Source: Israel Law Center

Families Of Kidnapped Persian Jews Sue Khatami In US Court

Saturday September 9, 2:47 pm ET




Law suit alleges visiting Iranian implemented anti-Semitic policy of torture and imprisonment

NEW YORK, Sept. 9 /PRNewswire/ -- Seven Jewish-Iranian families have filed suit in an American federal court against former President Mohammad Khatami over charges that he is responsible for the kidnapping and torture of their missing family members. The families, currently residing in Los Angeles and Israel, contend that Khatami instituted the policy of imprisoning their relatives without trials and refusing to provide them any information concerning their whereabouts. The Jews were arrested on different occasions during the years 1994 through 1997, as they sought to leave Iran across its border with Pakistan.

On Friday evening copies of the complaint and summons were served on Khatami at a reception in Arlington, Virginia hosted by the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Khatami has twenty days to file an answer denying the allegations or default the case.

The plaintiffs, who are not U.S. citizens, brought the suit under special laws - the Alien Torts Act and the Torture Victims Protection Act - which permit foreigners to sue their tormentors for torture and kidnapping in American courts. The lawsuit filed in the New York District Court is being represented by attorneys Robert Tolchin of New York, Nitsana Darshan-Leitner of Jerusalem and Pooya Dayanim of Los Angeles. The plaintiffs are seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in damages against Khatami for his role in the on-going disappearance of their loved ones.

Since the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979, millions of Iranian citizens have sought to escape from the Islamic regime. In normal circumstances when Muslim citizens are arrested attempting to leave without official permission, the established punishment is a small fine or a short jail term. However, in the instances where Jewish citizens have been similarly arrested, the Islamic government has instituted much harsher penalties. The Plaintiffs allege that Khatami has singled out the Jewish community and authorized the policy of secretly imprisoning the Jews indefinitely.

Over the years, the Jewish families have received reports from other former prisoners and guards that the missing Jews are alive and being held in different prisons. In the case of the Tehrani family of Los Angeles, a former Muslim neighbor has sworn out an affidavit testifying that he has seen their missing son, Babak Tehrani, in a Tehran prison two years after his disappearance.

"These Persian Jewish families are seeking to bring Khatami before an American court for his involvement in the torture and imprisonment of their loved ones in Iran," stated the families' attorney Nitsana-Darshan-Leitner, "It is shocking that the State Department would grant this anti-Semitic criminal a travel visa instead of joining with the families in the struggle to bring him to justice. The court case will establish that these missing Jews are indeed still alive in Iranian prisons and that the former President violated international law with his policy of arrests and torture which targeted the Jewish community

Iranian hanged after verdict stay
Two Iranian youths are prepared for hanging in Mashhad, Iran (file picture)
Amnesty says five minors have been executed in Iran in 2007
An Iranian man has been hanged for rape despite his alleged victims withdrawing their accusations and a judicial review being ordered into the sentence.

Makwan Mouloudzadeh, 20, had been found guilty of raping three teenage boys when he was 13 years old.

The hanging took place on Wednesday morning at a prison in Kermanshah province in western Iran.

Human rights groups say international law strictly forbids execution of child offenders, even after they become 18.

"On 11 November the head of the justice administration of Kermanshah received an order from the judiciary head, Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi, to stop the verdict being carried out," the lawyer, Saeed Eqbali, was quoted as saying.

"But the case, which was supposed to be reviewed in Tehran, was sent back from there to Kermanshah, and the execution was carried out quickly," the lawyer said.

Public execution

Clarisa Bencomo of the Human Rights Watch (HRW) group told Reuters news agency she had received information that Mr Mouloudzadeh's family had been told to come and pick up his body.

Her organisation had spoken to people who had seen the body, she said.

HRW says Mr Mouloudzadeh was arrested in September 2006 after three men complained to police he had raped them seven years earlier.

During court proceedings, Mr Mouloudzadeh withdrew a confession he had made earlier, saying it had been the result of coercion by the police, the US-based group says.

As a state that is party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Iran has undertaken not to execute child offenders.

But Amnesty International says Iran has executed five minors so far in 2007 and 27 minors since 1990.

The latest execution brings to at least 280 the number of people hanged in Iran this year, according to the AFP news agency. Many are public hangings.

Capital offences in Iran include murder, rape, armed robbery, serious drug trafficking, apostasy, adultery and homosexual acts between men.

Iranian Hanged After Verdict Stay

December 06, 2007
BBC News
BBCi

link to original

Behind the plan to bomb Iran

By Ismael Hossein-zadeh

08/31/06 "Asia Times" -- --It is no longer a secret that the administration of US President George W Bush has been methodically paving the way toward a bombing strike against Iran. The administration's plans of an aerial military attack against that country have recently been exposed by a number of reliable sources. [1]

There is strong evidence that the US administration's recent public statements that it is now willing to negotiate with Iran are highly disingenuous: they are designed not to reach a diplomatic solution to the so-called "Iran crisis", but to remove diplomatic hurdles toward a military "solution".

The administration's public gestures of a willingness to negotiate with Iran are rendered utterly meaningless because such alleged negotiations are premised on the condition that Iran suspends its uranium-enrichment program.

Considering the fact that suspension of uranium enrichment, which is altogether within Iran's legitimate rights under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, is supposed to be the main point of negotiations, Iran is asked, in effect, "to concede the main point of the negotiations before they started". [2]

The Bush administration's case against Iran is eerily reminiscent of its case against Iraq in the run-up to the invasion of that country. Accordingly, the case against Iran is based not on any hard evidence provided by the International Atomic Energy Agency, but on dubious allegations that are based on even more dubious sources of intelligence. Iran is asked, in effect, to prove a negative, which is of course mission impossible - hence grounds for "non-compliance" and the rationale for "punishment".

The US administration's case against Iran is so weak, its objectives of a military strike against that country are so fuzzy, and the odds against achieving any kind of meaningful victory are so strong that even professional military experts are speaking up against the plans of a bombing campaign against Iran. [3] Furthermore, predominant expert views of such a bombing campaign maintain that it would more likely hurt than help the geopolitical and economic interests of the United States.

So if the Bush administration's "national interests" argument as grounds for a military strike against Iran is suspect, why then is it so adamantly pushing for such a potentially calamitous confrontation? What are the driving forces behind a military confrontation with Iran?

Critics would almost unanimously point to neo-conservative militarists in and around the Bush administration. While this is obviously not false, as it is the neo-conservative forces that are beating the drums of war with Iran, it falls short of showing the whole picture. In a real sense, it raises the question: Who are the neo-conservatives to begin with? And what or whom do they represent?

The neo-conservative ideologues often claim that their aggressive foreign policy is inspired primarily by democratic ideals and a desire to spread democracy and freedom worldwide - a claim that is far too readily accepted as genuine by corporate media and many foreign-policy circles. This is obviously little more than a masquerade designed to hide some real powerful special interests that lie behind the facade of neo-conservative figures and their ideological rhetoric.

The driving force behind the neo-conservatives' war juggernaut must be sought not in the alleged defense of democracy or of national interests but in the nefarious special interests that are carefully camouflaged behind the front of national interests. These special interests derive lucrative business gains and high dividends from war and militarism. They include both economic interests (famously known as the military-industrial complex) and geopolitical interests (associated largely with Zionist proponents of "Greater Israel" in the Middle East, or the Israeli lobby).

There is an unspoken, de facto alliance between these two extremely powerful interests - an alliance that might be called the military-industrial-Zionist alliance. More than anything else, the alliance is based on a conjunctural convergence of interests on war and international convulsion in the Middle East. Let me elaborate on this point.

The fact that the military-industrial complex, or merchants of arms and wars, flourishes on war and militarism is largely self-evident. Arms industries and powerful beneficiaries of war dividends need an atmosphere of war and international convulsion to maintain continued increases in the Pentagon budget and justify their lion's share of the public money. Viewed in this light, unilateral or "preemptive" wars abroad can easily been seen as reflections of domestic fights over national resources and tax dollars.

In the debate over allocation of public resources between the proverbial guns and butter, or between military and non-military public spending, powerful beneficiaries of war dividends have proved very resourceful in outmaneuvering proponents of limits on military spending.

During the bipolar world of the Cold War era, that was not a difficult act to perform as the rationale - the "communist threat" - readily lay at hand. Justification of increased military spending in the post-Cold War period has prompted these beneficiaries to be even more creative in manufacturing "new sources of danger to US interests" to justify unilateral wars of aggression. It is not surprising, then, that a wide range of "new sources of threat to US national interests" has emerged in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union: "rogue states", "axis of evil", global terrorism, Islamic radicalism, "enemies of democracy", and more.

Just as the powerful beneficiaries of war dividends view international peace and stability as inimical to their business interests, so too the hardline Zionist proponents of "Greater Israel" perceive peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors perilous to their goal of gaining control over the "Promised Land" of Israel. The reason for this fear of peace is that, according to a number of United Nations resolutions, peace would mean Israel's return to its pre-1967 borders; that is, withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

But because proponents of "Greater Israel" are unwilling to withdraw from these territories, they are fearful of peace and genuine dialogue with Palestinians - hence their continued disregard of UN resolutions and their systematic efforts at sabotaging peace negotiations. By the same token, these proponents view war and convulsion (or, as David Ben-Gurion, one of the key founders of the State of Israel, put it, "revolutionary atmosphere") as opportunities that are conducive to the expulsion of Palestinians, to the territorial recasting of the region, and to the expansion of Israel's territory. [4]

The military-industrial-Zionist alliance is represented largely by the cabal of neo-conservative forces in and around the Bush administration. The institutional framework of the alliance consists of a web of closely knit think-tanks that are founded and financed primarily by the armaments lobby and the Israeli lobby. These corporate-backed militaristic think-tanks include the American Enterprise Institute, Center for Security Policy, Middle East Media Research Institute, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Middle East Forum, National Institute for Public Policy and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.

These think-tanks, which might appropriately be called institutes of war and militarism, are staffed and directed mainly by the neo-conservative champions of the military-industrial-Zionist alliance, that is, by the proponents of unilateral wars of aggression. There is strong evidence that the major plans of the Bush administration's foreign policy have been drawn up largely by these think-tanks, often in collaboration, directly or indirectly, with the Pentagon, the arms lobby, and the Israeli lobby. These warmongering think-tanks and their neo-conservative champions serve as direct links, or conveyer belts, between the armaments and Israeli lobbies on the one hand, and the Bush administration and its congressional allies on the other.

Take the Center for Security Policy (CSP), for example. It boasts that "no fewer than 22 former advisory board members are close associates in the Bush administration ... A sixth of the center's revenue comes directly from defense corporations." The center's alumni in key posts in the Bush administration include its former chair of the board, Douglas Feith, who served for more than four years as under secretary of defense for policy, Pentagon comptroller Dov Zakheim, former Defense Policy Board chair Richard Perle, and longtime friend and financial supporter Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

In its 1998 annual report, the center "listed virtually every weapons-maker that had supported it from its founding, from Lockheed, Martin Marietta, Northrop, Grumman and Boeing, to the later 'merged' incarnations of same - Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and so forth". [5]

Likewise, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a major lobbying think-tank for the military-industrial-Zionist alliance, can boast of being the metaphorical alma mater of a number of powerful members of the Bush administration. For example, Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife Lynne Cheney, State Department arms-control official John Bolton (now US ambassador to the UN), and the former chair of the Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle, all have had long-standing ties with the institute.

The AEI played a key role in promoting Ahmad Chalabi's group of Iraqi exiles as a major opposition force "that would be welcomed by the Iraqi people as an alternative to the regime of Saddam Hussein". The group, working closely with the AEI, played an important role in the justification of the invasion of Iraq. It served, for example, as a major source of (largely fabricated) intelligence for the militaristic chicken hawks whenever they found the intelligence gathered by the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department at odds with their plans of invading Iraq. [6]

Another example of the interlocking network of neo-conservative forces in the Bush administration and the militaristic think-tanks that are dedicated to the advancement of the military-industrial-Zionist agenda is reflected in the affiliation of a number of influential members of the administration with the Jewish Institute for the National Security Affairs (JINSA).

These include, for example, Douglas Feith, assistant secretary of defense during the first term of the Bush administration; General Jay Garner, the initial head of the US occupation authority in Iraq; and Michael Ladeen, who unofficially advises the Bush administration on Middle Eastern issues.

JINSA "is on record in its support of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and against the Oslo Accord ... In its fervent support for the hardline, pro-settlement, anti-Palestinian Likud-style policies in Israel, JINSA has essentially recommended that 'regime change' in Iraq should be just the beginning of a cascade of toppling dominoes in the Middle East." [7]

The fact that neo-conservative militarists of the Bush administration are organically rooted in the military-industrial-Zionist alliance is even more clearly reflected in their incestuous relationship with the warmongering think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Like most of its lobbying counterparts within the extensive network of neo-conservative think-tanks, PNAC was founded by a circle of powerful political figures, a number of whom later ascended to key positions in the Bush administration.

The list of signatories of PNAC's founding statement of principles include Elliot Abrams, Jeb Bush, Elliot Cohen, Frank Gaffney, Zalmay Khalilzad, I Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. Add the signature of Cheney to the list of PNAC founders, "and you have the bulwarks of the neo-con network that is currently in the driver's seat of the Bush administration's war-without-end policies all represented in PNAC's founding document". [8]

A closer look at the professional records of the neo-conservative players in the Bush administration indicates that "32 major administration appointees ... are former executives with, consultants for, or significant shareholders of, top defense contractors".

For example, Rumsfeld is an ex-director of a General Dynamics subsidiary, and his deputy during the first term of the Bush administration, Paul Wolfowitz, acted as a paid consultant to Northrop Grumman. Today the armaments lobby "is exerting more influence over policymaking than at any time since president Dwight D Eisenhower first warned of the dangers of the military-industrial complex over 40 years ago". [9]

This sample evidence indicates that the view that the neo-conservative militarists' tendency to war and aggression is inspired by an ideological passion to spread American ideals of democracy is clearly false. Their successful militarization of US foreign policy stems largely from the fact that they in essence operate on behalf of two immensely powerful special interests, the military-industrial complex and the influential Israeli lobby. Neo-conservative architects of war and militarism derive their political clout and policy effectiveness primarily from the political machine and institutional infrastructure of the military-industrial-Zionist alliance.

It is necessary to note at this point that despite its immense political influence, the Zionist lobby is ultimately a junior, not equal, partner in this unspoken, de de facto alliance. Without discounting the extremely important role of the Zionist lobby in the configuration of US foreign policy in the Middle East, I would caution against simplifications and exaggerations of its power and influence over the US policy in the region.

It is true that most of the neo-conservative militarists who have been behind the recent US military aggressions in the Middle East have long been active supporters of Israel's right-wing politicians and/or leaders. It is also no secret that there is a close collaboration over issues of war and militarism among militant Zionism, neo-conservative forces in and around the Bush administration, and jingoistic think-tanks such as AEI, PNAC, CSP and JINSA.

It does not follow, however, that, as some critics argue, the US-Israeli relationship represents a case of "tail wagging the dog", that is, US foreign policy in the Middle East is shaped by the Israeli/Zionist leaders. While no doubt the powerful Zionist lobby exerts considerable influence over US foreign policy in the Middle East, the efficacy and the extent of that influence depend, ultimately, on the real economic and geopolitical interests of US foreign-policy makers.

In other words, US policymakers on the Middle East would go along with the desires and demands of the radical Zionist lobby only if such demands also tended to serve the special interests that those policymakers represented or served, that is, if there were a convergence of interests over those demands. [10]

Aggressive existential tendencies of the US military-industrial empire to war and militarism are shaped by its own internal or intrinsic dynamics: continued need for arms production as a lucrative business whose fortunes depend on permanent war and international convulsion.

Conjunctural or reinforcing factors such as the horrors of the attacks on the US of September 11, 2001, or the Zionist lobby, or the party in power, or the resident of the White House will, no doubt, exert significant influences. But such supporting influences remain in essence contributory, not defining or determining. The decisive or central role is played, ultimately, by the military-industrial complex itself - that is, by the merchants of arms or wars.
Notes
1. See, for example, Seymour M Hersh, The military's problem with the president's Iran policy, The New Yorker (July 10, 2006); Evan Eland, Military action against Iran? Antiwar.com (January 24, 2006).
2. Hersh, "The military's problem with the president's Iran policy".
3. Ibid; see also Ismael Hossein-zadeh, US Iran policy irks senior commanders: The military vs militaristic civilian leadership, OpEdNews.com (July 24, 2006).
4. A detailed discussion of this issue, and of the de facto alliance between militant Zionism and the powerful beneficiaries of war dividends, can be found, among other places, in Chapter 6 of my recently released book, The Political Economy of US Militarism (Palgrave-Macmillan 2006).
5. William D Hartung, How Much Are You Making on the War, Daddy? (New York: Nation Books, 2003), page 101; William Hartung and Michelle Ciarrocca, The military-industrial-think tank complex, Multinational Monitor 24, No 1 and 2 (January/February 2003).
6. Hartung, How Much Are You Making on the War, Daddy? pp 103-106. 7. Ibid pp 109-11.
8. Ibid p 113.
9. William Hartung and Michelle Ciarrocca, "The military-industrial-think tank complex".
10. I have provided a longer discussion of the role of the Zionist lobby in the configuration of the US policy in the Middle East in Chapter 6 of The Political Economy of US Militarism.

Ismael Hossein-zadeh is an economics professor at Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa. This article draws upon his newly released book, The Political Economy of U.S. Militarism (Palgrave-Macmillan Publishers).

Copyright 2006 Asia Times Online

Behind the plan to bomb Iran

By Ismael Hossein-zadeh

08/31/06 "Asia Times" -- --It is no longer a secret that the administration of US President George W Bush has been methodically paving the way toward a bombing strike against Iran. The administration's plans of an aerial military attack against that country have recently been exposed by a number of reliable sources. [1]

There is strong evidence that the US administration's recent public statements that it is now willing to negotiate with Iran are highly disingenuous: they are designed not to reach a diplomatic solution to the so-called "Iran crisis", but to remove diplomatic hurdles toward a military "solution".

The administration's public gestures of a willingness to negotiate with Iran are rendered utterly meaningless because such alleged negotiations are premised on the condition that Iran suspends its uranium-enrichment program.

Considering the fact that suspension of uranium enrichment, which is altogether within Iran's legitimate rights under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, is supposed to be the main point of negotiations, Iran is asked, in effect, "to concede the main point of the negotiations before they started". [2]

The Bush administration's case against Iran is eerily reminiscent of its case against Iraq in the run-up to the invasion of that country. Accordingly, the case against Iran is based not on any hard evidence provided by the International Atomic Energy Agency, but on dubious allegations that are based on even more dubious sources of intelligence. Iran is asked, in effect, to prove a negative, which is of course mission impossible - hence grounds for "non-compliance" and the rationale for "punishment".

The US administration's case against Iran is so weak, its objectives of a military strike against that country are so fuzzy, and the odds against achieving any kind of meaningful victory are so strong that even professional military experts are speaking up against the plans of a bombing campaign against Iran. [3] Furthermore, predominant expert views of such a bombing campaign maintain that it would more likely hurt than help the geopolitical and economic interests of the United States.

So if the Bush administration's "national interests" argument as grounds for a military strike against Iran is suspect, why then is it so adamantly pushing for such a potentially calamitous confrontation? What are the driving forces behind a military confrontation with Iran?

Critics would almost unanimously point to neo-conservative militarists in and around the Bush administration. While this is obviously not false, as it is the neo-conservative forces that are beating the drums of war with Iran, it falls short of showing the whole picture. In a real sense, it raises the question: Who are the neo-conservatives to begin with? And what or whom do they represent?

The neo-conservative ideologues often claim that their aggressive foreign policy is inspired primarily by democratic ideals and a desire to spread democracy and freedom worldwide - a claim that is far too readily accepted as genuine by corporate media and many foreign-policy circles. This is obviously little more than a masquerade designed to hide some real powerful special interests that lie behind the facade of neo-conservative figures and their ideological rhetoric.

The driving force behind the neo-conservatives' war juggernaut must be sought not in the alleged defense of democracy or of national interests but in the nefarious special interests that are carefully camouflaged behind the front of national interests. These special interests derive lucrative business gains and high dividends from war and militarism. They include both economic interests (famously known as the military-industrial complex) and geopolitical interests (associated largely with Zionist proponents of "Greater Israel" in the Middle East, or the Israeli lobby).

There is an unspoken, de facto alliance between these two extremely powerful interests - an alliance that might be called the military-industrial-Zionist alliance. More than anything else, the alliance is based on a conjunctural convergence of interests on war and international convulsion in the Middle East. Let me elaborate on this point.

The fact that the military-industrial complex, or merchants of arms and wars, flourishes on war and militarism is largely self-evident. Arms industries and powerful beneficiaries of war dividends need an atmosphere of war and international convulsion to maintain continued increases in the Pentagon budget and justify their lion's share of the public money. Viewed in this light, unilateral or "preemptive" wars abroad can easily been seen as reflections of domestic fights over national resources and tax dollars.

In the debate over allocation of public resources between the proverbial guns and butter, or between military and non-military public spending, powerful beneficiaries of war dividends have proved very resourceful in outmaneuvering proponents of limits on military spending.

During the bipolar world of the Cold War era, that was not a difficult act to perform as the rationale - the "communist threat" - readily lay at hand. Justification of increased military spending in the post-Cold War period has prompted these beneficiaries to be even more creative in manufacturing "new sources of danger to US interests" to justify unilateral wars of aggression. It is not surprising, then, that a wide range of "new sources of threat to US national interests" has emerged in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union: "rogue states", "axis of evil", global terrorism, Islamic radicalism, "enemies of democracy", and more.

Just as the powerful beneficiaries of war dividends view international peace and stability as inimical to their business interests, so too the hardline Zionist proponents of "Greater Israel" perceive peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors perilous to their goal of gaining control over the "Promised Land" of Israel. The reason for this fear of peace is that, according to a number of United Nations resolutions, peace would mean Israel's return to its pre-1967 borders; that is, withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

But because proponents of "Greater Israel" are unwilling to withdraw from these territories, they are fearful of peace and genuine dialogue with Palestinians - hence their continued disregard of UN resolutions and their systematic efforts at sabotaging peace negotiations. By the same token, these proponents view war and convulsion (or, as David Ben-Gurion, one of the key founders of the State of Israel, put it, "revolutionary atmosphere") as opportunities that are conducive to the expulsion of Palestinians, to the territorial recasting of the region, and to the expansion of Israel's territory. [4]

The military-industrial-Zionist alliance is represented largely by the cabal of neo-conservative forces in and around the Bush administration. The institutional framework of the alliance consists of a web of closely knit think-tanks that are founded and financed primarily by the armaments lobby and the Israeli lobby. These corporate-backed militaristic think-tanks include the American Enterprise Institute, Center for Security Policy, Middle East Media Research Institute, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Middle East Forum, National Institute for Public Policy and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.

These think-tanks, which might appropriately be called institutes of war and militarism, are staffed and directed mainly by the neo-conservative champions of the military-industrial-Zionist alliance, that is, by the proponents of unilateral wars of aggression. There is strong evidence that the major plans of the Bush administration's foreign policy have been drawn up largely by these think-tanks, often in collaboration, directly or indirectly, with the Pentagon, the arms lobby, and the Israeli lobby. These warmongering think-tanks and their neo-conservative champions serve as direct links, or conveyer belts, between the armaments and Israeli lobbies on the one hand, and the Bush administration and its congressional allies on the other.

Take the Center for Security Policy (CSP), for example. It boasts that "no fewer than 22 former advisory board members are close associates in the Bush administration ... A sixth of the center's revenue comes directly from defense corporations." The center's alumni in key posts in the Bush administration include its former chair of the board, Douglas Feith, who served for more than four years as under secretary of defense for policy, Pentagon comptroller Dov Zakheim, former Defense Policy Board chair Richard Perle, and longtime friend and financial supporter Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

In its 1998 annual report, the center "listed virtually every weapons-maker that had supported it from its founding, from Lockheed, Martin Marietta, Northrop, Grumman and Boeing, to the later 'merged' incarnations of same - Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and so forth". [5]

Likewise, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a major lobbying think-tank for the military-industrial-Zionist alliance, can boast of being the metaphorical alma mater of a number of powerful members of the Bush administration. For example, Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife Lynne Cheney, State Department arms-control official John Bolton (now US ambassador to the UN), and the former chair of the Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle, all have had long-standing ties with the institute.

The AEI played a key role in promoting Ahmad Chalabi's group of Iraqi exiles as a major opposition force "that would be welcomed by the Iraqi people as an alternative to the regime of Saddam Hussein". The group, working closely with the AEI, played an important role in the justification of the invasion of Iraq. It served, for example, as a major source of (largely fabricated) intelligence for the militaristic chicken hawks whenever they found the intelligence gathered by the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department at odds with their plans of invading Iraq. [6]

Another example of the interlocking network of neo-conservative forces in the Bush administration and the militaristic think-tanks that are dedicated to the advancement of the military-industrial-Zionist agenda is reflected in the affiliation of a number of influential members of the administration with the Jewish Institute for the National Security Affairs (JINSA).

These include, for example, Douglas Feith, assistant secretary of defense during the first term of the Bush administration; General Jay Garner, the initial head of the US occupation authority in Iraq; and Michael Ladeen, who unofficially advises the Bush administration on Middle Eastern issues.

JINSA "is on record in its support of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and against the Oslo Accord ... In its fervent support for the hardline, pro-settlement, anti-Palestinian Likud-style policies in Israel, JINSA has essentially recommended that 'regime change' in Iraq should be just the beginning of a cascade of toppling dominoes in the Middle East." [7]

The fact that neo-conservative militarists of the Bush administration are organically rooted in the military-industrial-Zionist alliance is even more clearly reflected in their incestuous relationship with the warmongering think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Like most of its lobbying counterparts within the extensive network of neo-conservative think-tanks, PNAC was founded by a circle of powerful political figures, a number of whom later ascended to key positions in the Bush administration.

The list of signatories of PNAC's founding statement of principles include Elliot Abrams, Jeb Bush, Elliot Cohen, Frank Gaffney, Zalmay Khalilzad, I Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. Add the signature of Cheney to the list of PNAC founders, "and you have the bulwarks of the neo-con network that is currently in the driver's seat of the Bush administration's war-without-end policies all represented in PNAC's founding document". [8]

A closer look at the professional records of the neo-conservative players in the Bush administration indicates that "32 major administration appointees ... are former executives with, consultants for, or significant shareholders of, top defense contractors".

For example, Rumsfeld is an ex-director of a General Dynamics subsidiary, and his deputy during the first term of the Bush administration, Paul Wolfowitz, acted as a paid consultant to Northrop Grumman. Today the armaments lobby "is exerting more influence over policymaking than at any time since president Dwight D Eisenhower first warned of the dangers of the military-industrial complex over 40 years ago". [9]

This sample evidence indicates that the view that the neo-conservative militarists' tendency to war and aggression is inspired by an ideological passion to spread American ideals of democracy is clearly false. Their successful militarization of US foreign policy stems largely from the fact that they in essence operate on behalf of two immensely powerful special interests, the military-industrial complex and the influential Israeli lobby. Neo-conservative architects of war and militarism derive their political clout and policy effectiveness primarily from the political machine and institutional infrastructure of the military-industrial-Zionist alliance.

It is necessary to note at this point that despite its immense political influence, the Zionist lobby is ultimately a junior, not equal, partner in this unspoken, de de facto alliance. Without discounting the extremely important role of the Zionist lobby in the configuration of US foreign policy in the Middle East, I would caution against simplifications and exaggerations of its power and influence over the US policy in the region.

It is true that most of the neo-conservative militarists who have been behind the recent US military aggressions in the Middle East have long been active supporters of Israel's right-wing politicians and/or leaders. It is also no secret that there is a close collaboration over issues of war and militarism among militant Zionism, neo-conservative forces in and around the Bush administration, and jingoistic think-tanks such as AEI, PNAC, CSP and JINSA.

It does not follow, however, that, as some critics argue, the US-Israeli relationship represents a case of "tail wagging the dog", that is, US foreign policy in the Middle East is shaped by the Israeli/Zionist leaders. While no doubt the powerful Zionist lobby exerts considerable influence over US foreign policy in the Middle East, the efficacy and the extent of that influence depend, ultimately, on the real economic and geopolitical interests of US foreign-policy makers.

In other words, US policymakers on the Middle East would go along with the desires and demands of the radical Zionist lobby only if such demands also tended to serve the special interests that those policymakers represented or served, that is, if there were a convergence of interests over those demands. [10]

Aggressive existential tendencies of the US military-industrial empire to war and militarism are shaped by its own internal or intrinsic dynamics: continued need for arms production as a lucrative business whose fortunes depend on permanent war and international convulsion.

Conjunctural or reinforcing factors such as the horrors of the attacks on the US of September 11, 2001, or the Zionist lobby, or the party in power, or the resident of the White House will, no doubt, exert significant influences. But such supporting influences remain in essence contributory, not defining or determining. The decisive or central role is played, ultimately, by the military-industrial complex itself - that is, by the merchants of arms or wars.
Notes
1. See, for example, Seymour M Hersh, The military's problem with the president's Iran policy, The New Yorker (July 10, 2006); Evan Eland, Military action against Iran? Antiwar.com (January 24, 2006).
2. Hersh, "The military's problem with the president's Iran policy".
3. Ibid; see also Ismael Hossein-zadeh, US Iran policy irks senior commanders: The military vs militaristic civilian leadership, OpEdNews.com (July 24, 2006).
4. A detailed discussion of this issue, and of the de facto alliance between militant Zionism and the powerful beneficiaries of war dividends, can be found, among other places, in Chapter 6 of my recently released book, The Political Economy of US Militarism (Palgrave-Macmillan 2006).
5. William D Hartung, How Much Are You Making on the War, Daddy? (New York: Nation Books, 2003), page 101; William Hartung and Michelle Ciarrocca, The military-industrial-think tank complex, Multinational Monitor 24, No 1 and 2 (January/February 2003).
6. Hartung, How Much Are You Making on the War, Daddy? pp 103-106. 7. Ibid pp 109-11.
8. Ibid p 113.
9. William Hartung and Michelle Ciarrocca, "The military-industrial-think tank complex".
10. I have provided a longer discussion of the role of the Zionist lobby in the configuration of the US policy in the Middle East in Chapter 6 of The Political Economy of US Militarism.

Ismael Hossein-zadeh is an economics professor at Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa. This article draws upon his newly released book, The Political Economy of U.S. Militarism (Palgrave-Macmillan Publishers).

Copyright 2006 Asia Times Online

Human Rights Activists in Iran
Hra.iran@gmail.com
www.Hra-iran.blogfa.com
Tel : 0031620720193

To the name of Democracy

Urgent action is needed to help save three (3) political prisoners.
Attentions: human right defenders all around the world, as hole world watching the

War between Israel and Lebanon, and both were fighting for the winner!

In Iran, freedom fighters have been arrested, and Iranian Regime demolishing the democracy in Iran.
Akbar Mohamadi one of the political prisoners in Evin Prison has been tortured and murdered because of his political beliefs.
The "mysterious" death of Akbar Mohamadi fought for democracy and his right to state his political view.

This case made the human right defenders in Iran struggle for their rights and freedom of speech perilously. The Iranian regime has unjustly ignored the human rights violation in Iran. Other political prisoners Ahamd Batebi, Keyvan rafiee and Yaser majidi are under the pressure and torture of SAVAMA (THE IRANIAN INTELEGENT SERVICE AND SECRET POLICE). Their fate could seemingly be a similar death to Akbar Mohamadi.

One of the students Ahamd Batebi is on hunger struck for 20 days and according to the GP (doctor) who checked up on him, said if he continues the hunger strike he will most likely receive a heart attack or be paralyzed.
Ahamd Batebi was in the terror of the Iranian jail for a few years, receiving heavy health problems during his stay in jail. The story of Akbar Mohamadi's life could possibly happen to him.
Yaser majidi, who has been arrested in 01/02/80 because he was a follower of Mojahedin leaving him to be tortured physically and mentally.
They exiled him to Birjand jail among the drug addicts and smugglers. How ever, Yaser majidi was repetitively told he was banned from seeing his family and was dangerously threatened to be killed.

Being threatened by the prisoners and jail guards, his family was also threatened, also being pressured. And they are asking him to speak to Media and say what ever Iranian regime said and dictated to him by THE IRANIAN INTELEGENT SERVICE AND SECRET POLICE to say so….
He is in the Birjand jail which is notorious for being known as the last hell. Kayvan rafiee one of the many human right activists was arrested on 18Teer 1385 sent him to cell 209 Evin being brutally tortured but remained strong to repeat the nightmare to his family and friends. An Intelligent Service threatened his family and stopped the family from bringing a qualified solicitor to speak on Kayvan's behalf.

Human right activists are now pleading for your support and help from everyone around the world to stop this reign of terror.
Don't let them be brutally murdered, save their lives.



The copy to:
Amnesty international

Human Rights Watch

Mr Kofi Annan
United Nations Secretary General

Ms. Louise Arbour
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights


Human Rights Activists in Iran
Hra.iran@gmail.com
www.Hra-iran.blogfa.com
Tel: 0031620720
Sadegh Naghashkar spokesman

PUBLIC AI Index: MDE 13/116/2006
03 October 2006

UA 265/06 Arbitrary detention/fear for safety/possible prisoner of conscience

IRAN Keyvan Rafi'i (m), human rights defender

Kheyrollah Derakhshandi (m), member of the Alumni Association of Iran and former student activist
Abolfazl Jahandar (m), journalist and former student activist
Dr Keyvan Ansari (m), Central Council member of the Alumni Association of Iran

The four men named above, all human rights defenders or former student activists, are all believed to be detained in Section 209 in Evin Prison in Tehran, where they are at risk of torture or ill-treatment. None of those detained has been granted access to a lawyer. They may be prisoners of conscience, held solely on account of their defence of human rights or their peaceful political activities.

Keyvan Rafi’i is the spokesman in Iran for an organization called Human Rights Activists in Iran. He was arrested on the street on 9 July. The exact reasons for his arrest are not known, but it is feared it may be in connection with his activities to publicize human rights violations in Iran. On or around 25 September, he was granted a short family visit during which he complained to his family about the conditions in which he is being held. He has reportedly been on a hunger strike since 23 September in protest at his continued detention without charge and his treatment in detention.

Kheyrollah Derakhshandi, a graduate in industrial management, and Abolfazl Jahandar were reportedly arrested on 19 August, along with two other men who were later released. Abolfazl Jahandar was a member of the general council of the Office for Fostering Unity (Daftar-e Tahkim-e Vahdat), a student organization, before his graduation and is now a journalist who writes for the website Pooya News (www.pooyanews.com). On 29 August, Kheyrollah Derakhshandi’s father reportedly said, “we have not been able to have any contacts with him since he was arrested. The entire family has gathered in front of Evin prison a number of times but we were told that we don't have permission to see him…our only information came from one of the representatives of the Revolutionary Court who told us … that he is being held in section 209 of Evin prison.” Since then, Kheyrollah Derakhshandi has reportedly been granted a family visit, but it is not clear whether Abolfazl Jahandar has received a visit from his relatives.

Dr Keyvan Ansari was reportedly arrested on 18 September outside his house. He is a member of the Alumni Association of Iran (Sazman-e Danesh Amukhtegan-e Iran-e Eslami [Advar-e Tahkim-e Vahdat]). He was able to telephone his family some time later and reportedly said that he was being held in solitary confinement in Section 209 of Evin Prison. His family has not yet been allowed to see him.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
On 5 September Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, gave a speech to a selected group of students, saying, “Our education system has been under the influence of secular and arrogant thinking for 150 years in a way that self-belief and identity were ignored and efforts were made to promote a secular system and secular thoughts in society… I tell young people that changing the secular teaching regime that has dominated for 150 years is a difficult thing … We need to do it together. Measures have been taken before, but it is not sufficient”. A number of students have been denied permission to return to university for the new academic year, apparently because of their political activities.

Sayed Ali Akbar Mousavi-Kho’ini, the Head of the Alumni Association of Iran, has been detained without charge in Section 209 since 12 June 2006 and has reportedly been tortured and ill-treated (see UA 181/06, MDE 13/075/2006, 30 June 2006, and follow-up). The Alumni Association, whose membership is open to graduates of Iranian universities, has been active in promoting democracy and human rights in Iran. The office of the Alumni Association was raided by security forces on 18 September, and computers and other office equipment was seized. The association’s website, www.advarnews.com, which posted news about the student movement and human rights, was forced to close, but has since reopened on www.advarnews.us.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Please send appeals to arrive as quickly as possible, in Persian, Arabic, English, French or your own language:
- expressing concern for the safety of Keyvan Rafi’i, Kheyrollah Derakhshandi, Abolfazl Jahandar and Dr Keyvan Ansari, and seeking assurances that they are not being tortured or ill-treated;
- calling on the authorities to release them immediately and unconditionally if they are held solely for their activities in defending human rights or other peaceful political activities or otherwise to promptly charge them with a recognizably criminal offence and to give them a fair trial;
- urging the authorities to grant them immediate and regular access to their families, lawyers of their choice and to any medical treatment they may require;
- urging the authorities to end any harassment of student or human rights organizations solely in connection with their peaceful defence of human rights or other peaceful political activities.

APPEALS TO:
Leader of the Islamic Republic
His Excellency Ayatollah Sayed ‘Ali Khamenei, The Office of the Supreme Leader
Shoahada Street, Qom, Islamic Republic of Iran
Email: info@leader.ir
istiftaa@wilayah.org
Salutation: Your Excellency

Minister of Intelligence
Gholam Hossein Mohseni Ejeie
Ministry of Intelligence, Second Negarestan Street, Pasdaran Avenue, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran
Email: iranprobe@iranprobe.com
Salutation: Your Excellency

Head of the Judiciary
His Excellency Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi
Ministry of Justice, Park-e Shahr, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran
Email: Please send emails via the feedback form on the Persian site of the website:
http://www.iranjudiciary.org/contactus-feedback-fa.html
(The text of the feedback form translates as: 1st line: name, 2nd line: email address, 3rd line: subject heading, then enter your email into the text box)
Salutation: Your Excellency

COPIES TO:
President
His Excellency Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
The Presidency, Palestine Avenue, Azerbaijan Intersection, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran
Email: dr-ahmadinejad@president.ir
or via website: www.president.ir/email

Speaker of Parliament
His Excellency Gholamali Haddad Adel
Majles-e Shoura-ye Eslami, Imam Khomeini Avenue, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran
Fax: + 98 21 6 646 1746

and to diplomatic representatives of Iran accredited to your country.

PLEASE SEND APPEALS IMMEDIATELY. Check with the International Secretariat, or your section office, if sending appeals after 14 November 2006.

Behind the plan to bomb Iran

By Ismael Hossein-zadeh

08/31/06 "Asia Times" -- --It is no longer a secret that the administration of US President George W Bush has been methodically paving the way toward a bombing strike against Iran. The administration's plans of an aerial military attack against that country have recently been exposed by a number of reliable sources. [1]

There is strong evidence that the US administration's recent public statements that it is now willing to negotiate with Iran are highly disingenuous: they are designed not to reach a diplomatic solution to the so-called "Iran crisis", but to remove diplomatic hurdles toward a military "solution".

The administration's public gestures of a willingness to negotiate with Iran are rendered utterly meaningless because such alleged negotiations are premised on the condition that Iran suspends its uranium-enrichment program.

Considering the fact that suspension of uranium enrichment, which is altogether within Iran's legitimate rights under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, is supposed to be the main point of negotiations, Iran is asked, in effect, "to concede the main point of the negotiations before they started". [2]

The Bush administration's case against Iran is eerily reminiscent of its case against Iraq in the run-up to the invasion of that country. Accordingly, the case against Iran is based not on any hard evidence provided by the International Atomic Energy Agency, but on dubious allegations that are based on even more dubious sources of intelligence. Iran is asked, in effect, to prove a negative, which is of course mission impossible - hence grounds for "non-compliance" and the rationale for "punishment".

The US administration's case against Iran is so weak, its objectives of a military strike against that country are so fuzzy, and the odds against achieving any kind of meaningful victory are so strong that even professional military experts are speaking up against the plans of a bombing campaign against Iran. [3] Furthermore, predominant expert views of such a bombing campaign maintain that it would more likely hurt than help the geopolitical and economic interests of the United States.

So if the Bush administration's "national interests" argument as grounds for a military strike against Iran is suspect, why then is it so adamantly pushing for such a potentially calamitous confrontation? What are the driving forces behind a military confrontation with Iran?

Critics would almost unanimously point to neo-conservative militarists in and around the Bush administration. While this is obviously not false, as it is the neo-conservative forces that are beating the drums of war with Iran, it falls short of showing the whole picture. In a real sense, it raises the question: Who are the neo-conservatives to begin with? And what or whom do they represent?

The neo-conservative ideologues often claim that their aggressive foreign policy is inspired primarily by democratic ideals and a desire to spread democracy and freedom worldwide - a claim that is far too readily accepted as genuine by corporate media and many foreign-policy circles. This is obviously little more than a masquerade designed to hide some real powerful special interests that lie behind the facade of neo-conservative figures and their ideological rhetoric.

The driving force behind the neo-conservatives' war juggernaut must be sought not in the alleged defense of democracy or of national interests but in the nefarious special interests that are carefully camouflaged behind the front of national interests. These special interests derive lucrative business gains and high dividends from war and militarism. They include both economic interests (famously known as the military-industrial complex) and geopolitical interests (associated largely with Zionist proponents of "Greater Israel" in the Middle East, or the Israeli lobby).

There is an unspoken, de facto alliance between these two extremely powerful interests - an alliance that might be called the military-industrial-Zionist alliance. More than anything else, the alliance is based on a conjunctural convergence of interests on war and international convulsion in the Middle East. Let me elaborate on this point.

The fact that the military-industrial complex, or merchants of arms and wars, flourishes on war and militarism is largely self-evident. Arms industries and powerful beneficiaries of war dividends need an atmosphere of war and international convulsion to maintain continued increases in the Pentagon budget and justify their lion's share of the public money. Viewed in this light, unilateral or "preemptive" wars abroad can easily been seen as reflections of domestic fights over national resources and tax dollars.

In the debate over allocation of public resources between the proverbial guns and butter, or between military and non-military public spending, powerful beneficiaries of war dividends have proved very resourceful in outmaneuvering proponents of limits on military spending.

During the bipolar world of the Cold War era, that was not a difficult act to perform as the rationale - the "communist threat" - readily lay at hand. Justification of increased military spending in the post-Cold War period has prompted these beneficiaries to be even more creative in manufacturing "new sources of danger to US interests" to justify unilateral wars of aggression. It is not surprising, then, that a wide range of "new sources of threat to US national interests" has emerged in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union: "rogue states", "axis of evil", global terrorism, Islamic radicalism, "enemies of democracy", and more.

Just as the powerful beneficiaries of war dividends view international peace and stability as inimical to their business interests, so too the hardline Zionist proponents of "Greater Israel" perceive peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors perilous to their goal of gaining control over the "Promised Land" of Israel. The reason for this fear of peace is that, according to a number of United Nations resolutions, peace would mean Israel's return to its pre-1967 borders; that is, withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

But because proponents of "Greater Israel" are unwilling to withdraw from these territories, they are fearful of peace and genuine dialogue with Palestinians - hence their continued disregard of UN resolutions and their systematic efforts at sabotaging peace negotiations. By the same token, these proponents view war and convulsion (or, as David Ben-Gurion, one of the key founders of the State of Israel, put it, "revolutionary atmosphere") as opportunities that are conducive to the expulsion of Palestinians, to the territorial recasting of the region, and to the expansion of Israel's territory. [4]

The military-industrial-Zionist alliance is represented largely by the cabal of neo-conservative forces in and around the Bush administration. The institutional framework of the alliance consists of a web of closely knit think-tanks that are founded and financed primarily by the armaments lobby and the Israeli lobby. These corporate-backed militaristic think-tanks include the American Enterprise Institute, Center for Security Policy, Middle East Media Research Institute, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Middle East Forum, National Institute for Public Policy and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.

These think-tanks, which might appropriately be called institutes of war and militarism, are staffed and directed mainly by the neo-conservative champions of the military-industrial-Zionist alliance, that is, by the proponents of unilateral wars of aggression. There is strong evidence that the major plans of the Bush administration's foreign policy have been drawn up largely by these think-tanks, often in collaboration, directly or indirectly, with the Pentagon, the arms lobby, and the Israeli lobby. These warmongering think-tanks and their neo-conservative champions serve as direct links, or conveyer belts, between the armaments and Israeli lobbies on the one hand, and the Bush administration and its congressional allies on the other.

Take the Center for Security Policy (CSP), for example. It boasts that "no fewer than 22 former advisory board members are close associates in the Bush administration ... A sixth of the center's revenue comes directly from defense corporations." The center's alumni in key posts in the Bush administration include its former chair of the board, Douglas Feith, who served for more than four years as under secretary of defense for policy, Pentagon comptroller Dov Zakheim, former Defense Policy Board chair Richard Perle, and longtime friend and financial supporter Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

In its 1998 annual report, the center "listed virtually every weapons-maker that had supported it from its founding, from Lockheed, Martin Marietta, Northrop, Grumman and Boeing, to the later 'merged' incarnations of same - Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and so forth". [5]

Likewise, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a major lobbying think-tank for the military-industrial-Zionist alliance, can boast of being the metaphorical alma mater of a number of powerful members of the Bush administration. For example, Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife Lynne Cheney, State Department arms-control official John Bolton (now US ambassador to the UN), and the former chair of the Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle, all have had long-standing ties with the institute.

The AEI played a key role in promoting Ahmad Chalabi's group of Iraqi exiles as a major opposition force "that would be welcomed by the Iraqi people as an alternative to the regime of Saddam Hussein". The group, working closely with the AEI, played an important role in the justification of the invasion of Iraq. It served, for example, as a major source of (largely fabricated) intelligence for the militaristic chicken hawks whenever they found the intelligence gathered by the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department at odds with their plans of invading Iraq. [6]

Another example of the interlocking network of neo-conservative forces in the Bush administration and the militaristic think-tanks that are dedicated to the advancement of the military-industrial-Zionist agenda is reflected in the affiliation of a number of influential members of the administration with the Jewish Institute for the National Security Affairs (JINSA).

These include, for example, Douglas Feith, assistant secretary of defense during the first term of the Bush administration; General Jay Garner, the initial head of the US occupation authority in Iraq; and Michael Ladeen, who unofficially advises the Bush administration on Middle Eastern issues.

JINSA "is on record in its support of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and against the Oslo Accord ... In its fervent support for the hardline, pro-settlement, anti-Palestinian Likud-style policies in Israel, JINSA has essentially recommended that 'regime change' in Iraq should be just the beginning of a cascade of toppling dominoes in the Middle East." [7]

The fact that neo-conservative militarists of the Bush administration are organically rooted in the military-industrial-Zionist alliance is even more clearly reflected in their incestuous relationship with the warmongering think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Like most of its lobbying counterparts within the extensive network of neo-conservative think-tanks, PNAC was founded by a circle of powerful political figures, a number of whom later ascended to key positions in the Bush administration.

The list of signatories of PNAC's founding statement of principles include Elliot Abrams, Jeb Bush, Elliot Cohen, Frank Gaffney, Zalmay Khalilzad, I Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. Add the signature of Cheney to the list of PNAC founders, "and you have the bulwarks of the neo-con network that is currently in the driver's seat of the Bush administration's war-without-end policies all represented in PNAC's founding document". [8]

A closer look at the professional records of the neo-conservative players in the Bush administration indicates that "32 major administration appointees ... are former executives with, consultants for, or significant shareholders of, top defense contractors".

For example, Rumsfeld is an ex-director of a General Dynamics subsidiary, and his deputy during the first term of the Bush administration, Paul Wolfowitz, acted as a paid consultant to Northrop Grumman. Today the armaments lobby "is exerting more influence over policymaking than at any time since president Dwight D Eisenhower first warned of the dangers of the military-industrial complex over 40 years ago". [9]

This sample evidence indicates that the view that the neo-conservative militarists' tendency to war and aggression is inspired by an ideological passion to spread American ideals of democracy is clearly false. Their successful militarization of US foreign policy stems largely from the fact that they in essence operate on behalf of two immensely powerful special interests, the military-industrial complex and the influential Israeli lobby. Neo-conservative architects of war and militarism derive their political clout and policy effectiveness primarily from the political machine and institutional infrastructure of the military-industrial-Zionist alliance.

It is necessary to note at this point that despite its immense political influence, the Zionist lobby is ultimately a junior, not equal, partner in this unspoken, de de facto alliance. Without discounting the extremely important role of the Zionist lobby in the configuration of US foreign policy in the Middle East, I would caution against simplifications and exaggerations of its power and influence over the US policy in the region.

It is true that most of the neo-conservative militarists who have been behind the recent US military aggressions in the Middle East have long been active supporters of Israel's right-wing politicians and/or leaders. It is also no secret that there is a close collaboration over issues of war and militarism among militant Zionism, neo-conservative forces in and around the Bush administration, and jingoistic think-tanks such as AEI, PNAC, CSP and JINSA.

It does not follow, however, that, as some critics argue, the US-Israeli relationship represents a case of "tail wagging the dog", that is, US foreign policy in the Middle East is shaped by the Israeli/Zionist leaders. While no doubt the powerful Zionist lobby exerts considerable influence over US foreign policy in the Middle East, the efficacy and the extent of that influence depend, ultimately, on the real economic and geopolitical interests of US foreign-policy makers.

In other words, US policymakers on the Middle East would go along with the desires and demands of the radical Zionist lobby only if such demands also tended to serve the special interests that those policymakers represented or served, that is, if there were a convergence of interests over those demands. [10]

Aggressive existential tendencies of the US military-industrial empire to war and militarism are shaped by its own internal or intrinsic dynamics: continued need for arms production as a lucrative business whose fortunes depend on permanent war and international convulsion.

Conjunctural or reinforcing factors such as the horrors of the attacks on the US of September 11, 2001, or the Zionist lobby, or the party in power, or the resident of the White House will, no doubt, exert significant influences. But such supporting influences remain in essence contributory, not defining or determining. The decisive or central role is played, ultimately, by the military-industrial complex itself - that is, by the merchants of arms or wars.
Notes
1. See, for example, Seymour M Hersh, The military's problem with the president's Iran policy, The New Yorker (July 10, 2006); Evan Eland, Military action against Iran? Antiwar.com (January 24, 2006).
2. Hersh, "The military's problem with the president's Iran policy".
3. Ibid; see also Ismael Hossein-zadeh, US Iran policy irks senior commanders: The military vs militaristic civilian leadership, OpEdNews.com (July 24, 2006).
4. A detailed discussion of this issue, and of the de facto alliance between militant Zionism and the powerful beneficiaries of war dividends, can be found, among other places, in Chapter 6 of my recently released book, The Political Economy of US Militarism (Palgrave-Macmillan 2006).
5. William D Hartung, How Much Are You Making on the War, Daddy? (New York: Nation Books, 2003), page 101; William Hartung and Michelle Ciarrocca, The military-industrial-think tank complex, Multinational Monitor 24, No 1 and 2 (January/February 2003).
6. Hartung, How Much Are You Making on the War, Daddy? pp 103-106. 7. Ibid pp 109-11.
8. Ibid p 113.
9. William Hartung and Michelle Ciarrocca, "The military-industrial-think tank complex".
10. I have provided a longer discussion of the role of the Zionist lobby in the configuration of the US policy in the Middle East in Chapter 6 of The Political Economy of US Militarism.

Ismael Hossein-zadeh is an economics professor at Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa. This article draws upon his newly released book, The Political Economy of U.S. Militarism (Palgrave-Macmillan Publishers).

Copyright 2006 Asia Times Online

To :United Nations and Other Human Rights Organizations
- Scottish Commissioner for Human Right

s
-

Honestly, what are the Iranian students and youth wanting, is it anything more than just freedom?
In the past few months it has been witnessed by our members in Iran, the oppression of the Iranian students and the student movement by the Islamic Regime in Iran. For example Mr. Ansari, Mr. Derakhshandi and Mr. Jahandar, three (3) students, and members of The Committee of Iranian Students (Tahkime Vahdat) have been arrested, tortured and have been kept in solitary confinement for months without any of their basic rights or need being met.
We have also witnessed the oppression of the Islamic Student Associations in Alame Tabatabai University by the intelligence ministry officials and the arrest of two members of Islamic Students Association named Saeed Feyze Alhi and Mazyar Samiee. Further more than 14 students have been expelled from the Alame University while 93 students have been banned from further studies and from entering the University grounds by the University "Disciplinary Committee" at the Private Islamic Karaj University.
Also organization and activities of student organizations in Tabriz University have been suspended, as well,

the general secretary Mr. Younes Zareyvun has been summoned to the revolutionary courts.
Student elections have been prevented and other oppressive measures towards student activists at Tabriz University are under way.
Another student activist Soleyman Sima (General Secretary of Islamic Students Association at Tehran University) has been suspended from university for one term and is no longer allowed to study at Tehran University. To further his studies he can only attend Karaj University. Furthermore elections for Islamic Student Association at Azad Shahr University have been cancelled and the general secretary of the group Mr. Saeed Mehdi Khoday has been suspended for a period of one term from university. As well as Mr. Khosrovani who was a running candidate for this organization has been suspended for one term. We have also seen the suspension of four other student activists in Sanandaj University.

About a month ago certain articles which were deemed to be anti-regime and anti Islamic were published in 4 Amir Kabir University Papers. Shortly after the publication of these articles the editors of these papers wrote and published a joint statement, stating that the articles were not written by the students and denied any involvement in the publication of these articles. However the Islamic Regime has paid no attention to this joint statement, and has turned Amir Kabir University grounds into an army base, by posting a large number of security officials on the university grounds.

Because of their political activities in various Islamic Student Associations the Students of Amir Kabir University have been under the domination and repression of the Islamic Regime. During a recent speech made by the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Amir Kabir University the students staged a protest and set fire to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s picture. Currently Amir Kabir University resembles an army base with the presence of an unreasonable large group of security forces.

On the 29th of Ordibehesth two Amir Kabir University students Ismail Salmanpour and Arman Sedaghati, who had been suspended from University due to their political activities were attacked and beaten by Islamic Regime guards, to the extent where they had to be taken to the hospital.

More then 40 other students have been summoned by the disciplinary committee and either suspended or expelled from Amir Kabir University.

Nariman Mostafari, Naser Pouyafar, and Hossein Tarkashvand have been summoned to court for their student activities.

The Islamic Regime represses student activists through summoning them to revolutionary courts for interrogation, by arresting them on their way or back from university or by entering their homes without a warrant, seizing their personal belongings and taking them to s. 209 of the Evin Prison which is under the direct control of the Ministry of Intelligence.

In the past few months 8 other Amir Kabir University students have been arrested and taken to s. 209 of the
Evin Prison. The names of these students are Ahmad Ghasaban (Editor of Sahar newspaper), Majid Sheykpour (Editor of Sare Khat newspaper), Pouyan Mahmoudiyan (Editor of Rayvar newspaper), Majid Tavakoli, Ehsan Mansouri, Abbas Hakimzadeh and Ali Sabri.
Furthermore the health and well being of Mr. Abbas Hakimzadeh is in severe danger due to his recent back operation. According to his doctor he should not be kept in one place for long and any physical attack he may be subjected to in prison can be extremely dangerous and life threatening.

There is also great concern for the health and well being of Ehsan Mansouri who as a result of torture is suffering from a broken ankle and has not been allowed to obtain the necessary medical attention that he needs.
We the undersigned urge the United Nations, Human Rights Watch as well as all other human rights organizations to condemn the treatment of imprisoned students including physical and psychological torture and to request the immediate and unconditional release of all students.
Organisation Defending Human Rights In North West of Iran and Human Right Activists group in Iran is requesting other human right activists’ in the world which want to help deep down and make peace in the world to pressure the Iranian regime as much as they can. Honestly, what are the students in Iran wanting, is it anything more than just freedom? Organisation Defending Human Rights In North West of Iran is requesting from all governments to not support the Iranian regime in any way and to cut off any kind of business with them and also to help the Iranian people who truly looking to become free. We are warning that the Iranian regime is getting worse and worse each day and is becoming the most dangerous thing and if the regime is not stopped and destroyed, it is going to get worse. The dangers that may occur are not just within Iran but also round about or even the whole world. We are saying that the Iranian regime has to be destroyed and are certain that the world and the Asia will not have peace until the Iranian regime is destroyed.
In the hope of world peace and in my own country, Iran.
We are looking forward to hearing from you and your help.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Mr. A.Mahmodhojatoleslami
President of Organisation Defending Human Rights In North West of Iran


Hello and very welcome to www.azarpressnews.org Established December 2005

18052007

URGENT ACTION Amnesty International

AC AU 021/05-2 - AI Index: MDE 13/069/2007 – ÉFAI - 7 juin 2007

AC AU 021/05-2 IRAN
Action complémentaire sur l’AU 21/05 (MDE 13/003/2005, 25 janvier 2005) et sa mise à jour (MDE 13/102/2006, 14 septembre 2006)
Peine de mort / Procès inique / Craintes d’exécution imminente / Préoc-cupations pour la santé

Khaled Hardani (h)
Shahram Pourmansouri (h)
Farhang Pourmansouri (h)


La date d’exécution de Khaled Hardani aurait été fixée au 4 juillet. Il a été condamné à mort pour le rôle qu’il a joué, en janvier 2001, dans le détournement d’un avion de 30 places.
Les services d’application des jugements de la 6e chambre du tribunal révolutionnaire de Téhéran auraient confirmé cette date le 2 juin et indiqué que Khaled Hardani avait été officiellement informé de cette décision. Il serait détenu à la prison de Rajai Shahr, à Karadj, à une cinquantaine de kilomètres à l’ouest de Téhéran.
Khaled Hardani fait partie des 11 membres d’une famille élargie ayant tenté de détourner un avion qui devait effectuer un vol régulier entre Ahvaz et Bandar Abbas, deux villes du sud de l’Iran, afin de contraindre l’équipage à atterrir à Doubaï, dans les Émirats arabes unis. Des agents de sécurité qui étaient à bord ont mis fin à cette tentative alors que l’appareil se trouvait encore sur la piste à Ahvaz et auraient tiré sur Khaled Har-dani lors de l’opération. Selon les informations recueillies, cet homme et ses proches cherchaient à échapper à la pauvreté et à la situation désespérée dans laquelle ils se trouvaient en tant que membres de la minorité arabe en Iran. Khaled Hardani a été condamné à la peine capitale, de même que ses beaux-frères, Shahram et Farhang Pourmansouri, pour « actes nuisant à la sécurité nationale » et « inimitié à l'égard de Dieu », et non pour des infractions spécifiquement liées au détournement d’avion. Au moment des faits, Shahram et Farhang Pourmansouri étaient respectivement âgés de dix-sept et dix-huit ans.
L’exécution de Khaled Hardani par pendaison était prévue le 19 janvier 2005, mais le responsable du pouvoir judiciaire avait ordonné son report la veille de cette date, afin, semble-t-il, de permettre aux avocats de former un recours. En tant que partie au Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques (PIDCP), l’Iran s’est engagé à ne pas exécuter une personne pour un crime commis alors qu’elle avait moins de dix-huit ans. Le responsable du pouvoir judiciaire aurait ordonné le report de l’exécution des trois hommes en raison de l’âge des deux frères. En mai 2006, Khaled Hardani, qui était alors incarcéré à la prison d’Evin, a expliqué à Amnesty International qu’à la suite du report de l’exécution, son cas et celui de ses beaux-frères avaient été renvoyés devant le Bureau de surveillance et de suivi (Heyat-e Nezarat va Peigiri).
Amnesty International ne dispose pas de nouvelles informations concernant les frères Pourmansouri.


INFORMATIONS GÉNÉRALES

L’Iran est partie à des traités internationaux qui interdisent l’exécution de personnes âgées de moins de dix-huit ans au mo-ment des faits qui leur sont reprochés.
Amnesty International reconnaît que les États ont le droit et le devoir de traduire en justice les personnes soupçonnées d'in-fractions pénales, mais elle est fermement opposée à la peine capitale, qui constitue le châtiment le plus cruel, inhumain et dégradant qui soit.


ACTION RECOMMANDÉE

dans les appels que vous ferez parvenir le plus vite possible aux destinataires mentionnés ci-après (en persan, en arabe, en anglais, en français ou dans votre propre langue) :
- demandez instamment aux autorités de commuer la peine de mort prononcée contre Khaled Hardani et ses beaux-frères, Shahram et Farhang Pourmansouri ;
- tout en reconnaissant que les États ont le devoir de traduire en justice les personnes soupçonnées d’infractions pénales, soulignez votre opposition catégorique à la peine capitale, qui constitue le pire châtiment cruel, inhumain et dégradant qui soit, ainsi qu’une violation du droit à la vie ;
- dites-vous préoccupé par le fait que Shahram Pourmansouri, âgé de dix-sept ans au moment des faits qui lui sont reprochés, risque d’être exécuté ;
- rappelez aux autorités que l’Iran est partie au Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques (PIDCP), qui proclame qu’« une sentence de mort ne peut être imposée pour des crimes commis par des personnes âgées de moins de dix-huit ans », et engagez les autorités de ce pays à appliquer les recommandations du Co-mité des droits de l'enfant des Nations unies en suspendant immédiatement l’exécution de toutes les condam-nations à mort prononcées contre des personnes pour des crimes commis avant l’âge de dix-huit ans ;
- cherchez à obtenir des informations détaillées sur le déroulement du procès de Khaled Hardani et de ses beaux-frères, Shahram et Farhang Pourmansouri, notamment sur tout appel qu’ils auraient interjeté ;
- priez les autorités de faire en sorte que Khaled Hardani et ses beaux-frères bénéficient de tous les soins médi-caux dont ils pourraient avoir besoin.

APPELS À

Guide spirituel de la République islamique d'Iran :
His Excellency Ayatollah Sayed ‘Ali Khamenei, The Office of the Supreme Leader
Shoahada Street, Qom, République islamique d’Iran
Courriers électroniques : info@leader.ir / istiftaa@wilayah.org
Fax : +98 251 774 2228 (précisez : « FAO the Office of His Excellency, Ayatollah al Udhma Khamenei »)
Formule d’appel : Your Excellency, / Excellence,

Président :
His Excellency Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
The Presidency, Palestine Avenue, Azerbaijan Intersection, Téhéran, République islamique d’Iran
Courriers électroniques : dr-ahmadinejad@president.ir
ou via son site Internet : www.president.ir/email
Formule d’appel : Your Excellency, / Monsieur le Président,

Responsable du pouvoir judiciaire :
Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi
Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Justice Building, Panzdah-Khordad Square, Téhéran, République islamique d’Iran
Fax : +98 21 3390 4986 (Merci de vous montrer persévérant)
Courriers électroniques : info@dadgostary-tehran.ir (dans le champ réservé à l'objet, veuillez écrire : « FAO Ayatollah Shahroudi »)
Formule d’appel : Your Excellency, / Monsieur le Ministre,



COPIES À

Porte-parole du Majlis-e Shoura-e Islami (Assemblée consultative islamique) :
His Excellency Gholamali Haddad Adel
Majles-e Shoura-ye Eslami, Baharestan Square, Téhéran, République islamique d’Iran
Fax : +98 21 3355 6408
Courriers électroniques : hadadadel@majlis.ir

Ambassade de la République Islamique d'Iran;
Thunstrasse 68;
Case postale;
3000 Berne 6.
Fax: 031 351 56 52
E-mail: secretariat@iranembassy.ch
Iran-Emb@bluewin.ch

PRIÈRE D'INTERVENIR IMMÉDIATEMENT. APRÈS LE 19 JUILLET 2007, VÉRIFIEZ S'IL FAUT ENCORE INTERVENIR. MERCI.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Amnesty International | Schweiz/Suisse | www.amnesty-ua.ch | ua@amnesty.ch | Tel/Tél 031 307 22 22 | Fax 031 307 22 33

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.hra-news.blogfa.com/
In the Name of Freedom,

With Greetings to all Iranians,

I have decided to share with all human rights organizations and freedom fighters all over the world my story, and what has happened to me in the past year at the hands of the Islamic Regime of Iran.

I am a human rights activist and have been working with other human rights activists and groups in Iran, fighting for the rights of those whose basic human rights have been violated. I am and was not a criminal nor have I ever committed a criminal act. My only "crime" is being a human rights activist who believes in the principles of human rights for everyone.

On July 8th 2006 I was arrested by the Islamic Regime forces without an arrest warrant or without having any idea as to what I was being charged with. After my arrest I was taken to s. 209 of the Evin Prison which is under the direct control of the Iranian Intelligence Ministry. This section is famous for its solitary cells, blindfolds and torture. I was taken to solitary cell numbered 115, and was there for two days, when I was informed that I would be brought before a judge. At that time I still did not know what I was being charged with. My bail was set at 500 million Rial however I was not given permission to call anyone in order to try to obtain this money.

Shortly after, I was taken into a small room with one interrogator and three guards. In the hopes of breaking my spirits, they forced all of my clothes off and told me that my hair was too long and tried to cut off my hair with a scissor. I did not want to allow them to do this and started fighting back, at this time they took me to solitary cell number 73. At this time I still had no idea what I was being charged with. Being distraught by the way I was treated I started banging on the door of my cell trying to get some answers.

One of the guards blindfolded me and took me to see the warden of s. 209 of the Evin Prison Mr. Mostafa Karimi. In answer to my protests he told me that they could and would keep me there for as long as they wanted and that they did not need any reason for my incarceration. He also informed me that if I continued my struggle they would handcuff my hands and feet in addition to keeping me in a solitary cell.
Once again I was taken to solitary cell number 63 and the blindfolded interrogations started. Their only goal was to force me into false confessions in order to use the confession to further persecute me and other members of the Human Rights Activists in Iran. Because of the fact that they had no evidence against me and they had not laid any charges the interrogations and accusations kept on changing, and they kept on accusing me of different "crimes." There were also times when I would not be interrogated for days or even weeks and I would be left alone in my solitary cell.

It is also important to mention that during this time my family had no news of my whereabouts and I was not able to contact them. I was also not allowed very basic rights such as adequate clothing, being able to get fresh air, pen and paper or telephone calls and visitations.

Recently I found out that shortly after my arrest intelligence ministry officials had gone to my fathers house and went through my family's personal belongings and took number of things that did not belong to me. At this time my family was desperately searching for me in revolutionary courts, jails, coroner's office, hospitals and even graveyards, and finally after 3 months they were informed of my whereabouts.

After one month in solitary confinement and having faced such cruel and inhuman behavior I decided to go on a hunger strike and I even refused to drink water. After four days I was promised by the prison warden that the prison conditions would improve and I ended my strike. Unfortunately as a result of not drinking water for so long I came down with an intestine infection as well as severe gum infection and was not able to eat or drink anything but water for 15 days, and I was in severe pain and unable to move for these 15 days.
On numerous occasions I was told by the prison guards that I was free, or that I would be free soon, or they would give me a date on which I would supposedly be released. Unfortunately I realized that all this was nothing but a form of psychological torture and I was left in solitary cells with no hope of being released.

After three (3) months in solitary confinement once again I started my protests and insisted that I be taken into the general prison ward rather then solitary cells. I was told by prison guards that the only other place they would take me would be in a cell with Al'Qaeda detainees. When I continued my protest they did indeed put me in a cell with two prisoners whom I was told were Al Qaeda members, who needed to take dozens of medications every day in order to be able function. These two prisoners threatened me to death on numerous occasions and on one occasion produced a piece of glass and threatened to kill me with it
Once again I requested to be put in a cell with Iranian inmates and once again I was refused. Again I was forced to go on a hunger strike even though I was extremely ill and in danger of coming down with another intestine infection. After three days of refusing to eat or drink water, once again I was taken to see the prison warden who told me that I could choose between where I was or the solitary cell, and that those were my only two choices. I had no choice but to choose the solitary cell. They forced me to write a statement claiming that I had requested to be transferred to a solitary cell and they were granting my request.

I was once again taken to solitary cell 130 and was there until 11 October 2006 when I was taken for interrogation at a revolutionary court and was charged with acting against the regime, propaganda against the regime, risking national security and involvement with anti-revolutionary groups. I asked why I had not been allowed to post bail and was told that the revolutionary courts had special powers and that they would not let me post bail and would keep me in jail for as long as they wanted.

I asked to see my family and asked for a lawyer. I was told that the lawyer I had requested was a spy working against the government and that in any event I would not need a lawyer, and if it was necessary for me to have a lawyer they would assign one for me. They also did not allow me to call my family.



Because of my requests the prison officials were not happy with me and once again I was taken to the same interrogation place on 17 October 2006 and was further charged with organizing and participating in protests, after which I was taken to solitary confinement again.



On 6 December 2006 I was taken to court and without the presence of my lawyer, or the crown the trial proceeded with the judge reading the charges against me and giving me 10 minutes to defend myself. During these 10 minutes I only had time to ask to see the evidence they had against me. I was not shown any evidence and taken back to my cell. A month later I was told that my case was under review and they did not know when there would be a verdict on my case.

On 11 January 2007after 190 days of imprisonment most of which had been in solitary confinement with severe psychological torture I was taken to the general ward in s. 209 of the Evin Prison which was an extremely small room and housing 19 prisoners. I was finally given permission to call my family after 6 months and was able to tell them that I was alive.
At this time there was a virus going around the prison and due to lack of medical attention and dirty air most of us including myself were suffering from it. I myself was coughing blood and suffering from this virus for more then 2 months without being able to get any medical attention.
Every week we had about 2 hours of "fresh air" time, where we were taken into another cell with the only different being that this cell had windows on its ceilings. We also had 10 minutes a week to call our families. The days kept passing by. Later I learned that my father had been summoned to court and ordered to speak with me and try to talk me out of my beliefs and my human rights activities.
However I cannot and will not stop my human rights activities. We celebrated the New Year in our small cell with great hope for the future and thinking about our beloved country Iran and our countrymen.

Once the prison officials realized that they would not be able to break me or change my beliefs and ideas I was taken out of s. 209 of the prison and into s. 6 of the Evin Prison.

On 18 April 2007 once again I was taken to court, however due to non cooperation of the crown and the intelligence ministry officials once again my trial was postponed and all I was left with was the pain and pressure of waiting.

On 20 may 2007 I learned that once again the Intelligence Ministry had continued its cruel and inhuman behavior by going to my fathers house and after going through their personal belongings, arresting my father and sister, as well as my brother an hour later. The only possible purpose of these arrests was to put further pressure on me and try to break my will. My family members were released at 10 pm that night after being interrogated and threatened.



On 22 may 2007 I was once again taken to court for my trial however due to the absence of the Crown as well as the Ministry of Intelligence Officials my trial was postponed once again.



On 3 Juan 2007 my family was summoned to court once again and this situation still continues. In the past year I have not been able to visit with my family even once. Also 11 other members of the Human Rights Activists have been summoned to court, interrogated and threatened.

My only "crime" is being a human rights activist who strongly believes in equality and other basic rights for everyone. Although I am subjected to severe physical and psychological pressures in prison I am not willing to stop for even one second from defending human rights and fighting against human rights violations in Iran. I will cope with the injustice done against me in the hopes of the rise of justice and support of all other human rights activists in the world.

Long Live Freedom and Equality,

Keyvan Rafiee

Human Rights Activist

Evin Prison
--
Human Rights Activists in Iran
Email : Hra.iran@gmail.com
Web site : www.hra-iran.blogfa.com
--

executions of child offenders in Iran

Iran continues to pass death sentences on child offenders
Real Player version
Amnesty International (AI) is calling on the Iranian authorities to take immediate steps to end the shameful practice of executing child offenders (those convicted of crimes committed before the age of 18).

According to the report Iran: The last executioner of children, Iran has executed more child offenders than any other country in the world since 1990.

As a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Iran has committed not to execute anyone for an offence committed when they were under the age of 18.

Officials from the Iranian Government and the judiciary have repeatedly stated that Iran does not execute children. However, the facts tell a different story.

The report states that 24 child offenders have been executed in Iran since 1990, 11 of whom were under 18 at the time of their execution. In most cases, the authorities waited until child offenders turned 18 before executing them. It is not clear whether the authorities understand that such executions still violate Iran's international obligation not to execute child offenders under the ICCPR.

Real Lives -- Child Offenders

Sina Paymard, the 16-year-old reprieved at the gallows in 2006 by relatives of the murder victim after he had played the flute.

Delara Darabi, aged 20, faces execution after being convicted of the murder of her father's 58-year-old female cousin. She was 17 at the time of the crime.


AI is aware of 71 child offenders who are currently under sentence of death in Iran. However, the lack of information available on the death penalty in the country means this number may only be a fraction of the total.

Campaigning against the death penalty both inside and outside Iran can make -- and has made -- a difference. In some cases, death sentences have been overturned and the person has been released. In many more, stays of execution have been won.

Campaigns have also prompted the Iranian authorities to publicly comment on cases, initiate reviews of cases, order retrials and even grant pardons or amnesties.

Human rights defenders in Iran stress that international publicity and pressure in support of local efforts can help bring about change in the country. AI believes that campaigning can save lives and will eventually persuade the Iranian authorities to end the illegal execution of child offenders and bring their legal practices into line with their obligations under international law.

AI opposes the death penalty for anyone, regardless of their age and the nature of the crime or the character of the condemned. Every execution is an affront to human rights and an act of premeditated cruelty that denies the right to life as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

AI's report calls for the abolition of the death penalty for child offenders in Iran. The Head of the Judiciary should immediately implement a moratorium on the execution of child offenders until such changes can be made law.

The death sentences of the 71 child offenders documented in AI’s report, and any other child offenders on death row in Iran, must be commuted.

Ending executions of child offenders in Iran, while a major objective in itself, is just one step on the road to total abolition -- but a vitally important step that should be taken without delay.

For more information, see:
Iran: End child executions (Press Release, 27 June 2007) (in Persian)

Iran: The last executioner of children (Report, 27 June 2007)
Read the report in Persian (PDF, 51 pages, 495kb)

http://iranppa.blogspot.com/
Thursday, December 6, 2007

28 Students arrested and incarcerated in the intelligence agency’s lockup
On Tuesday the 4th of December, Security police and masked intelligence agents arrested 28 students during a demonstration against the Iranian government. Some of them are detained in solitary confinement in the notorious high security lockup of 209 and some in the small lockup of the intelligence agency in central Tehran called Tracking office (Daftare Peygiri).

The names of the arrested students, which were published by the website of the student base, are as follows. From the University of Mazandaran; Milad Moeeni, Behrang Zandi, Hamed Mohammadi, Arash Pakzad, Nader Ahsani and Hassan Moarefi.
Saeed Habibi whom was a prior member of the central council of solidarity strengthening (Shoraye markaziye daftare tahkime vahdat). From the university of Tehran; Anooshe Azadfar, Behrooz Karimizade, Mehdi Gerayloo, Rouzbeh Safshekan and Rouzbehan Amiri. From the Polytechnic University; Ali Salem and Mohsen Ghamin. From the Al’ame University; Nasim Soltanbeigi and Saeed Agham-Alikhalili.

From the Shahed University; Yasser Pirhayati. From the Industrial university of Sharif; Keyvan Amiri-Alyassi. From the Central Tehran Azad University; Ilnaz Jamshidi, Mahsa Mohabi, Ali Kallayi, Amir Mehrzad, Hadi Salaari, Farshid Farhadi Ahangaran, Amir Aghayi, Milad Omrani.

The widespread arrestment of the students begun when Security forces raided the homes of a majority of the left winged students, whom were planning to initiate a demonstration on “Students Day” inside the Tehran University. Some of the students were arrested at the student day demonstration preparation meeting at the University by the Security forces. Even though it is prohibited for the security forces to enter the university, they crossed the threshold and in a very discussable and vicious attack arrested two students inside the university, and removed them from the complex.

Even in the University of Shiraz, armed security forces brutally attacked Yunes Mirhosseini, a part of the student movement, hit him all bloody and kidnapped him. No information about the whereabouts of the detainment or the conditions of the imprisonment of Mr. Mirhosseini has been specified. However one can clearly see the connection of his arrestment and the involvement in initiating the student meeting.

Besides Nasim Soltanbeigi whom called his family, and told them that he has been arrested, the families of the other students that have been arrested have separately attended the revolutionary court to gain some information about the conditions and the grounds of the arrestments of their children.

In addition to the 28 students whom was recently arrested, so have these students; Ahmad Ghassaban, Ehsan Mansouri, Majid Tavakoli, Ali Nikoonesbaty and Ali Azizi been arrested by the intelligence agency and are detained in Evin prison.

Posted by Iranian Political Prisoners Association - انجمن زندانیان سیاسی at 8:14 PM 0 comments Links to this post

UA 176/07 - AI Index: MDE 13/082/2007 - 06 July 2007

UA 176/07 IRAN
Prisoner of Conscience/Medical concern

Mahmoud Salehi (m), trade union activist

[h3
Trade union activist Mahmoud Salehi, who has been imprisoned since 9 April, is seriously ill and is allegedly not receiving the specialist medical treatment that he requires. Amnesty International believes that he is a prisoner of conscience, detained solely for the peaceful exercise of his right to freedom of expression and association in connection with the 2004 May Day demonstration, and with his peaceful trade union activities.
Mahmoud Salehi is the Spokesperson for the Organisational Committee to Establish Trade Unions, former President of the Saqez Bakery Workers’ Association, and co-founder of the Coordinating Committee to Form Workers’ Organisations. He was arrested after a peaceful demonstration to celebrate May Day 2004 along with six other trade union activists. They were all were later released on bail that same month. In November 2005 he was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment and three years' internal exile in the city of Ghorveh, in the north western province of Kordestan. At his trial, the prosecutor reportedly cited his trade union activities as evidence against him, and referred to a meeting he had held with officials from the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) in April 2004, shortly before the May Day demonstrations. His conviction was overturned on appeal, but after a retrial he was sentenced on 11 November 2006 to four years’ imprisonment by Saqez Revolutionary Court for “conspiring to commit crimes against national security” under article 610 of the Islamic Penal Code. Following an appeal, whose last hearing took place on 11 March, this was reduced to one year’s imprisonment, and a three-year suspended prison sentence.
Mahmoud Salehi was arrested on 9 April 2007. His son, in a letter carried on the website of the Iranian Workers' Solidarity Network, described his father’s arrest:
“One of the officers of the Saqez security force went to where Mahmoud Salehi (my father) works and told my father that the Governor and the Prosecutor would like to talk to him about this year's May Day ceremonies. My father… went to courthouse with this officer. Immediately after he entered the courthouse my father realised that this had nothing to do with the issue of [this year's] May Day! Instead this was about the May Day celebration of 2004 and the four-year sentence passed against him. Recently the appeal court changed the sentence to one year in custody and three years suspended, which the legal authorities are, in an illegal way, trying to implement. The legal authorities, despite my father and mother's protests, and my father's refusal to sign the summons and without paying any attention to his appeals and protests, immediately used severe security measures. Several officers surrounded him and bundled him into a car. The car carrying my father was escorted by several police vehicles and… left town for an undisclosed destination. My father is the first person who has had his sentence carried out in this way and transferred to prison immediately. The summons is supposed to have been given to him beforehand so that he could prepare himself for it.”
Mahmoud Salehi has only one kidney, is reported to be suffering from kidney stones, and is said to require dialysis treatment. A letter from his doctor, stating that Mahmoud Salehi requires treatment outside prison, was apparently delivered to prison officials on 15 May. His lawyer announced on 8 June that Mahmoud Salehi had begun a hunger strike in protest at his detention in Sanandaj Prison, which is 400km from where his family live. Amnesty International does not know whether he is continuing his hunger strike, but he is reported also to be suffering from heart and intestinal problems. On 17 June, he was reportedly taken to Towhid Hospital in Sanandaj, but was afterwards returned to prison.
Mahmoud Salehi has been denied visits from his lawyer and family; his family have been able to contact him by telephone.
He has been arrested several times before now. Amnesty International took action on his behalf in 2000 (see Medical Writing Action: Ill-health Mahmood Salehi, AI Index: MDE 13/30/00).

RECOMMENDED ACTION

Please send appeals to arrive as quickly as possible, in Persian, Arabic, Kurdish, English, French or your own language:
- expressing concern at reports that trade union activist Mahmoud Salehi is seriously ill in detention in Sanandaj prison, and calling for him to be granted all necessary medical treatment, if necessary in specialist medical facilities outside the prison where he is held;
- calling for him to be granted regular access to his family and his lawyer.
- calling for the immediate and unconditional release of Mahmoud Salehi as he is a prisoner of conscience, detained solely for the peaceful exercise of his right to freedom of expression and association in connection with the 2004 May Day demonstration, and with his peaceful trade union activities.
APPEALS TO
Leader of the Islamic Republic;
His Excellency Ayatollah Sayed ‘Ali Khamenei;
The Office of the Supreme Leader;
Shoahada Street;
Qom;
Islamic Republic of Iran.
Email: info@leader.ir
istiftaa@wilayah.org
Fax: +98 251 774 2228 (mark FAO Office of His Excellency Ayatollah al Udhma Khamenei)
Salutation: Your Excellency

Head of the Judiciary;
His Excellency Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi;
Ministry of Justice;
Park-e Shahr;
Tehran;
Islamic Republic of Iran.
Salutation: Your Excellency

COPIES TO

Governor of Kordestan;
Esmail Najjar.
Email: In Persian and Kurdish via the feedback form on the Persian part of the website:
http://www.ostan-kd.ir/Default.aspx?tabId=150&cv=4@0_1
In other languages, use the feedback form on the English part of the website: http://en.ostan-kd.ir/Default.aspx?TabID=59
Salutation: Dear Governor
Ambassade de la République Islamique d'Iran;
Thunstrasse 68;
Case postale;
3000 Berne 6.
Fax: 031 351 56 52
E-mail: secretariat@iranembassy.ch
Iran-Emb@bluewin.ch

PLEASE SEND APPEALS IMMEDIATELY. Check if sending appeals after 17 August 2007.
]10072007

Free Keyvan Rafiee after one year of Imprisonment!

In the Name of Freedom,

Everyone has the right either as an individual or as part of a group to work towards human rights within, and for their country as well as internationally.

It has been exactly one year since the illegal arrest and imprisonment of Keyvan Rafiee, the National Spokesperson for Human Rights Activists in Iran. However not only has the Islamic Regime prevented Mr. Rafiee's freedom by not allowing him to post bail and by postponing his trial on numerous occasions, but they have also increased pressure both on Mr. Rafiee and his family.

Mr. Rafiee was arrested in Tehran last year on the 7th anniversary of July 9th 1999 pro-democracy student demonstrations (18 Tir). Prior to his arrest he had been threatened a number of times by the Intelligence Ministry Officials, both by telephone and in person.

Mr. Rafiee has spent more then 200 days in solitary confinement and as a result of this cruel and inhuman punishment went on a hunger strike on three different occasions suffering a number of serious illnesses as a result.

Both the United Nations and The European Union have shown concern for his health and well being and have asked for his unconditional freedom in public statements.

Yet after one year of imprisonment, there is still no verdict regarding Mr. Rafiee's "crimes". In fact his trial and verdict have been postponed on a number of occasions for unknown reasons. In the past year Mr. Rafiee has not been able to see his lawyer even once, and his lawyer has not been allowed to attend at any court appearances. The Intelligence Ministry and the Revolutionary Courts are planning to convict him for taking part in last years July 9 th student demonstrations as well as taking part in a demonstration on International Workers Day.

Most recently he was able to visit with his family for the first time after one year, although Evin Prison Officials did not want this visit to take place and made them wait for almost four (4) hours before they were able to visit for 30 minutes.

Human Rights Activists in Iran condemn threats made against Keyvan Rafiee as well as his illegal arrest and d detention and demand his immediate and unconditional release.


--
Human Rights Activists in Iran
Email : Hra.iran@gmail.com
Web site : www.hra-iran.blogfa.com
--11072007

WASHINGTON – Former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami will present an address at Washington National Cathedral on September 7, 2006 at 7:30 pm
READ MORE

info@spiran.com
webmaster@spiran.com
www.spiran.com

Contact:
Spiran
P.O.BOX 420 450
50937 KÖLN
Germany
Fax: 0049221 42 42 27

UA 003/08 - AI Index: MDE 13/002/2008 - 03 January 2008

UA 003/08 IRAN
Arbitrary arrests / Fear of torture or ill-treatment / Possible prisoners of conscience

At least 50 and possibly hundreds of Ahwazi Arabs

On 30 December, at least 50 and possibly hundreds of men from Iran’s Ahwazi Arab minority were arrested as they attended a memorial at the Hamzeh mosque in Ahvaz City, the capital of the south-western Khuzestan province. They were reportedly detained following an attack by members of the police and Bassij forces. Some or all may be prisoners of conscience, detained solely for exercising their right to freedom of expression and association.

Those arrested, whose numbers have been reported by Ahwazi groups to be between 200 and 300, have been taken to an unknown location, and their family members have as yet received no information as to their whereabouts or wellbeing. It is feared that they could be tortured or otherwise ill-treated in detention.

Amnesty International has received the names of 53 people said to have been arrested at the time. The organisation has also been informed that a number of people were injured when security forces opened fire on the crowd. These included 18 -year-old Amir Heydari, who was injured in the leg.

The memorial was being held on the seventh day after the death of Mehdi Heydari at the hands of security forces. An Ahwazi Arab in his twenties, his political affiliation is unknown to Amnesty International, but he had apparently been wanted by security forces for some time and had gone into hiding. He had returned home for a short visit, and was shot dead while trying to escape after officials from the Ministry of Intelligence surrounded his house.



BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Much of Iran's Arab community lives in the province of Khuzestan, which borders Iraq. It is strategically important because it is the site of much of Iran’s oil reserves, but the Arab population does not feel it has benefited as much from the oil revenue as the Persian population. Historically, the Arab community has been marginalised and discriminated against. There were mass demonstrations in April 2005, after it was alleged that the government planned to disperse the country's Arab population or to force them to relinquish their Arab identity and tension has remained high since. Following bomb explosions in Ahvaz City in June and October 2005, which killed at least 14 people, and explosions at oil installations in September and October 2005, the cycle of violence intensified, with hundreds of people reportedly arrested. There have been reports of torture. Further bombings on 24 January 2006, in which at least six people were killed, were followed by further mass arrests. At least 15 men have now been executed as a result of their alleged involvement in the bombings. It is not clear if another man was executed or died in custody.

Iran is a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), of which Article 7 states that "No one shall be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment."



RECOMMENDED ACTION

Please send appeals to arrive as quickly as possible, in Persian, English, Arabic, French or your own language:
- seeking details of all those arrested on 30 December 2007 in Ahvaz City, including their names, the reasons for their arrest and any charges which may have been brought against them;
- calling on the authorities to release any held solely on account of the peaceful exercise of their right to freedom of expression and association while attending a memorial;
- calling for any others to be tried promptly and fairly, in accordance with international fair trial standards, on recognisably criminal charges or else released;
- seeking assurances that none of those arrested is subject to torture or other ill treatment.



APPEALS TO

Leader of the Islamic Republic;
His Excellency Ayatollah Sayed ‘Ali Khamenei;
The Office of the Supreme Leader, Islamic Republic Street - Shahid Keshvar Doust Street;
Tehran;
Islamic Republic of Iran.
Email: info@leader.ir
Salutation: Your Excellency

Head of the Judiciary;
Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi;
Howzeh Riyasat-e Qoveh Qazaiyeh / Office of the Head of the Judiciary;
Pasteur St., Vali Asr Ave. ;
south of Serah-e Jomhouri;
Tehran 1316814737;
Islamic Republic of Iran.
Email: info@dadgostary-tehran.ir (In the subject line write: FAO Ayatollah Shahroudi)
Salutation: Your Excellency

Minister of Intelligence;
Gholam Hossein Mohseni Ejeie;
Ministry of Intelligence;
Second Negarestan Street;
Pasdaran Avenue;
Tehran;
Islamic Republic of Iran.
Salutation: Your Excellency



COPIES TO

President;
His Excellency Mahmoud Ahmadinejad;
The Presidency;
Palestine Avenue;
Azerbaijan Intersection;
Tehran;
Islamic Republic of Iran.
Email: dr-ahmadinejad@president.ir
via website: www.president.ir/email

Speaker of Parliament;
His Excellency Gholamali Haddad Adel;
Majles-e Shoura-ye Eslami;
Baharestan Square;
Tehran;
Islamic Republic of Iran.
Fax: +98 21 3355 6408
Email: hadadadel@majlis.ir (Please ask that your message be brought to the attention of the Article 90
Commission)

Ambassade de la République Islamique d'Iran;
Thunstrasse 68;
Case postale;
3000 Berne 6.
Fax: 031 351 56 52
E-mail: secretariat@iranembassy.ch
Iran-Emb@bluewin.ch


PLEASE SEND APPEALS IMMEDIATELY. Thank you for sending before 14 March 2008.

AU 331/07 - AI Index: MDE 13/147/2007 – ÉFAI - 13 décembre 2007

AU 331/07 IRAN

Arrestations arbitraires / Craintes de torture ou de mauvais traitements / Craintes d'emprisonnement pour raisons d'opinion

[h3
20 à 30 étudiants (hommes et femmes), proches du groupe Daneshjouyan-e Azadi Khah va Beraber Talab (Étudiants pour la liberté et l’égalité)

parmi lesquels :
Rosa Essaie (f), membre de la minorité arménienne d’Iran, étudiante à l’Université Amir-Kabir à Téhéran
Mehdi Geraylou (h), étudiant à l’Université de Téhéran
Anousheh Azadfar (f), étudiante à l’Université de Téhéran
Ilnaz Jamshidi (f), étudiante à l’Université libre du centre de Téhéran
Rouzbeh Safshekan (h), étudiant à l’Université de Téhéran
Nasim Soltan Beigi (h), étudiant à l’Université Allameh Tabatabai
Yaser Pir Hayati (h), étudiant à l’Université Shahed
Younes Mir Hosseini (h), étudiant à l’Université de Chiraz
Milad Moini (h), étudiant à l’Université de Mazandaran



Vingt à 30 étudiants, dont les personnes nommées ci-dessus, sont détenus sans inculpation à Téhéran pour la plupart, mais également dans d’autres villes du pays, depuis les très nombreuses manifestations et les vastes sit-in organisés à l’occasion de la Journée nationale des étudiants en Iran, le 7 décembre. Il s’agit peut-être de prisonniers d’opinion qui n’auraient fait qu’exercer leur droit à la liberté d’expression et d’association, et Amnesty International craint qu’ils ne soient torturés ou soumis à d’autres formes de mauvais traitements en détention.

Plusieurs dizaines d’étudiants ont été arrêtés au cours des six dernières semaines en marge du mouvement de protestation contre le remplacement de très nombreux professeurs et d’autres actions visant manifestement à restreindre davantage la liberté d’expression sur les campus universitaires, avec par exemple l'interdiction de certaines publications étudiantes, ainsi que la suspension et l’exclusion d’étudiants. Il semble que des militants du Daftar-e-Tahkim-e Vahdat (Bureau pour le Renforcement de l'Unité) et du groupe Daneshjouyan-e Azadi Khah va Beraber Talab (Étudiants pour la liberté et l’égalité), deux mouvements étudiants, figuraient parmi les manifestants.

D’après une dépêche de l’Agence France-Presse (AFP), un porte-parole de l’appareil judiciaire iranien a déclaré le 11 décembre que jusqu’à 24 étudiants restaient privés de liberté, certains ayant été arrêtés au cours des mois précédents. Le site http://takravi1.blogfa.com/, en persan, fait état de 28 noms. La plupart des personnes interpellées à Téhéran seraient détenues aux sections 209 et 240 de la prison d’Evin, et d’autres se trouveraient dans les locaux d’une unité des services du renseignement appelée Daftar-e Paygiri (« Bureau de contrôle du suivi »).

Les récentes manifestations étudiantes, qui ont souvent rassemblé plusieurs centaines de personnes, se sont déroulées à Shahrud, à l’est de Téhéran, à l’Université de Mazandaran à Babolsar, dans le nord du pays, ainsi qu’à Chiraz, dans le sud. Selon les informations reçues par Amnesty International, Yaser Pir Hayati, l'un des détenus, est étudiant à l’Université Shahed à Téhéran, un établissement réservé aux enfants d’Iraniens tués pendant la guerre Iran-Irak (1980-1988). Le 12 décembre, des familles se sont rassemblées devant la prison d’Evin et le bâtiment du Parlement iranien afin de protester contre la détention au secret de leurs proches.




INFORMATIONS GÉNÉRALES

Depuis quelques années en Iran, les groupes étudiants sont aux avant-postes de la lutte pour un meilleur respect des droits humains. Depuis l’élection du président Ahmadinejad en 2005, le champ d’action de la société civile iranienne est de plus en plus restreint. En avril 2007, le ministre du Renseignement Gholam Hossein Mohseni Ejeie a publiquement accusé le mouvement des femmes et les militants étudiants de participer à une « conspiration ennemie ».



ACTION RECOMMANDÉE

dans les appels que vous ferez parvenir le plus vite possible aux destinataires mentionnés ci-après (en persan, en anglais, en arabe ou dans votre propre langue) :
- appelez les autorités à libérer tous les étudiants arrêtés ces dernières semaines s’ils s’avèrent être des prisonniers d’opinion détenus au seul motif qu’ils ont exercé leurs droits, et ce de manière pacifique ;
- priez-les de libérer également tous les autres, à moins qu’ils ne soient inculpés d’une infraction dûment reconnue par le droit, auquel cas ils devront être jugés dans les meilleurs délais et dans le respect des normes internationales d’équité ;
- demandez des précisions sur les charges éventuellement retenues contre les personnes privées de liberté ;
- efforcez-vous d’obtenir la garantie qu’aucune d’entre elles ne sera victime de torture ni d’autres formes de mauvais traitements ;
- priez les autorités de s’assurer qu’il leur est permis sans restriction de recevoir la visite de leurs proches, de s’entretenir avec des avocats et de bénéficier de tous les soins médicaux dont elles pourraient avoir besoin ;
- rappelez aux autorités que l'exercice de la contrainte en vue d'obtenir des aveux est interdit par l'article 38 de la Constitution iranienne, qui dispose : « Toute forme de torture destinée à extorquer des aveux ou à obtenir des informations est proscrite » [traduction non officielle], et qu'en tant que partie au Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques (PIDCP), l'Iran est tenu de respecter l'article 7 de cet instrument, qui spécifie : « Nul ne sera soumis à la torture ni à des peines ou traitements cruels, inhumains ou dégradants ».


APPELS À

Guide spirituel de la République islamique d'Iran :
His Excellency Ayatollah Sayed ‘Ali Khamenei
The Office of the Supreme Leader, Islamic Republic Street - Shahid Keshvar Doust Street
Téhéran, République islamique d'Iran
Courriers électroniques : info@leader.ir
Formule d’appel : Your Excellency, / Excellence,

Responsable du pouvoir judiciaire :
Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi
Howzeh Riyasat-e Qoveh Qazaiyeh / Office of the Head of the Judiciary
Pasteur St., Vali Asr Ave., south of Serah-e Jomhouri, Tehran 1316814737, République islamique d’Iran
Courriers électroniques : info@dadgostary-tehran.ir (dans le champ réservé à l'objet, veuillez écrire : « FAO Ayatollah Shahroudi »)
Formule d’appel : Your Excellency, / Monsieur,

Ministre du Renseignement :
Gholam Hossein Mohseni Ejeie
Ministry of Intelligence, Second Negarestan Street, Pasdaran Avenue, Téhéran, République islamique d'Iran
Formule d’appel : Your Excellency, / Monsieur le Ministre,


COPIES À

Président :
His Excellency Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
The Presidency, Palestine Avenue, Azerbaijan Intersection, Tehran, République islamique d'Iran
Courriers électroniques : dr-ahmadinejad@president.ir
ou via son site Internet : www.president.ir/email

Président du Majlis-e Shoura-e Islami (Assemblée consultative islamique) :
His Excellency Gholamali Haddad Adel
Majles-e Shoura-ye Eslami, Baharestan Square, Téhéran, République islamique d'Iran
Fax : +98 21 3355 6408
Courriers électroniques : hadadadel@majlis.ir (Veuillez demander que votre message soit soumis à l’attention de la Komisyon-e Asl-e Navad [Commission de l'article 90])

Ambassade de la République Islamique d'Iran;
Thunstrasse 68; Case postale; 3000 Berne 6.
Fax: 031 351 56 52
E-mail: secretariat@iranembassy.ch
Iran-Emb@bluewin.ch


PRIÈRE D'INTERVENIR IMMÉDIATEMENT, SOIT AVANT LE 24 JANVIER 2008. MERCI.
]