was quoted as having said: "Iran will not have nuclear military capability at least until 2015."

For more than a decade, Israel has been living under the thickening cloud of the Iranian nuclear bomb. The military, economic and even the social agendas in Israel have been directly influenced by it. The election of Netanyahu as prime minister (and Barak's joining the coalition) were explained by the need to place at the head of the state and the security establishment people who would be capable of leading the people and the army in this decisive year in dealing with Iran. From time to time, in light of the foolish things that the two of them have done, public opinion was asked to be forgiving of them because of the weight of the Iranian threat that lay on their shoulders.

That was the case up until Friday, January 7, 2011. On that day, the world order was changed. The Iranian nuclear threat died. It keeled over. Because, if the director of the State of Israel's Mossad is prepared to risk saying that Iran won't have even a single nuclear bomb "at least until 2015," that means that Iran is not going to have a nuclear bomb. Period.

The Turkish Role in Negotiations with Iran

George Friedman (Stratfor) | Jan 11

The Iranians have clearly learned from the North Koreans, who have turned their nuclear program into a framework for entangling five major powers (the United States, China, Japan, Russia, South Korea) into treating North Korea as their diplomatic equal.

The mere threat of nuclear weapons development has succeeded in doing that.

The Iranians have achieved a similar position. By far the weakest of the negotiators, they have created a dynamic whereby they are not only sitting across the table from the six most powerful countries in the world but are also, like the North Koreans, frequently being coaxed there. With the obvious blessings of the others, a seventh major power, Turkey, has positioned itself to facilitate and perhaps mediate between the two sides: the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany on one side, Iran on the other. This is [...] an extraordinary line-up...

The United States now faces a critical choice. If it continues its withdrawal of forces from Iraq, Iraq will be on its way to becoming an Iranian satellite. Certainly, there are anti-Iranian elements even among the Shi'ites, but the covert capability of Iran and its overt influence, coupled with its military presence on the border, will undermine Iraq's ability to resist. If Iraq becomes an Iranian ally or satellite, the Iraqi-Saudi and Iraqi-Kuwaiti frontier becomes, effectively, the frontier with Iran.

The psychological sense in the region will be that the United States has no appetite for resisting Iran. Having asked the Americans to deal with the Iranians, and having failed to get them to do so, the Saudis will have to reach some accommodation with Iran. In other words, with the most strategically located country in the Middle East -- Iraq -- Iran now has the ability to become the dominant power in the Middle East and simultaneously reshape the politics of the Arabian Peninsula.

Would a Nuclear-Armed Iran Really Be So Dangerous?

Matt Fuhrmann, Stanton Nuclear Security Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and Todd S. Sechser, University of Virginia Assistant Professor of Politics (Christian Science Monitor) | Jan 12

One of the biggest surprises to emerge from the ongoing WikiLeaks fiasco is that Arab leaders, including Saudi King Abdullah, have been banging the drums of war, calling for American preventive strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities. Yet calls for military force are based on incorrect assertions about what the world would look like if Iran built nuclear weapons.

Advocates of the military option routinely make two claims. The first is that a nuclear-armed Iran would be able to blackmail its neighbors. The second is that other countries would be forced to capitulate to Iran's demands. Both assumptions are wrong.

A close look at the history of the nuclear age shows that countries with nuclear weapons are neither more likely to make coercive threats nor more likely to succeed in blackmailing their adversaries. Nuclear powers such as the United States and the Soviet Union certainly made numerous threats after they acquired nuclear weapons. But so did Libya, Serbia, Turkey, Iraq, Venezuela, and dozens of other countries that did not possess the bomb. Nuclear weapons are not a prerequisite for engaging in military blackmail.

Further, there is scant evidence that possessing the bomb makes coercive threats more successful when they are made. Nuclear weapons did not help the United States compel North Korea to release the USS Pueblo and its crew in 1968. Israeli coercive threats backed by the implicit threat of nuclear war failed against Syria prior to the 1982 Lebanon War, just as British threats against Argentina in 1982 were unable to compel the return of the Falkland Islands, despite Britain's possession of nuclear weapons.

The Nation: Clinton Gets It Wrong On Iran Sanctions

Robert Dreyfuss (NPR) | Jan 12

Intelligently enough, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said this week during her whirlwind tour of the Arab states of the Persian Gulf -- Abu Dhabi and Dubai, Qatar, Yemen, Oman -- that war with Iran is not a good idea. Saying that she was aware of the "drumbeat" of war talk, most of which is coming from a small minority of neoconservative hardliners, Clinton added, "I think it's very important that we look at how disastrous such a war would be for everyone. And it still is a fact that there is no solution to the problems that beset the area through war. War will not resolve the longstanding concerns."

But [...] the United States is [still] pursuing a sanctions policy that goes far, far beyond what's needed to counteract Iran's ability to purchase technology, materials and equipment for its nuclear program. By cutting off Iran's finances, forcing Western and Asian companies to stop dealing with Iran in areas such as oil, gasoline and petrochemicals, by trying to shut down Iran's oil exports, and so on, the United States is engaged in what can only be called a "regime change" policy. Very few analysts believe that such a policy is productive, and many -- including myself -- believe that it's counterproductive, since it pushes Iran into a corner, inflames the atmosphere for negotiations, and makes it easier for Iran's hardliners to argue that the Great Satan is the cause of Iran's economic woes.

Iran does, indeed, have economic problems, most of which result from economic mismanagement by the Ahmadinejad government, which has purged technocrats from positions of influence and replaced them with loyal stooges whose loyalty is stronger than their competence.

The Effective Iranian Deterrent

Aluf Benn (Haaretz) | Jan 11

Should the history of Israel during the past two years be read [...] as a struggle between the activists who sought the bombing of Iran and the moderates who asked the action be thwarted? The temptation is great.

On the aggressive side of the equation one can find, along with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, also Defense Minister Ehud Barak. Netanyahu considers an Iranian nuclear bomb an existential threat to Israel and the Jewish people. Barak is concerned that Israel will find itself in a strategically inferior position. The political alliance between them has been based since its first day on the joint vision of foiling Iran's nuclear efforts, which would provide Israel with several more years of regional superiority.

On the sides of the moderates were the heads of the defense and intelligence branches: IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, Mossad head Dagan, Military Intelligence Chief Amos Yadlin and the head of the Shin Bet, Yuval Diskin.

To all is attributed the view that the Iranian threat is serious but a military strike is not the right way to foil it. In their view, initiating a war will only bring disaster upon Israel.

Meanwhile there is a political problem. Labor is slipping out of the coalition and Netanyahu fears losing Barak from his side. Barak's expected successor in a narrow right wing government will be Moshe Ya'alon, who is considered to be a moderate on Iran. This is why the prime minister is working so hard to keep Labor in the coalition.

Khatami at a Dead End

Ali Afshari (Rooz) | Jan 11

The remarks of Tehran's prosecutor Jaafar Dolatabadi last week washed Mohammad Khatami's hands off and immediately ended the latter's proposed strategy for a return of Iran's reformers to the political scene. In rather crisp words, he interpreted Khatami's "conditions" for political return as his demands and in a way ruled him out by saying that he had lost the historic opportunity to return to the fold of the regime and therefore must stop his activities and get ready to be tried.

Earlier, the sharp remarks that Kayhan's editor had made regarding Khatami's speech to [the] Majlis' minority faction had also revealed the other issues that reformers would face if they wanted to change course and be accepted by the regime.

In view of the events of the Green Movement and the approach that the ruling circles in Iran have regarding the opposition, the strategy of returning to elections that Khatami envisions - regardless of whether it is the right approach or not - has no chance of success.

Kayhan newspaper, whose general policy is in clear line with the policies of the supreme leader accuses Khatami of secretly meeting George Soros whom the sick editor of the daily calls one of the main leaders of the velvet coup in Iran, of being friends with NATO chief Rasmussen and Danish cartoonist who offended Muslims with his cartoons, of grouping with the Mojahedin Khalq armed group in Iraq, with the Bahais, royalists, Marxists, with the Pejvak group during the 2009 turmoil, an instance of Israel's huge capital in Iran, defending Israel on Palestine Day, the burning of a mosque, the murder of Basiji militiamen, and executing the plans prescribed by Soros, Gene Sharp and Richard Rorty to accomplish the velvet revolution in Iran. But Shariatmadari goes even further and in a television program on December 29, 2010 claims that the decision for Iranian reformers to participate in the 2009 presidential election was an American plot which had been planned at Stanford University.

These baseless and laughable assertions which are the normal business of police-like and disinformation-prone Kayhan newspaper, label Khatami with such adjectives that put him in the same soup with groups and individuals that Khatami himself says are the enemies of the revolution and regime!

A Tale of Two Ports

Christophe Jaffrelot, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for International Studies and Research, Sciences Po/CNRS (Outlook India) | Jan 11

Sino-Indian rivalry in the Indian Ocean and India's naval cooperation with the US draw the world's attention. But quietly, out of sight, a contest has been building in the Arabian Sea cantered between two ports, one based in Pakistan and the other in Iran. The first is backed by China, the second by India. The first, located in Gwadar, is intended to give China access to the Indian Ocean; the second, Chabahar, is supposed to connect India to Afghanistan and counter the first. The two ports represent longstanding rivalries in the region and anticipation for intense geo-strategic competition.

Gwadar, with its proximity to the vital sea lane between the Middle East and China, has strategic importance for China, especially for oil trade. If China wants to emancipate itself from transportation or military problems along Asia's southern coastline, direct access to the Indian Ocean may be the solution.

Direct access to the India Ocean would give China a strategic post of observation and a key location for its navy. While Myanmar and Sri Lanka can offer substantial support, the country that can best help Beijing is Pakistan because of its location and long-time friendship.

India, feeling encircled, reacted to this development. In his recent book on the Indian Ocean, journalist Robert Kaplan writes that "the Indians' answer to Sino-Pakistani cooperation at Gwadar was a giant new $8 billion naval base at Karwar, south of Goa on India's Arabian coast, the first phase of which opened in 2005."

Karwar was only one part of the response to Gwadar. The other one is Chabahar. In 2002 India helped Iran to develop the port of Chabahar, located 72 kilometers west of Gwadar, soon after China began work at Gwadar.

DOCUMENTS & DECLARATIONS

Paulo Coelho's Books Are Banned in Iran

Statement by Editor Arash Hejazi (ArashHejazi.com) | Jan 10

Practicing censorship is happening on a day-to-day basis inside the Minsitry of Culture of Iran. The intriguing fact is that, despite such fierce controls over the printed and online media, the IRI has always denied practising any kind of censorship, especially pre-publication, for books. The implementation of such complex system, aiming to ensure that no unfavoured idea has a chance to reach the public and in the meantime leaving no concrete evidence of such practises, has made it difficult for organisations advocating freedom of expression to create a clear case against these prohibitions, which are also in direct opposition to Iran's international obligations as a member of the UN and a signatory and state party to the "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" (ICCPR) that obliges state parties to enforce freedom of expression asserted in Article 19 of the UDHR.

Prepress or pre-publication censorship is not a new concept. However, today Iran is one of the few countries left that still enforces it. No printer is permitted to print a book without first verifying that the book has obtained a Prepublication Permission (PPP). When the publishers decide to publish a book, they have to commission the translation (if necessary), copy-editing, typesetting, cover design and proof­reading and then submit it in the final press-quality PDF format to the Book Department of the Minsitry of Culture and Islamic Guidance MCIG. The publishers are responsible for paying all these origination costs even before they know whether they will receive a PPP for the book.

In the next step, the censors scrutinise the book. If they find no problems, they issue a PPP. If they find some problems, they inform the publisher about modifications needed to be made -- on a piece of paper with neither a letterhead, nor a signature. The publisher has to make the changes and resubmit the book. If it is decided that the book does not "deserve to be published" at all, they declare their decision to the publisher verbally, with no written documents involved.

The decisions of the scrutinisers are not always consistent and depend largely on the taste and individual interpretation of each scrutiniser whose names are never revealed, as "otherwise no scrutiniser would be available to work" (FARDA, 2008).

Any reference to sex, heresy, feminism, supporting religions other than Shiite Islam, mystic or exotic beliefs or even religions such as Buddhism, criticising the government of the IRI, a historical account not compatible with the officially approved history, relationships outside wed-lock, nudity (even in books on history of art), pigs, dogs, alcoholic drinks, defending western democracies and non-orthodox Islamic studies, may be subject to censorship.

Another possible reaction from the MCIG is no response at all (Article 19, 2006). There are books that have been submitted to the Book Department for months and even years with no response from the department, the only answer to the publishers' queries being "the scrutiniser has not yet declared his decision."

Another recent trend has been issuing provisional PPPs that authorise the titles to be printed only once and not reprinted, unless the validity of the permission is extended. This strategy seems to account for keeping the number of new titles published in Iran at a favourable level that enables the government to claim that statistically the number of titles published in Iran is higher than several other countries, and at the same time keeping the number of the readers of certain books to a minimum.

Another possibility is revoking previously issued permissions. The PPPs of hundreds of already published books were revoked by Ahmadinejad's administration, the pretext being, according to Safar Harandi, the Minister of Culture, that a tougher line was needed to stop publishers from serving a "poisoned dish to the young generation" (Tait, 2006a).

'We Still Know Too Little about Tehran's Nuclear Activities'

Interview with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Head Yukiya Amano by Dieter Bednarz (Der Spiegel) | Jan 11

Mr. Director General, according to the diplomatic dispatches made public by WikiLeaks, US diplomats in Vienna described your election as their own "victory" and as a "reinforcement of our influence" on the agency? Did that make you uncomfortable?

My unanimous election ...

... following four previous rounds of voting ...

... was a victory for all member nations. Besides, it isn't necessarily a drawback if the United States believes that my election is in keeping with its interests. My job is to represent the interests of all of our members, be it China, Russia or Nigeria.

And Iran?

Of course I represent the interests of Iran, as long as they involve the civilian use of nuclear energy and Tehran's ambitions serve peaceful purposes.

Do they? Cables from US ambassadors indicate that there is considerable mistrust on the part of Iran's Arab neighbors, for example, who fear that Tehran is secretly building nuclear weapons.

My job is to prevent that from happening. But Iran is a difficult case. We still know too little about Tehran's nuclear activities. And we still don't have answers to all of our questions, which is why we make it clear that Tehran has to cooperate with us more effectively.

In other words, the concerns are justified?

I don't want to speculate about the concerns of others. We deplore the fact that Iran does not inform us in a timely manner. We only learned about the uranium enrichment facility near Qom after satellite images were made public in 2009. The construction of other nuclear plants was not discussed with us ahead of time, but was simply decided upon and announced. We still lack comprehensive information about these plants, which we need if we are to develop trust. The United Nations Security Council's calls for a halt on uranium enrichment are still being ignored.

According to the most recent estimates, Iran is only a year away from building a bomb.

I'm not so sure about that. Despite all unanswered questions, we cannot say that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

Because you lack the conclusive evidence, the "smoking gun?"

That's not my choice of words. I'm talking about unanswered questions. What purpose do components for a highly explosive ignition system serve? What are neutron triggers needed for? Are there nuclear developments that suggest a military background? Iran must provide clarity on these issues. That's the point.

Even though you emphasize your impartiality, the relationship between the IAEA and Iran is highly charged. Members of the government in Tehran have berated your inspectors as "spies." In a recent SPIEGEL interview, the previous head of the Iranian nuclear energy agency and the country's new foreign minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, charged that you could forfeit your "legitimacy" due to your "partisanship for certain policies."

Our inspectors in Iran, of which we now have two, are not guilty of anything. We inspect and investigate, all in coordination with the relevant government officials in Tehran. I have since had a personal conversation with Mr. Salehi, and I am in regular contact with the Iranian ambassador to the IAEA. I deliberately avoid a sharp tone on the subject of Iran, but I do call attention to grievances.

Shortly after taking office though you reportedly had a long conversation with then chief inspector Olli Heinonen, who recently began teaching at Harvard, in which you pointed out that the tone in the Iran reports had to become tougher.

I don't discuss tones. I'm interested in facts. And I'm also neither a hardliner nor a soft-liner. But if I do have concerns or doubts, I don't keep them to myself. I want to know everything, and I want clarity, no matter which side is applying pressure. Seen in this light, the tone hasn't become tougher but, with all due respect, more direct.

The meeting between Iran and representatives of the global community in Geneva in early December wasn't exactly encouraging. Other than the agreement to conduct further talks, it didn't yield much.

We have to approach each other to bridge the credibility gap. Every step in the process is important. If the Geneva talks enable us to find a solution to problems with the research reactor, perhaps we can also address other areas of conflict.

Meanwhile, the Iranians, despite four rounds of sanctions in the UN Security Council, are continuing to enrich uranium -- to 3.5 percent or, for their research reactor, to as much as 20 percent.

That they are, contrary to all UN resolutions. Iran now has more than 3,103 kilograms of low-enriched uranium, and 33 kilograms of highly-enriched uranium. At least both are completely subject to our monitoring.

But you yourself have not been to Tehran yet.

I would very much like to go to Tehran, but not just to say hello. There has to be a good reason for a visit. If I travel to Tehran, I want to see progress.

Jafar Kazemi's Wife: 'By Executing My Husband, They Will Have Also Executed Our Children and Me'

Interview with Roudabeh Akbari by Masih Alinejad (Rah-e Sabz [Jaras] via Persian2English) | Jan 11

Mrs. Akbari, these days there is news circulating about the executions of some political prisoners on the charges of "Moharebeh through cooperation with and ties to the People's Mujahedin of Iran Organization (PMOI)." Do you have any news of your husband who has been sentenced to death on the [same] charge?

I also heard the news through the media. They haven't said anything to me or to the lawyer. We heard from human rights news sources that the execution of my husband is imminent.

Is there any hope that the news is only a rumour so that there will be more time to pursue the case [and have the death sentence overturned]?

I know that the sentence has not gone to the Execution of Sentences Circuit Court. However, when I met an informed source, she told me that the sentence was sent to the execution of sentences office; however, no decision has been made on the case.

When and how was your last meeting with [Mr. Kazemi]?

I visited my husband yesterday. He told me to "trust in God. Nothing has happened yet." He was in high spirits and said that a prisoner is usually isolated and taken to solitary confinement the night prior to the execution. However, so far, no steps have been taken by the officials that would make me feel the execution is imminent.

How was the trial of your husband? Can you describe briefly his arrest and the court proceeding?

After the 2009 Presidential election, they decided to arrest my husband. My young son lives in Camp Ashraf [where the Mujahedin militants are based] and my husband had gone [to Iraq] to visit him. However, when he returned, they arrested him in Tehran. The agents arrested my husband at 5:00am on Haft Hoz square in Tehran. Then, they took him to his mother's home and searched and ransacked the entire place, but they did not find anything. They asked my mother-in-law, "Do you know that your husband has taken your grandson to Camp Ashraf?" She replied, "What my grandson has done has nothing to do with his father." Then, they came to our home and searched everywhere.

What did they exactly confiscate from your home and the home of your mother-in-law?

Nothing really. They took a series of family videos (CD's). We really did not have anything for them to take or use as evidence. There was no evidence. I had bought a cellphone where I would receive occasional calls from my son so that I, as a mother, could hear and find peace in my child's voice. Now, they say, "You had contacts with the Mujahedin in Ashraf by using this phone. You were taking leads [from the Mujahedin], and you were leading these [post-election] protests and demonstrations." However, there [is no merit for these accusations]. As a mother, I was restless [to have some sort of contact with my son]. After a year, they [the officials] told us to go and retrieve our belongings. I asked them, "Did you give my husband a death sentence based on the family videos?" They told me to trust in God and that nothing will happen, God willing.

What is the specific charge against your husband in the case?

They have levelled 13 charges against my husband. It is absolutely unbelievable. For example, they claim that he was giving leads to students to take part in protests. My husband had no ties with the universities. Another charge is that he provided financial assistance [to the opposition movement], but we are renters ourselves. My husband was a lithograph and the condition of the publishing market was so bad for about eight months that I could tell you that my husband had almost gone bankrupt. How could a person in such a financial state provide financial assistance?

They also accused him of sending the youth to Camp Ashraf. My husband asked them, "Provide one shred of evidence to prove how I was able to do such a thing. With what means and under what conditions [would I have been able to do such a thing?]"

Another charge was having ties with Mujahed friends. What do our relationships with our friends, which are completely in a familial context, have anything to do with organizational activities? In other words, we should not communicate and socialize with anybody? No matter how much we argued, they would not accept [our words] and insisted on their own version [of events].

In your husband's case, did they refer to any specific point about participation in post-election protests?

My husband had no role in the demonstrations and he said this during his interrogations. He, like many others, had stuck posters on walls. Does that [act] carry such a [heavy]sentence? The death sentence does not fit the crime. Even his lawyer stated that, according to [the regime's] own Islamic Republic Constitution, the maximum sentence he can be handed down is six months to one year in jail. However, it seems that this sentence is completely political. There are political motives behind issuing this sentence against my husband.

How were you and your husband treated by the court?

In the court, they treated my husband very badly. I was informed that Judge Moghiseh told my husband, "You should have been executed back in the 1980′s, however, back then, you slipped from our hands, but this time, I will not allow the same to happen and you will not be able to escape [alive]." I told Judge Moghiseh, "Even if I talk to you for hours, you only accept what is in your mind and pay no attention to my words or the defense presented by my husband's lawyer." I wish people would hear our voice and help us so that we can put this crisis behind us. This punishment does not fit the action of my husband. He did not engage in any political activities after being released [in the 90's], and now they are punishing my husband for what my son has done.

Could you describe your husband's activities to inform and enlighten the public?

It was not as though my husband had any specific political activities. He started a family and was busy raising his family. In 1981, he was a member of the Mujahedin, but he had no political activities afterward. He was sentenced to 15 years back then, but after serving nine years, he received a pardon and was released. I do not understand why they came to arrest him again all of a sudden, now that he has no ties to the Mujahedin. He had only gone to Camp Ashraf to visit his son. They should not try the father instead of the son.

What is the reaction of friends, people, and the society that you live in regarding the charges against your husband and the death sentence? and the death sentence for your husband?

When people are informed and find out about our grievances, they offer their sympathy because nobody believes that in the 21st century a political prisoner should be executed, and particularly not on the charge of Moharebeh [Enmity with God]. [The Moharebeh charge is used against people] who have taken up arms. They were not even able to find a pin [as evidence against my husband]. This sentence is inhumane.

Have you had any meetings with authorities and officials to seek their assistance in person?

Whomever we asked [for help] did not listen to us. I ask all the intellectual clerics to stop such sentences. I ask Ayatollah Sanei, Mr. Vahid Khorasani, and all those who are our religious jurisprudences and who people follow [in religious matters] to stop the fundamentalists and tell them that by carrying out such sentences, they only further alienate people. Let us assume that they execute my husband or other political activists; what problems are then solved in the country? Such sentences provide no results and only create an atmosphere of terror, fear, and pessimism among the people.

What is your request from people?

My younger son is not in a good mental and psychological state. He is so restless and worried that he does not let go of me. He looks at my reactions. I swallow my sobs and hold back my tears to not show sadness so my son's mental and psychological state does not [further] deteriorate. But how much strength do we have? We [request] the help of all our compatriots so my husband will not be executed. People ask that if the country is stable, then why are executions carried out? If my husband is executed, they have not just executed one person, they will have executed an entire family. By executing my husband, his children and I will be executed too. It is not fair to execute my husband who was busy with his life and had no political activities only for the political tendencies of my son. Right now, my home phones are under surveillance, and I know my husband's interrogators and the Intelligence agents are hearing my voice. If they have a conscience, [they should] think of how they would like a theocracy to treat them, then they [should] treat my husband the same way.

SHARE

CLOSE

Contact Us

Follow us on

Email Us: