Iran’s Free and Fair Elections

March 15, 2008 at 5:06 pm | In Iran, Reformist, democracy | 4 Comments
Tags: , , , , ,

Hossein Mar’ashi, the head of a reformist coalition electoral headquarters told Fars news Agency: “We are sure that the election was free and fair. We also reject US and British news agencies’ claim that the reformists have plan to withdraw. It’s a mere lie.”

Former Iranian president, Ayatullah Seyyed Mohammad Khatami said prior to the general election: ”A massive turnout will lead to forming a parliament which will take wise measures that in turn would contribute to the nation’s progress.”

The Western media had predicted, or rather hoped, that the Iranian election would be marred by lower voter turnout; that was not to be: voter turnout exceeded all expectations. The average voter turnout in the world is 45-60 percent, and during the 2004 elections for the 7th Majlis voter turnout was 51 percent, whereas yesterday over 28 million of 43.8 million eligible voters participated in the 8th Majlis; a voter turnout of over 60 percent, and 9 percent increase from the last Majlis, even exceeding Iran’s average voter turnout of 62.5 percent.

Moreover, much to the consternation of the United States, the result is seen in Iran as demonstrative of the President Ahmadinejad’s popularity. The Secretary of the United Principalist Front Shahabeddin Sadr, told IRNA: “The names announced by the Interior Ministry show that 70 percent of the newly elected legislators are on our list of candidates,” as latest announcement showed by that after 141 constituencies out of 290 had been decided, the Principalist Front, won 108, whereas the Reformist camp only secured 33. 

U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, when asked to explain the discrepancy between U.S. claims that the Iranian election was unfair and the high voter turnout, admitted he was bereft, “I don’t know anything about turnout.”

Iran’s former president Ayatullah Seyyed Mohammad Khatami, remarked prior to the election:

“The US officials have clearly shown their enmity with the Middle East people… Undoubtedly they will support those who would pave the ground for the US presence in the region and certainly these are not the reformists.”

Ahmadinejad’s Visit to Iraq

February 28, 2008 at 7:36 pm | In Ahmadinejad, Iran, Iraq, USA | Leave a Comment
Tags: , , ,

The significance of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to Iraq this Sunday cannot be overstated. It is the first such visit by an Iranian president to Iraq since the 1979 Islamic revolution. Moreover it is the first visit since the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, under the tutelage of Washington and Moscow, mounted an invasion of Iran’s Khuzestan province, which resulted in the eight year Iran-Iraq War. The visit both serves as a reminder of that victory of Islam over western colonialism and underscores the relative power and influence of Iran in Iraq vis-a-vis the United States.

Whilst the United States will no doubt wish to underplay the significance of the visit, the Iranian president will be feted Shiite and Sunnite politicians alike. The United States may accuse Iran of attacking U.S. troops and destabilising Iraq but this accusation does not find favour amongst those that matter in Iraq, the lever’s of power in Iraq now rest in the hands of Iran’s allies and co-religionists, whether the United States cares to admit it or not. Were this not the case the visit would not be taking place.    

Ahmadinejad, more so than any other Iranian president, holds enourmous popular support on the Arab Street. Thus it is hoped that this visit will be a show of unity, as much as a show of strength; the aim is to dispel fears that Sunnite Iraqis may have that Iran supports Shiite secession and to visibly endorse the Iranian brokered truce between Saadah al-Sadr and al-Hakim.

Not so pivotal shift in Iranian politics

September 12, 2007 at 6:14 pm | In Iran, Khatami, Rafsanjani, democracy | Leave a Comment

The election of Ayatullah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani as chairman of the Majles-e-Khobregan (Assembly of experts), is as ever overplayed in the Western media. The late Ayatullah Meshkini – the previous chairman - was neither a household name in the West or Iran. His significance in Iranian politics was minimal.  Hashemi in his own right is bigger than the position of chairman of the Khobregan, which carries no special powers.

Constitutionally, the Khobregan is significant, since under article 107,  it elects the Velayat-e faqih, and in principle could remove him under Article 111, should he be derelict in his duties. Yet in practice the body meets twice yearly and does not involve itself in Iranian politics. Any decision requires a majority vote and this is where the election is significant. Hashemi was expected to win by a large margin; he did not. The vote was 41 for Hashemi, 34 Ayatullah Ahmad Janati, with 11 absentee votes. Ayatullah Momen was elected first deputy chairman, and Ayatullah Ahmad Khatami, second deputy chairman. Both are conservatives closer to Ayatullah al-Uzma Khamenei.  

The significance of this is that Hashemi lacks the support to extend his remit beyond his constitutional authority. If this was not Hashemi, I would suggest that such an appointment, is tantamount to retiring from politics. However, it seems an unlikely place upon which to make a bid for the presidency.

British Forces Flee Basra

September 2, 2007 at 7:24 pm | In Basra, Britain, Iraq | 7 Comments

British forces are at present withdrawing from Saddam’s place, or more accruately, they are fleeing Basra; a city that they could no longer hold.

The troops stationed in the airport are, to use the military parlance, marking time. There can no longer be any military justification for their continued presence, since they are doing little more than defending themselves.

The United States has ceased to be relevant

August 25, 2007 at 3:53 pm | In Iran, Iraq, Islam, Shia, Sunni, USA, democracy | 4 Comments

The relationship between Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Malaki and the U.S. dictatorship in Iraq, which has always been tempestuous, has now deteriorated further. Much to the annoyance of his U.S. overlords; al-Malaki rubbished the preposterous claims that Iran is destabilising Iraq as the U.S. Government likes to claim.  In fact al-Malaki pointed out the reverse is true and thanked Iran  for its “positive and constructive” role in “providing security and fighting terrorism in Iraq”.

The comment not only earned rebuke from the beleaguered U.S. President, they also led to the following threat:  ”my message to him is, is that when we catch you playing a non-constructive role there will be a price to pay.” 

A rebuke that Prime Minister Nuri al-Malaki is not going to heed.  His response the U.S. President criticism of his administration was even more assertive. He said:    

“No one has the right to place timetables on the Iraq government. It was elected by its people. Those who make such statements are bothered by our visit to Syria. We will pay no attention. We care for our people and our constitution, and can find friends elsewhere.” 

This statement represents a recognition in the Iraq government of the now irrelevance of the United States: the ignominious defeat of British forces in the South and the failure of the U.S. surge to quell the rise of factional violence or the insurgency has left al-Malaki government in no doubt that the U.S. forces have to all intents and purposes already been defeated and that there is no appetite in the United States to reverse that outcome:  troop withdrawal is inevitable.    

Thus al-Malaki is looking to the future; a future in which the United States’ role in Iraq will be limited; he is no doubt also aware that should Hillary Clinton win the U.S. presidency he would not be able to count on her support. She said this week that Iraq needs a “less divisive and more unifying figure.”

In fact whilst politicians in the United States make much of the Iraq’s sectarian divisions and urge a national unity government, this is fundamentally undemocratic and quite fraudulent, it is not for Iraq’s sake that they wish a pluralist government. An estimated 63% of the population are Shia. However, that is only if one includes Kurdistan, which is effectively a separate entity from Iraq. Certainly the main Kurdish parties are separatists. Thus if the Kurds are discounted, and properly they should be, since they do not consider themselves Iraqis; Shia constitute nearly 79% of the Iraqi population and Sunnis only 21%. Thus the sectarian divisions in Iraq are overplayed; in truth Iraq is a Shia country.

It is this reality that the United States government continues to supress:  were they ever serious about installing democracy, they would support Shia majority rule and an Iranian style Islamic democracy; instead of doing all they could to prevent it. Yet it is clear that the United States cares little for Iraqi democracy; preferring anarchy and civil war to another autonomous Shia state in the region. 

As ineffectual as al-Malaki has been as premier, the fact that he was willing to publicly chastise the U.S.A. and actively court Iranian and Syrian influence, despite incurring Washington’s displeasure, is significant since it reflects the mood on the street. 

First Casualty of War

August 19, 2007 at 6:44 pm | In Basra, Britain, Media, Propaganda, Shia | Leave a Comment

The British and U.S. media are reporting that Britain has lost the war in Basra and is no more than an observer in the battle for control of Basra, having been disengaged for some time.  The Independent on Sunday adds that British generals are now calling for British forces to be extradited from the South without delay.

However, what is being reported here is not new; it is that which was already known. Indeed, I reported the British surrender back in February 2007, which followed the provocative British assault on the Jamiat Police Station in December 2006, this was a pivotal event, yet was not treated as such in the Western media.

It is no exaggeration to say that the British media has hitherto been complicit in the wilfully misleading of the British public about the true extent of the British military demise in Iraq.  

“In war, truth is the first casualty.” (Aeschylus, 525 BC – 456 BC)

     

Saudis Funding and Supporting the Iraqi Insurgency

July 15, 2007 at 5:14 pm | In Bush, Iraq, Monafiqeen-e-Khalq, Saudi Arabia, Terrorism, USA | 2 Comments

Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan the former Saudi ambassador to the U.S. and architect of Saudi and Zionist cooperation, stands accused of funding the terrorist group Monafiqeen-e-Khalq Organization, al-Qaeda in Iraq, Ansar al-Sunna and Fath al-Islam. Baztab Internet site reported that the Saudi terrorist financier attended a MKO congress in the groups Ashraf military camp and donated $750,000 to the outlawed terrorist group. 

This comes at a time when the U.S. government has released a report that states that 45% of all foreign fighters in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia, as are over half the foreign fighters in U.S. custody. Thus pouring scorn upon Bush’s claim that Iran is aiding the insurgency; in fact it is Saudi Arabia, with the implicit support of the United States government.  

     

The Execution of Jafar Kiani

July 14, 2007 at 12:33 am | In Amnesty International, Human Rights, Iran, UN, democracy, executions | Leave a Comment

The Meydaan organisation has reported that Jafar Kiani was executed on the 5 July 2007 in Iran. They also reported that Dr. Alireza Jamshidi, the Iranian judiciary spokesman, gave a press conference on Tuesday 10 July 2007, in which he reputedly said, “Lately there has been a stoning sentence executed by a judge in Takistan branch,” contrary to the existing moratorium on stoning but “the woman’s [Mokarrameh Ebrahimi] sentence is stayed now.” Adding, “The extent to which the ban order can deprive a judge from independence is a long discussion, but a judge can act independently, although with the order of the Head of Judiciary, it is necessary to exercise more caution in issuing and executing these sentences.”

However, this press conference was not reported by the Iranian media nor was it attended by the international media. In fact, as is clear from the  statement of Louise Arbour, the UN rapporteur on Human Rights, Iran is yet to confirm the execution of Jafar Kiani took place. 

Therefore, how is it that a Western based anti capital punishment NGO attended a press briefing that no one else appears to know about?

Surely, this is a pregnant question for any journalist reporting this story?  

This is not to say this execution did no take place: it may very well have done. However, until such time as the Iranian government provides a detailed account; all claims are mere conjecture and rumour.

It is noteworthy that previous reports of executions by U.S. sponsored groups have transpired to be factually inaccruate. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch for instance, have never accruately reported an Iranian execution since 2005. Yet when the Western media quotes these organisations on Iran this is never stated.

Moreover, if the events are as reported in this case, far from the Iranian State executing this man; it is a local judge, in defiance of the order of the Head of the Judiciary. Thus the Iranian State is not culpable. Moreover, contrary to Louise Arbour’s suggestion and attempts made by Western lobby groups to make it so; stoning is not an offence against international law.

Iran’s Success Depends on National Determination

June 30, 2007 at 10:34 am | In Ahmadinejad, Iran, economy, oil, rationing | Leave a Comment

Yesterday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said of the Government decision to ration gasoline, “The plan’s success depends on national determination.”

Quite. The decision is certainly the most courageous of his presidency and the most necessary, as Ayatollah Jannati Tehran’s Substitute Friday prayers leader suggested, “The huge oil asset should be used for reconstruction,” and should have been implemented long ago. Khatemi’s Government were grossly incompetent for failing so to do. Iran imports 40 percent of its gasoline from 16 countries at an annual cost of $5 billion, due to a lack of refinery capacity. This is the one economic weakness that the West could have exploited.

However, the decision to do what no previous President has had the courage to do – ration gasoline – will dramatically cut national oil consumption and end Iranian dependency on foreign countries thus neutralising the threat of any UN Security Council sanctions. In effect, Iran has preempted the sanction. This is why the move has not seen widespread protest to date. The country has remained surprising unified in the face of an otherwise unpopular decision.

The widely anticipated riots and protests have not occured much to the consternation of Western powers. Instead there have been a few sporadic acts of vandalism, which were denounced by Majlis Speaker Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel thus:

“I think it is inappropriate to consider those who vandalize public property and buildings a part of the nation. Rather, they are a deceived minority who commit such shameful acts because of the promises of the enemies”.

This would clearly not have been so had Iran not faced external pressures: Iran after all, is on a war setting. Thus this a barometer of Iran’s national determination, as Ahmadinejad suggests.

Yet, this is no temporary measure nor indeed should it be. Raising prices at the pump does nothing to reduce oil consumption; it only hurts the poor. Thus the only effective way to reduce oil consumption is rationing. Every country, not just Iran, should be using rationing to reduce oil consumption. Those that do not will find themselves economically vulnerable.

This is not to say that Ahmadinejad will not suffer in the next election for such a policy, however it may also play to his advantage: he took decisive action and he will be judged against the progress of the nuclear programme too. Moreover, there is another consequence of this decision, which will play to his and Iran’s benefit: it will radically reduce foreign spending, which in turn will strengthen the economy.

MKO remains on European terror list

June 30, 2007 at 10:21 am | In EU, Monafiqeen-e-Khalq, Terrorism | Leave a Comment

The European and North American based Iranian terrorist group, the Monafiqeen-e-Khalq (MKO), is to remain on the new list of European Union terrorist groups. Last December The European Court of Justice annulled the EU decision to include the group on the proscribed organisations register in 2002 due to a procedural irregularity.

The Monafiqeen-e-Khalq had sought to legitimise itself by insisting that the court rejected the decision, yet as EU officials noted, the court did not fault the decision itself, just the manner in which is was taken.

Any other decision would have fundamentally undermined the EU’s international credibility.

Oliver Stone Ahmadinejad Documentary

June 30, 2007 at 10:10 am | In Ahmadinejad, Media, Oliver Stone | Leave a Comment

Interestingly the Hollywood filmmaker Oliver Stone plans to direct a long documentary about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Stone has made a formal request for permission from Ahmadinejad’s office to launch his work.

Iranian film director Alireza Sajjadpour told ISNA, “The request was made some three months ago. Stone is a professional filmmaker on social and political issues. As a filmmaker I’d like his request to be accepted.” Alas, I suspect that unlikely. After all the Iranian authorities regarded his film Alexander pornographic. Even so it will be interesting to see Stone’s documentary; I hope it addresses why he is so popular in Iran; rather than solely focusing on his relations vis-a-vis the West.

Human Rights Abuse Masquerading as Human Rights Advocacy

June 28, 2007 at 2:01 pm | In Amnesty International, Human Rights, Iran, Shirin Ebadi | Leave a Comment

Amnesty International professes concern about human rights in Iran, yet this very organisation maintained a wall of silence about Shahist Iran, which was one of the most brutal regimes, if not the most brutal, of the Twentieth Century. Whatever one may think of the Islamic Republic of Iran, no country has improved its human rights record as much as Iran has since 1979. Whilst undoubtedly human rights abuses do still occur in Iran; it was the Islamic Revolution that introduced both democracy and civil liberties to Iran: there were neither under the despotic Western backed Shahist regime.

Amnesty International’s claim to be a non-governmental organisation are palpable nonsense; throughout its history it has been indirectly funded by various Western governments, and certainly promotes Western interests. This is particularly so in the Middle East. Amnesty International is a resolutely pro Zionist organisation, which fuels its hostility towards the Islamic Republic of Iran – the only independently autonomous Islamic State.

Thus Amnesty International devotes far more energy in opposing the legitimate democratically elected government of Iran than it does any other government, even though Iran has the best human rights record of any country in the Middle East and is the only democratic State in the region. Amnesty International rarely censors illegitimate and undemocratic governments supported by the West, such as the Saudi and Israeli regimes.

The conflict of interest and inconsistency is all too obvious. Amnesty International’s report, “Iran: the last executioner of children“, is testament to that. The Iranian government and judiciary has resolutely said that Iran does not execute children, this has been resolutely stated by . Yet Amnesty International which has produced not a shred of evidence to the contrary, claims that it does; despite the fact that the organisation and has neither offices nor investigators in Iran to validate its claims.

Thus the organisation makes the claims without corroboration, in the full knowledge that it is bereft: this is undeniable racist, since Amnesty International would not adopt such low standards before accusing a Western government of lying. In fact, Amnesty International fails to point out that Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine, children are routinely executed without trial by the occupying forces.

However, a more startling piece of hypocrisy is that Amnesty International lionise Shirin Ebadi and even have gone so far as to suggest that she is a human rights lawyer. Nothing could be further from the truth; she was personally appointed by the Shah to serve as a judge at the age of 27, six months after graduating in law. Thus she has never been a lawyer of standing in Iran; rather, she acquired her position through nepotism.

More importantly, she served in the judiciary under the Shah for ten years before the Islamic revolution. The judiciary under the Shah were complicit in the torture and murder of millions. Political prisoners, including children, were: tortured to near madness on Apollo machines, sexually mutilated, raped and sentenced to death in absentia. This is the standard of justice and human rights that Shirin Ebadi, Nobel laureate, supported in Iran throughout the seventies, which is why she will always be loathed in Iran.

Prisoners were not maltreated and statements were not coerced

April 6, 2007 at 10:20 pm | In Britain, IRGC, Iran, Media, Pasdaran, Propaganda, UK | Leave a Comment

The recently released British Royal Marine Commandos and Royal Navy Sailors detained by Iran for illegal entry into Iranian territorial waters, were “paraded” in front of the British media to deliver scripted speeches, in a press conference blatantly stage-managed by the Ministry of Defence. Contrast this to their statements given to al-Alam, that were by the former prisoners’ own admission unscripted and freely given.

Moreover, their self-described treatment at the hands of Iran was by any military standard, exemplary. They were not physically coerced; threatened with physical coercion; subject to sleep deprivation; stress positions; or cruel and unusual punishment. In fact, they were only blindfolded when transported and adequately cared for. Segregation of suspects during interrogation and plea bargains are not unreasonable.

However, the British claims of harsh treatment are undermined by the recently released Iranian video.

And least we not forget; they were arrested for entering Iranian water. A point the British government can no longer sensibly contest, it now having been revealed by Royal Marine Commando Captain Air that their mission was to gather intelligence on Iran. A point buttressed by Royal Navy Lieutenant Carman’s admission that Occupation forces have only made sixty-six boardings in a four week period in the Persian Gulf. Tellingly, the Royal Navy has now ceased all boardings. Carman admission that the HMS Cornwall is tasked with guarding vital Iraqi oil platforms, which are situated outside Iraqi territorial waters, cast further doubt on the British claims to be operating within Iraqi water.

Furthermore, there is no internationally recognised border between Iran and Iraq in this waterway; a point that has been clarified by the United Nations. Thus the British government suggestion to the contrary is manifestly untrue.

All of which seems to have escaped the ever compliant British media.

Prisoner negotiations

April 4, 2007 at 9:41 pm | In Ahmadinejad, Britain, Iran, UK, hostage-taking | Leave a Comment

The Royal Navy and the U.S. 5th Fleet have been playing chicken in Iran’s territorial waters for sometime, Iran responded to this posturing with its own, hence the recent Iranian war games and the Pasdaran’s recent etching of their symbol on to a U.S. warship situated in the Persian Gulf.

However after the abduction of Iranian diplomats who were serving members of the Pasdaran, the U.S. elevated it security levels and warned Britain to do the same. So it is curious they did not and continued to violate Iranian water, particularly as Sartip Dovom Qassem Suleimani, the commander of the Pasdaran al-Qods force stated that Iran would respond to these abductions. Thus the capture of 15 Royal Marine commandos and Royal Navy sailors in Iranian waters should come as no surprise.

Moreover, Iran has always been very clear that this was a preplanned move, Sartip Yahya Rahim Safavi, commander of the Pasdaran, gave the order to intercept Royal Navy and U.S. Navy vessels that stray into Iranian waters the day before. Iran has been equally clear that the intent was to deliver a message that Iran would not tolerate such violations anymore. Iran has positively avoided conflating this issue with the release of the abducted Iranian diplomats, which is of considerably less concern to Iran than violations of its territorial waters. The release today of the Iranian diplomat, Jalal Sharafi, who was abducted by the 36th Commando battalion – a death squad that operate closely with U.S. forces – was welcomed by Iran but ultimately inconsequential.

Furthermore Ayatullah al-Uzma Khamenei, ordered that the matter should be dealt with by the Supreme National Security Council, hence contrary to British claims, the Foreign Office was well aware that the matter was being dealt with by Ali Larijani, yet they maintained the facade that they was confusion. In any event, negotiations could have taken place through the Iranian Foreign Minister, Manouchehr Mottaki. Britain choose not to pursue this route.

Britain miscalculated, believing Iran would not respond to these repeated provocations, then was ill-prepared to deal with the consequences when Iran did. Blair found it politically inconvenient to acknowledge that the Royal Navy has for some considerable time been operating illegally in Iranian waters, thus he has produced a cacophony of allegations and claims, none of which he can substantiate.

The British government, for reason best known to itself, sought to internationalise the conflict and vilify Iran. Yet this was to no account. The issues was expediently resolved once British Foreign Office issued a letter to the Iranian foreign ministry, giving assurances that such an incident would not occur again and that Britain would respect Iran territorial sovereignty. Hence, agreeing not to operate inside what Iran regards as its territorial waters.

The Missing American

April 3, 2007 at 9:23 pm | In Iran, USA | Leave a Comment

The U.S. media is reporting that a former unnamed FBI agent has disappeared in Iran on the island of Kish. FBI spokesman Rich Kolko suggested, “at this time, there are no indications that this matter should be viewed other than as a missing-person case,” and U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said, “we have been monitoring this situation for a couple of weeks now.” Citing privacy concerns, McCormack declined to divulge the man’s name, age or occupation.

However what is curious, is that the U.S. State Department has also not divulged this information to the Iranian government, the U.S. would be obliged to providing his name, flight details, passport number if they wished Iran to try and locate him. They have thus far failed so to do. Another curious aspect is that it is admitted that this mystery man has previously served in the FBI, which would have precluded him entering Iran, without U.S. approval and would be grounds for arrest and detention if discovered by the Kish authorities.

Iranian Propaganda

April 2, 2007 at 1:07 am | In Britain, IRGC, Iran, Iraq, Media, Propaganda, UK | Leave a Comment

The Western MSM is incensed by Iran’s blatant use of the captured Royal Marine commandos and Royal Navy sailors for propaganda purposes. The occidental chauvinism and hypocrisy is astounding. one would never have thought that it was in fact the British media who first sought to use their personnel for propaganda purposes; that the British media, without any evidence, followed the British Foreign Office line that the prisoners were detained illegally in Iraqi territorial waters, failing to accurately report that Iraqi territorial waters have yet to be established and consequently the British claims have no merit in international law; the Royal Navy acknowledged that the waters they were detained in are claimed by Iran.

Instead the British media ran stories about Faye Turney and vilified Iran for holding a mother hostage. Of course, forgetting to mention that had an Iranian mother been on the crew of a fully armed Commando team entering British water, she too would have been detained. Iran’s response was a calculated quid pro quo. Iran is on the one hand showing how these prisoners are unharmed and well treated, yet on the other how vulnerable and helpless they are. Knowing that this places pressure on the British government to resolve the issue.

However, having seen that despite being obviously scripted the World’s media would eagerly report what they said, Iran has adeptly used the prisoners to convey messages to the World public. As much as the Western media will never admit it; it own anti-Iranian propaganda has been shamelessly, thus it is hardly surprising that Iran would respond in this way. Moreover, despite Western claims there is no treaty that prevents it. They are not prisoners of war, and whilst the environment they are in is coercive, there is no evidence of physical coercion. I imagine that Iran will continue to exploit the prisoners for propaganda purposes, whilst the British government continues to do the same.

Brinkmanship Unwise in Uncharted Waters

April 2, 2007 at 12:51 am | In Blair, Britain, IRGC, Iran, Iraq, Propaganda, UK, hostage-taking | Leave a Comment

Consortiumnews.com has published a rather good article on the eight RM Commandos and seven RN sailors detained by Iran for illegal entry into Iranian waters questioning the sense of the British strategy.

The frenzy in America’s corporate media over Iran’s detainment of 15 British Marines who may, or may not, have violated Iranian-claimed territorial waters is a flashback to the unrestrained support given the administration’s war-mongering against Iraq shortly before the attack.

The British are refusing to concede the possibility that its Marines may have crossed into ill-charted, Iranian-claimed waters and are ratcheting up the confrontation. At this point, the relative merits of the British and Iranian versions of what actually happened are greatly less important than how hotheads on each side—and particularly the British—decide to exploit the event in the coming days.

Call that humiliation?

April 2, 2007 at 12:45 am | In Britain, IRGC, Iran, Iraq, Pasdaran, UK, hostage-taking | Leave a Comment

Terry Jones writing in the Guardian quips,

I share the outrage expressed in the British press over the treatment of our naval personnel accused by Iran of illegally entering their waters. It is a disgrace. We would never dream of treating captives like this – allowing them to smoke cigarettes, for example, even though it has been proven that smoking kills. And as for compelling poor servicewoman Faye Turney to wear a black headscarf, and then allowing the picture to be posted around the world – have the Iranians no concept of civilised behaviour? For God’s sake, what’s wrong with putting a bag over her head? That’s what we do with the Muslims we capture: we put bags over their heads, so it’s hard to breathe. Then it’s perfectly acceptable to take photographs of them and circulate them to the press because the captives can’t be recognised and humiliated in the way these unfortunate British service people are.

Iran replies to Blair’s sabre rattling

March 29, 2007 at 2:05 am | In Britain, Iran, Pasdaran, Terrorism, UK | Leave a Comment

Faye Turney in her own words:

“My name is Faye Turney. I come from England, I live in England at present. I have served on F99. I have served in Navy nine years, I was arrested on Friday on 23rd of March which obviously has passed internal waters.

“I was treated friendly and hospitable they are nice people, they explained why we were arrested, and there is no aggression, no hurt, no harm, they are very very compassionate.”

Rarely has the Pasdaran been described such. When members of the British created Jundallah terrorist group were captured they were asked to reveal all they knew, in turn they were offered a swift execution for this information: most willingly accepted the offer, which was how Iran was able to prove British links. The old adage is true, everyone talks.

The Iranian government was under no illusion that Turney appeared terrified: she was supposed to be. The purpose of the interview was not to comfort the British public; rather it was to demonstrate the reality of the Royal Marine Commandos situation: one of desperation, helplessness and fear, that it might pressure the British government to resolve this situation with an apology. Instead, of maintaining it current unnecessarly confrontational stance.

Blair’s bellicose has proved counterproductive; maintaining the extraordinary fiction that they were in Iraqi waters, when they were in Iranian waters, and threatening to elevate the situation to the “next phase”, has demonstrable improved Iran’s international standing. The Iranian Foreign Minister received a late invite to the Arab summit after the event occurred and received support from Saudi Arabia, no less, over its position. Both Russia and China have warned The United States against military action and contrary to U.S. claims of conducting war games, the Occupation forces are being decidedly less provocative.

Britain threat to take the matter to the security council, led to Iran threatening to retract its goodwill gesture of releasing Faye Turney. It may be possible to expedite the release of the prisoners by the return of the Iranian diplomats abducted by the United States, although I am doubtful: Iran wants a straight admission that the British forces were in Iranian waters. However Blair is not prepared to do that at this stage, thus he is unnecessarily jepordising the safety of those 15 Royal marines Commandos and sailors.

British Sponsored Terrorist Release Iranian Prisoners

March 27, 2007 at 1:56 pm | In Blair, Britain, IRGC, Iran, Pasdaran, Terrorism | Leave a Comment

Jundallah, the Wahhabi terrorist group released the three members of Iran’s Disciplinary Force (police) that it abducted in eastern Sistan and Baluchetan, earlier this month and then took into Pakistan, where they were held hostage.

Meanwhile Blair has suggested that if the British commandos being detained by Iran for illegally entering Iranian water are not released presently, the situation will move into a “new phase”.

Iran has said that Jundallah has links with British SIS, which of course Britain denies. However the release of these hostages would suggest otherwise.

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.