ترجمه سخنراني كورش زعيم در همدان
26 مرداد 1385
English translation of the speech by
Kourosh Zaim
At Hamedan Civil Society Party, Hamedan, Iran
August 18, 2006

How to Solve Iran Problem.

The people of Iran made history three times in less than a century by successful popular movements to replace dictatorships with parliamentary democracies. Each time becoming a model for other enslaved nations in the region, and each time seeing their democracies, so painfully earned, destroyed by the ugly marriage of foreign power interests and those of the self-serving clergy.

In 1906, a popular revolution ended the corrupt and inept rule of Qajar dynasty, creating the first free elections in the history of the nation and the first parliament of true representatives of the people; a first in all of Asia. Although people had defeated a clerical effort to derail the parliamentary system and establish a religious dictatorship, later in the process, the self-serving clergy succeeded in defeating the idea of establishing a republic in favor of another dictatorial monarchy.

In 1952, Iran again enjoyed a government truly representative of the people. Mohammad Mosaddeq and his most popular Iran National Front party formed the cleanest and most intelligent government the nation had ever experienced. An American report to the U.S. president at time informed that Mosaddeq's government is the closest thing to stability and that it enjoys support of 95 to 98% of the Iranian people. Mosaddeq's government showed how a patriotic, intelligent and democratic system can pursue and secure national rights and interests, challenging an imperial power, by democratic means and defeating it on its own turf without having to violate any international law, treaty or convention. He showed how you can engage in a fierce fight for a just cause, win and yet become a hero in the eyes your adversaries and the world public opinion. This democratic government also was removed by a coup in favor of a dictatorial monarchy through the unholy marriage of interests of foreign powers and those of the clergy.

In 1979, the diehard people of Iran rose for the third time in three generations against a brutal, corrupt and foreign stooge of a monarchy, restoring parliamentary system of government through free elections. Once again the clergy rose to the occasion wresting the government from the people by violent means, setting up the Islamic Republic as we know it now, a self-serving, brutal, corrupt and dictatorial rule of low intellect.

And, now, those same superpowers who stole democratic systems of governments form us in the past and replaced subservient dictatorships, are now waving flag of democracy for us. They very well know that the great Iranian nation can stand on its own planning and achieving restoration of democracy and human rights. Iranians don't need any do-gooders' sword rattling, nor do they need foreign money or military assistance, specially, from those who have failed their tests of sincerity more than once in the past. Furthermore, the multitude of tactical errors they have made in the region in recent years, and are making now, shows that their planners either lack sufficient knowledge of the region or lack sufficient competence in decision making. What has been happening in our neighborhood recently has only served to strengthen the bases of influence and stability of Iran's religious ruling clans.

During the events leading to the 1953 coup against Iran's most popular and democratic government, American government failed to recognize the nature of the Iranian regime and the political undercurrents in action; during the Iraq-Iran war American government failed to see the opportunity with Iran and sided with a sadistic man instead; and now too, the American government is failing to recognize the nature of the regime in Iran and what makes it tick, and fails to see the opportunities and the undercurrents.

I say to those who beat the drums of war against Iran and in their feeble mind think that this will cause the Islamic Republic to fall, and to those who think their covert actions in Iran inciting ethnic unrest will weaken this particular government, and those who think a smaller Iran will be more manageable, or an Iran pressed with further sanctions and embargos, that war, domestic unrest, revolutionary movement, and destructive actions are exactly the means of guaranteeing the longevity of the Islamic regime. They will tighten their grip on people's throats in the name of national security, militarize the society, jail or kill intellectuals, dissidents, critics and opposition groups, while causing havoc in the entire region. They will do anything and everything just to last another day.

You cannot weaken the Islamic regime with threats of bombs, missiles or embargos. An attack on Iran will only destroy national wealth, economy, employment and lives, but it will give the regime reason for propaganda and for influencing public opinion, creating suitable conditions for growth of radicalism and terrorism. The ruling clans of Iran care not much about destruction of national wealth, damage to economy or loss of life, as they have never shown much concern in the past for such symbols of civilization. As long as the huge and easily obtained oil income exists, they can provide for their own defense or resistance.

In my opinion, there are better ways than attack or embargo to weaken this system at the core and quicken its downfall. The most fatal enemy of the Islamic Republic is international cooperation and partnership, economic progress, privatization, adherence to the WTO guidelines and forced observance of the International Bill of Human Rights. These, if forced upon Iran under the current dispute settlement deal, the Islamic Republic will lose its lifelines and conditions will rapidly become available for the Iranian public to dictate their own will.

I would like to tell the U.S. and the three European musketeers who are leading the punishing or violent confrontation project against Iran that they should never threaten with blood one you cannot see in the mirror, never threaten with embargo one who becomes richer when healthy trade routes are closed, never threaten with bombs one who's pocket benefits from reconstruction of ruined national assets, never threaten with ethnic separatism one who considers religious homogeneity as the only element of sovereignty, and never threaten with invasion one who never confronts you in a classic war. Set aside parameters of comparison your have learned in school and innovate new methods of confrontation. I call this new method a positive war, when you attack in four fronts the very roots of its survival.

Partnership and Investment: As I proposed in November 2004, the best method of solving Iran's nuclear dispute is partnership and joint investment in construction of nuclear power plants, as well as in the business of uranium enrichment. Once these activities are owned and operated jointly, tight international controls are in place. But, more important than the investments and controls, is the partnership and the inevitable dialogue between the countries and the socialization of free citizens with Iranian civil servants. Erosion of fear and forced loyalty will undermine regime's grip on public service structure.

Foreign investment and technology must be extended to other major government controlled industries such as steel, petrochemical, aircraft, marine, agriculture and mining. The importance of foreign investment is not as much as is the inherent cooperation, co-habitation and socialization of the human elements involved in these joint ventures. Iran even at the current rates of oil income, under an honest and competent government, can reach up to the level of a developed country in two decades. So, it's not the money. The abundant presence of personnel from free societies, not only will force the government to make life easier for citizenry in general, but will open new windows of light and let breeze of fresh air in.

Removal of the Sanctions: Economic sanctions and embargos represent the most effective propaganda tool for discrediting intentions of the western powers. On the other hand, sanctions prevent healthy economic growth, employment and welfare of the people, but not the ruling class who have their hands in the till and also benefit from illicit trade to combat sanctions. Furthermore, it is much easier to blame the sanctions for shortages and economic failures than own incompetence. When an aircraft crashes, it is easier to blame the "great Satan" for refusing to supply parts than to blame own policies. Sanctions are effective only when a government cares about its effects on its people. Without sanctions, it would be much easier to evaluate Islamic Republic's economic performance. In addition, free trade and accessibility will increase "clean" economic activity, reduce illicit trade and smuggling and tend to increase standards of living. Once people have little worry about their basic needs, their social needs increase and pressure on the government to meet those needs escalate.

Economic progress and thus improvement in standards of living is one the most dangerous enemies of the Islamic ruling clans' survival. The ruling class get its strength from ignorance, illiteracy, poverty, joblessness, social ills and corruption, because - misusing its spiritual nametag- it can redirect people's anger by blaming foreign countries for all the ill, brainwash the hopeless youth and the desperate for use in internal and external challenges, thus causing birth of the invisible armies. I cannot recall any dictatorial state in the world that upon achieving economic progress and improved standard of living was not forced by its own people to submit to democracy.

Tourism and ease of travel: Backward social behavior and infamousness of the Islamic Republic in world public opinion, couples with programmed scare tactics and propaganda by the west, has caused Iran, one the world's most historic and attractive countries to visit, to be virtually ignored by the tourism industry. One goal of this official Islamic Republic anti-social behavior is exactly to discourage citizens of the free world to come to Iran and bring with them different outlooks and ideas. Futile efforts during past two decades to ban videos, satellite broadcasts and internet have all been to isolate Iranian people from rest of the world. Travel and socialization of millions of free citizens with the enslaved Iranians is not but poison to IR's survival. Our share of tourism now is about a few hundred thousand per year, mostly from neighboring countries, rather than the minimum 30 million we must have.

In addition to the economic benefits of tourism, which will be primarily enjoyed by the public rather than the state, the socialization aspect of the industry will open new horizons, specially for the revolution-age youth who have not seen better days. The ruling clans of the Islamic Republic have been virtually preventing visitation of Iranians by the world citizens, as they prevent visitation of political prisoners by family and friends. The countries that claim they wish democracy for Iran can regulate and arrange and exert proper pressures for opening of the tourism doors and infusion of international investment and involvement in this very vital industry. Free tourism and ease of travel will eat up at the core of the regime like cancer.

Life signs from the United Nations: The United Nations is the most important, though toothless, world organization, which if it could be enabled to perform as its charter prescribes, no government could enslaved its people. The UN has tools with which it can push Iran toward democracy. One of these tools is "mandatory" supervision of elections. Instead of going along with debate over sanctions or threats of military action, the UN must force Iran to hold free elections under the watchful eyes of its inspectors. They should oversee the election process from candidate registration to vote counting to make sure the government cannot influence, threaten, deceive or cheat. A truly free election in Iran will be more effective that the most devastating warhead aimed at the establishment.

Furthermore, the UN must force Iran to observe the International Bill of Human Rights. Those countries that refuse to do so or are in substantially breach must not be allowed to be represented in the Human Rights Council nor the Security Council, and their voting rights in the General Assembly must be suspended until full compliance. The states that are their people's prisoners must not be able to decide the fate of other nations.
-0-

IRAN: PRESS RELEASE: Arbour concerned about impending execution of four juvenile offenders in Iran

10 June2008

Arbour concerned about impending execution of four juvenile offenders in Iran

GENEVA-- United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour expressed her concern on Tuesday over reports that four juvenile offenders in the Islamic Republic of Iran are at imminent risk of execution.

According to the reports received, the four - Mr. Behnoud Shojaaee, Mr. Mohammad Fadaaee, Mr. Saeed Jazee, and Mr. Behnam Zaare - have been sentenced to death for crimes that they committed when they were under 18 years old.

The High Commissioner acknowledged the steps taken by the Iranian authorities to subject these cases to closer judicial scrutiny, and to encourage settlements between perpetrators and victims' families.But she reminded the Iranian authorities of the absolute prohibition on the application of the death penalty for juvenile offenders under international law.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is a party both to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), both of which which prohibit the death penalty for juvenile offenders. Arbour requested the Islamic Republic of Iran to stay the executions of these four juvenile offenders in strict compliance with its international human rights obligations.

------------------------------------

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights-Media Unit Rupert Colville, Spokesperson, +41.22.917.9767 Praveen Randhawa, Information

Officer: + 41.22.917.9602 Yvon Edoumou, Information Officer, + 41 22.917.9383/ +41.78.826.3552 For inquiries and media requests:

press-info@ohchr.org

Iranian Repression of Balouchi Minority

20 February 2008

Iranian authorities have reportedly sentenced to death ethnic Balouchi civil rights activist Ya’qub Mehrnehad. Mr. Mehrnehad is the head of the Voice of Justice Young People’s Society, a non-governmental educational and cultural organization that is registered with the Iranian government.

According to Amnesty International, he was arrested in May 2007, along with five other members of the association, following a meeting at the Provincial Office of Culture and Islamic Guidance. The governor of Iran’s Sistan-Balouchistan province was reportedly present at that meeting.

The reason for Mr. Mehrnehad’s arrest has not been disclosed. He was tried behind closed doors in December in Zahedan, the capital of Iran’s Sistan-Balouchistan province. Mr. Mehrnehad’s family and attorney say he has been tortured and has lost about fifteen kilograms of weight since his arrest. According to Amnesty International, Mr. Mehrnehad “may be in imminent danger of execution.”

Ethnic Balouchis make up about two-percent of Iran’s population of more than sixty-five million. Mainly Sunni Muslims, they have complained for years of discrimination by Iranian authorities. Hundreds of ethnic Balouchis have reportedly been detained following attacks by Jondallah, an ethnic Balouchi armed extremist group.

Masoud Balouchi is Director of Balouchi Human Rights Watch, a monitoring group based in Sweden. He says Iranian authorities are using the violence of a few extremists as a pretext for suppressing legitimate political dissent.

“We know that Ya’qub Mehrnehad and the organization he represents has done nothing except criticize the human rights abuses of the Iranian regime,” Masoud Balouchi said.

In its human rights report, the U.S. State Department says Iran’s Sunni Muslims claim they are discriminated against by the Iranian government, although it is “hard to distinguish whether the cause for discrimination was religious or ethnic, since most Sunnis are also ethnic minorities, primarily Arabs, Balouchis, and Kurds.”

In a written statement, U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack expressed U.S. concern about the growing number of cases in Iran “in which the death sentence is imposed after trials that were neither fair nor transparent.”20.02.2008

Iranian Political Prisoners Association

Students tortured in 209

According top reports released by the Students Committee of Human Rights Reporters, and also testimony of recently released victims, students are being violently tortured in the notorious 209 section of Evin prison.

According to these testimonies, methods used to pressure students to go through TV staged confessions against their friends, are not only physical ones but include psychological ones. After long and continuous sessions of interrogation and torture they are left with bruised personalities and zero self respect and self confidence. At intervals they are under physical attacks being punched, kicked and whipped by heavy weighed cables.

Prior to this, Behrouz Karimi Zadeh, former Tehran University student was reported by his family to have had a deep cut from his wrist to his elbow.

During the past weeks, some students have paid incredible sums to be released temporarily; the price has ranged between 53000 to 107 thousand dollars. According to some, the Intelligence ministry has used fake TV confessions to link the students' movement to outside opposition forces.

After 21 days of illegal detention of students, there is yet no news concerning their condition.Some of the other students have had their families visiting them on 5 February for the first time in Evin prison. Saiid Habibi is one of the students who is barred from any visits and is under constant torture.

Sixty students have been arrested by the Intelligence Ministry in the past 3 months and forty are still pending results in prison. They were detained while trying to commemorate the Students day in Iran.09.02.2008

February 7, 2008

Ms. Louise Arbour
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Palais Wilson
52 rue des Pâquis
CH-1201 Geneva, Switzerland

RE: Mahmoud Salehi

Dear Ms. Louise Arbour;

On January 28, 2008, my spouse, Mahmoud Salehi, a well-known labour activist and political prisoner, was taken to the government’s medical examiner for the second time in recent months. It seemed that it had been decided that doctors, including the hearth and kidney specialists, at the Tohid hospital in city of Sanandaj , were going to make formal recommendations regarding Mahmoud’s health. These physicians have reported a number of times that Mahmoud’s only kidney is losing its functions and that has caused asthma, hearth problems, fluctuating blood pressure, dizziness, vessel clogging and the clogging of the hearth’s vessel, extreme weakness or fatigue, kidney inflammation, and many other dangerous side-effects. As a result, he requires immediate treatment. Thus they think he should stay in hospital.

My husband has been imprisoned because of his efforts to organize an independent May Day event. This is totally unjust. A big campaign, which I am a part of as well, have been actively advocating that organizing an independent Labour Day is a basic right and the authorities should not keep Mahmoud in prison. However, all our efforts and that of international labour and human rights organizations have not changed the decision of the judiciary authorities and my partner is still in prison. Therefore, we all were hoping that the official medical examiners would check him up in an objective and professional manner, according to Boghrat Oath (ethical code for physicians), and would confirm other doctors’ recommendations and recommend his release from hospital due to his serious health conditions. But that was a false hope. The official medical examiners are employees of the state and a part of the judiciary and security system of the government. Consequently, they denied all other doctors’ recommendation and decided that Mahmoud should stay in prison because they think he is not in life threatening situation.

I contacted these medical examiners and protested their decisions. I reminded them that not only the physicians at the Tohid Hospital but also the prison’s doctors have reported that Mahmoud’s situation is very serious. They, despite having all these reports, responded that the advise of other physicians are not important to them. I asked them how I could formally appeal their decision. The chief medical examiner, who knows well they are protected by the judiciary system, told me that I could go to the court. Thus he indicated that his office does not have any appeal system. I approached the Deputy Prosecutor. He spoke with me as if he was a medical doctor, confirming the medical examiner’s decision and adding that doctors in Tohid hospital made a mistake by transferring Mahmoud to the CCU section of the hospital. He also added that no one has ever filed a complaint against the government’s medical examiners. He basically suggested that filing a complaint are not going to go, anywhere otherwise others would have done it in the past 28 years. He also unsuccessfully wanted to prevent me from going to the judiciary. At the judiciary, once again, it was proved to me that there is no one there to be concerned and that no wonder the medical examiner was so confident any complaints against them would be futile. Therefore instead of launching a complaint, I asked the Deputy Prosecutor to allow a temporary leave for Mahmoud according to their regulations. He responded that my husband is a security prisoner and is not entitled to any prison leave. The term “security prisoner” is used in Iran for political prisoners.

Now, through this letter, I am asking you, based on the universal human rights, to call for the immediate freedom of my husband, Mahmoud Salehi; or, as a minimum, please pressure Iranian authorities to allow a specialist and ethical and independent examination of Mahmoud’s health. At the above mentioned offices, doctors are acting as prison guards and prison guards as doctors. Given such unjust situation, the human rights of my husband, me and my children will not be realised unless there are more protests.

I thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Najibeh Salehzadeh

cc:
The United Nations Human Rights Council
Amnesty International (AI);
International Committee of the Red Cross;
Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) (Doctors Without Borders)
International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC)
Other relevant labour and human rights organizations

DOCUMENT CONTENT
PUBLIC AI Index: MDE 13/015/2008
25 January 2008

UA 21/08 Torture/possible prisoners of conscience/medical concern

IRAN Behrouz Seferi (Safari in Azerbaijani Turkic) (m), Iranian Azerbaijani
Layla Heydari (f), his wife

Iranian Azerbaijani Behrouz Seferi, who has campaigned for Iran’s Azerbaijani minority to be given greater rights to use their mother tongue, is now known to have been detained without charge or trial since late May or early June 2007. His wife, Layla Heydari, has been detained since 28 August. Both are held in Tehran's Evin Prison, where they have allegedly been tortured. Neither has been allowed to consult a lawyer.

Behrouz Seferi was arrested shortly after demonstrations around the first anniversary of the publication of a cartoon in an Iranian newspaper which many Iranian Azerbaijanis found offensive. He was held in his home town of Zanjan until 4 December, when he was moved to Evin Prison.

Layla Heydari ran a shop selling Azerbaijani books, music and other cultural material until the authorities closed it down in 2006. She obeyed official warnings not to publicise her husband's arrest, but on 28 August she was summoned to visit him at the Ministry of Intelligence detention centre where he was held at the time, and was arrested. She too was moved to Evin Prison on 4 December.

Their families were allowed to visit them on 31 December, and say they think both have been tortured to make them give “confessions”. Layla Heydari is apparently in poor health, suffering from severe headaches, but has been given very little medical help. She has also reportedly suffered from heart problems, and has had to be treated on the medical wing, whose staff apparently recommended that she be allowed medical treatement outside prison

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Iranian Azerbaijanis, who live mainly in the north and north-west of the country and are mainly Shi’a Muslims, are the largest minority in Iran (at least 25-30% of the population). They are increasingly demanding greater cultural and linguistic rights, including the right to education in Azerbaijani Turkic. A small minority want Iranian Azerbaijani provinces to break away from Iran and join with the Republic of Azerbaijan. The Iranian authorities view those who seek to promote Iranian Azerbaijani cultural identity with suspicion, and often charge them with vaguely worded offences such as "acting against state security by promoting pan-Turkism".

In May 2006, there were massive demonstrations in towns and cities in north-western Iran in protest at a cartoon published on 12 May by the state-owned daily newspaper Iran, which many Iranian Azerbaijanis found offensive. Hundreds were arrested during and after the demonstrations. Other waves of arrests have occurred around dates significant to the Azerbaijani community, such as a boycott of the start of the academic year in September 2006; after demonstrations in February 2007 on the occasion of International Mother Tongue day; and on the anniversary of the May 2006 demonstrations.

In recent years the authorities have grown increasingly suspicious of Iran's minority communities, many of which are situated in border areas, and have accused foreign powers such as the US and UK of fomenting unrest among them.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Please send appeals to arrive as quickly as possible, in Persian, English, Arabic, French or your own language:
- expressing concern that Behrouz Seferi and his wife, Layla Heydari, have been detained without charge for some months, and asking why they were arrested;
- calling on the authorities to release them immediately and unconditionally if they are held solely for their peaceful activism on behalf of Iran’s Azerbaijani minority, or else charge them with recognisably criminal offences and try them promptly and fairly;
- urging them to investigate reports that Behrouz Seferi and Layla Heydari have been tortured, and bring anyone found responsible for abuses to justice;
- reminding the authorities that the use of confessions extracted under duress is prohibited by Article 38 of the constitution of Iran.

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)

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 7 March 2008.

The Arrest of Two Young Homosexuals in Iran

Two young homosexuals, a 19 year old male named Hamze Chavi and an 18 year old male named Loghman Hamzepour were arrested by the National Security Police in the small city of Sardasht which is in the province of Azarbaijan. The arrest took place after a tape of their homosexual activities was leaked to the police.
The two individuals are currently in custody. Under the Islamic Law the punishment for homosexuals is death and the lives of these two individuals may very well be in danger. It must be mentioned that at least 10 other people have been arrested in relation with this tape.
Human Rights Activists in Iran are extremely concerned about the safety and well being of these two individuals and ask all human rights organization to follow up and support the freedom of these two individuals. 25.01.2008

Human Rights Activists in Iran

TO ALL INDIVIDUALS, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INSTITUTIONS DEFENDING FREEDOM AND HUMANIST VALUES IN IRAN AND ACROSS THE WORLD

During the past month-and-a-half a large number of university students have been arrested at the universities or in towns throughout Iran whose "crime" has been defending human rights and humanist values through organizing or taking part in December 7th (Student Day) actions. They are currently held in prisons, suffering various forms of abusive treatment. During this period, their families have been permitted only one short visit with their children. They have also been under constant, intense emotional stress, while at the same time protesting the detention of their sons and daughters several times demanding their release.

Yet, despite all the efforts made to free the jailed students, a large group of them are still held in solitary cells under inhuman conditions, and some of them have not yet been allowed any visitation with their families – not even a phone call.

We hereby appeal to you honorable, libertarian people inside and outside Iran, and to all institutions and organizations defending freedom across the world, to continue your efforts and, further, participate in the International Week of Action for the Release of Jailed Students in Iran (Feb. 2nd to Feb. 9th, 2008) and actively demonstrate your protest against the students' incarceration and abuse. Celebrating National Student Day (December 7th) is the students' right, and all imprisoned students must be released immediately and unconditionally.

Please send your letters of support to: studentsfreedom@gmail.com.

Weblog: http://studentsfreedom-campaign.blogspot.com/


Signed by:
A group of parents of jailed students;
Groups of students at Allaame University, Polytechnic, Chamraan University (Ahvaz), Baahonar University (Shiraz), University of Mashad.

The names of the students :

1- Ali Salem (Masters of Polymers – Polytechnic)
2- Mohsen Ghamin (Polytechnic University)
3- Roozbe Saf-Shekan (Tehran University)
4- Yaser Pir Hayati -sadra– (Shahed University)
5- Milad Omrani
6- Anooshe Azadbar (Tehran University)
7- Elnaz Jamshidi (Communications, Azad University, Central Tehran)
8- Mehdi Gerayloo (Geophysics, Tehran)
9- Nader Ahsani (Mazandaran University)
10-Sayid Habibi (ex-member of the Central Council of Advare Tahkim Vahdat)
11- Behrooz Karimi-zade (Tehran University)
12- Keyvan Amiri Elyasi (Masters, Industry
, Sharif Technical University)
13- Nasim SoltanBeygi (Communications faculty, Alame)
14- Mahsa Mohebbi
15- Okhtay Hosseni (Azad University)
16- Sayid Agham Ali
17- Behzad Bagheri (Tehran University)
18- Ali Kalayi
19- Amir Mehrzad
20- Hadi Salari(Rjaee University)
21- Farshid Farhadi Ahangaran(Rjaee University)
22- Amir Aghayi(Rajaee University)
23- Soroosh Hashempoor (Chamran University)
24- Mehdi Alahyari(Sharif University)
25- Bahram Shojaee(Tehran Azad University)
26- Abed Tavanche
27- saeed aqakhani
28- Peyman Piran
29- Majid Ashrafnejad (Rjaee University
30- mohammad salehe iuman
31- sohrab karimi
32- farshad dostipor
33- javad alizade
34-morteza eslahchi
35-anahita hoseini
36- soroosh sabet
37- mohammad porabdolah
38- amin ghazaee
39- soroosh dashtestani
40- bijan sabagh
41- bita samimi zad
42- kaveh abaseian
43- morteza khedmatlou
44- mesi shirvani
45- yaser goli
46- hana abdi
47- ronak saffarzadeh
48- sabah nasri
49- hedayat ghazali
50- ahmad ghasaban
51- ehsan mansori
52- majid tavakoli
53- ali kantori

28.01.2008

The Arrest of Two Young Homosexuals in Iran

Two young homosexuals, a 19 year old male named Hamze Chavi and an 18 year old male named Loghman Hamzepour were arrested by the National Security Police in the small city of Sardasht which is in the province of Azarbaijan. The arrest took place after a tape of their homosexual activities was leaked to the police.
The two individuals are currently in custody. Under the Islamic Law the punishment for homosexuals is death and the lives of these two individuals may very well be in danger. It must be mentioned that at least 10 other people have been arrested in relation with this tape.
Human Rights Activists in Iran are extremely concerned about the safety and well being of these two individuals and ask all human rights organization to follow up and support the freedom of these two individuals. 25.01.2008

Human Rights Activists in Iran

Uncertain circumstances of 5 Azerbaijani activists in Evin Prison

Vahid Qarabagli

vahidqarabagli@gmail.com

Azerbaijani activists detained by the Iranian authorities include the following five prisoners of conscience: Seid Metinpur, Elirza Metinpur, Jelil Qhanilu, Behruz Seferi and his wife Leyla Seferi (her maiden name is Mrs. Heyderi). They are now kept in Evin Prison, Tehran and have been detained indefinitely for months for no apparent reason.

Three of these prisoners of conscience were arrested almost nine months ago (nearly at the end of May 2007) and they are: Seid Metinpur, journalist and Human rights activist, Jelil Qenilu and Behruz Seferi, both cultural or political activists; whereas two of them were detained some six months ago and they are Elirza Metinpur (Seid's brother) and Mrs Leyla Heyderi, the wife of Mr Behruz Seferi.

All five activists, ever since their detention, have been without indictment, have not been tried but have been consistently denied of access to a lawyer, let alone a lawyer of their choice; and are seemingly detained indefinitely.

Thus, the trauma of their families are mounting faced with the meagre stream of published news indicative of the maltreatment of their loved ones, as well as with directly experiencing for themselves the impoverished behaviour of an unaccountable judiciary system in Iran.

Now we know that these prisoners of conscience have been subjected to intense physical and psychological torture, where the Iranian authorities were forcing them to confess for their dictated terms. Our information is authentic and has emerged thanks to other prisoners of conscience already released from Wing 209 of Evin prison, as well as through the inside story obtained by the family members of these victims.

These prisoners of conscience have expressed to the visiting members of their families, that the officials forced them to endure many long sleepless periods and to undergo 24 hourly interrogations; were threatened by telling them that members of their families would be harmed.

According to the families of Seid Metinpur, Elirza Metinpur, Behruz Seferi, Jelil Qenilu and Mrs Leyla Seferi they were continually and severely put under such mental and physical torture that often they were subsequently fainted and were taken to the hospital for treatment.

One released prisoner of conscience describes the mental and physical tortures which he and the other detainees suffered in Wing 209 of Evin prison in the following terms:

Using foul language, they were insulting us, our families, and the whole nation of Azerbaijan in the most offensive manners. We were punched and kicked day in day out and to make the matters worse, we were given false information about our loved ones.

Considering that the above mentioned detainees have been arrested so many months ago, they are now subjected to the "war of attrition," as their families are in vain to secure the liberty of their loved ones despite their persistent trafficking to the Revolutionary Court and the Secret Service Department. Now the norm of their lives for the last eight month or so has been that every time when they refer to the authorities, they are routinely told, come back in two weeks time.

Seid Metinpur, Journalist and human rights activist

Imprisoned on 25 May 2007

Security agents arrested Metinpur and his wife, Mrs. Etiyye Metinpur (her maiden name is "Tahiri") in Zengan on 25 May 2007. They were both taken to their house for a search but Seid Metinpur was subsequently transferred to a detention facility in Zengan. During the search, they confiscated Metinpur's PC, books and personal belongings. They even cut the telephone line and ordered Mrs. Metinpur not to disclose anything to anyone.

Now Metinpur has been in his eighth month of detention, yet to be indicted, to contact a lawyer, or yet to be tried.

It was early in October 2007 when Mehemmedrza Feqihi, a lawyer, was denied of visiting Metinpur or to represent him. Metinpur is outspoken about the Iranian socio-political system and their repression of Southern Azerbaijani activists by contributing to the daily newspaper of Merdom-e-nov and many other local publications.

Metinpur has been transferred to a number of detention facilities including to Evin prison in Tehran. The last transfer took place on 4 December 2007, at which time all these five Southern Azerbaijani prisoners of conscience were transferred to Wing 209 of Evin prison.

Of the 235 detention days on 14 January 2008, Metinpur endured 45 days of solitary confinement in a completely dark and thoroughly unhygienic cell and was constantly tortured; 205 days of his total duration in the detention has been condemned to solitary confinement; and now he is jailed in Evin prison in a cell shared by a few.

Mrs. Etiyye Metinpur visited her husband in Evin prison for the first time on 17 December 2007 – on the 207 th day of the detention. According to her, Seid had massively lost weight and was suffering from a heavy hair loss. He was severely tortured and security officials had exerted unbearable pressures on him to take part in a TV program to confess to charges as dictated to him.

An opposition prisoner had met Seid Metinpur for a short duration in the prison and after being released issued a statement saying that: in the prison I came to meet an individual called Seid Metinpur for a short duration and his torturers were inserting boots and jugs into his mouth and were telling him "as you are demanding education in your mother language, therefore you have to bray in your mother language." (In Iran they call Azerbaijani Turks donkeys  During constitution revolution in Iran, Azerbaijanis in Tabriz and other Azerbaijani cities were surrounded by central army and refused to surrender. Azerbaijanis were eating grass and other vegetation eatten by grazing animals. So they suffered and brought constitution to Iran but they are called donkeys who ate pasturage.)

This untold torture was also paralleled with exerting pressure to Metinpur's family commenced from day 1 of the detention. As Seid Metinpur did not yield to torture, the Ministry of Information summoned his brother, Elirza Metinpur, on 28 August 2007 and then arrested him. His brother has been in detention for some four months and suffered much the same fate.

Seid Metinpur is 32 years old and a graduate of philosophy from the University of Tehran. He together with his brother were arrested earlier on 21 February 2007 when celebrating the International Mother Language Day in Zengan, at which time they were assaulted by plainclothes agents. They were also protesting to the restrictions inflicted by the Iranian authorities, forbidding education in Azerbaijani Turkic. The Metinpur brothers were then released on bail after 10 days of enduring solitary confinement.

It should also be mentioned that Seid Metinpur was interrogated in Urmu at the border with Turkey on 23 October 2006, when returning from Turkey, at which time the authorities confiscated his passport, as well as his 35 books and 3 journals of philosophy all in Turkish and bought in from Turkey.

The Metinpur family has expressed their anxiety for their loved ones and are demanding for their lawful treatment.


Jelil Qenilu, Freelance journalist

Imprisoned on 27 June 2007

Jelil Qenilu (30 years old), a political activist from Zengan, was arrested on 27 June 2007 and was shuttled between Evin prison and Zengan prison for a number of times. His last transfer to Wing 209 of Evin prison was together with his other Azerbaijani prisoners of conscience and took place on 4 December 2007. He has recently been transferred to a cell, sharing it with a few others.

So far, this prisoner of conscience from Zengan has not even been indicted; has had no access to a lawyer; and he has not been tried. According to a statement by his brother, Tevekkul Qenilu, his brother was apparently arrested for writing an article on the Iranian violation of human and civil rights of Southern Azerbaijanis.

He took part in the celebration of the International Mother Language Day in Zengan on 21 February 2007 and participated in the Zengan protest orchestrated by journalist and educationalists of Southern Azerbaijan. He was then arrested by security agents. The protest was concerned with the restrictions imposed by the Iranian authorities forbidding Azerbaijani to be educated in their mother language. He was released on bail after providing a surety of $30,000 but enduring 26 days of solitary confinement in Zengan prison and Evin prison. According to his brother, Jelil was even subjected to physical and mental torture during his first detention.

Behruz Seferi, political activist

Imprisoned at the end of May 2007

Behruz Seferi, a political activist of Zengan, was arrested at the end of May 2007 and just after the widespread protests of the South Azerbaijanis in response to the state sponsored publication of the offensive cartoon printed in official Iran daily Newspaper. After being kept for 6 months in detention facilities of the Ministry of Information and Security in Zengan, he was transferred to Sefer-abad prison of Zengan on 3 November 2007 and eventually, together with other Azerbaijani activists, they were transferred to Wing 209 of Evin Prison on 4 December 2007. Currently, he has been transferred to a cell in Evin prison, sharing it with a few others.

His relatives have been threatened that any pursuance of this case and publicising him in international media would result in the authority's harsh treatment.

Mrs. Leyla Seferi (her maiden surname is Mrs. Heyderi), the wife of Mr. Seferi, did not publicise her husband's detention and not even disclose it to close friends, bowing to the strict blackmailing threats of the authorities. Not withstanding this, she herself was arrested on 28 August 2007 when she went to visit her husband in prison as arranged previously.

Mr Seferi`s family managed to visit him in Evin prison on 31 December 2007 when they came to realise of the torture that he had endured in the last months. Also, in accordance with the reliable sources, Mrs Leyla Seferi (who is still kept in solitary confinement), was tortured together with her husband, Behruz, many times at each other's presence.

The authorities have not still indicted him, they have still denied him the right of access to Behruz Seferi; and he has not been tried. It is many months that he and his wife have been detained indefinitely.


Mrs Leyla Heyderi, a cultural activist

Detained on 28 August 2007

Mrs Leyla Seferi (her maiden surname is Mrs. Heyderi), the wife of Mr Behruz Seferi, is from Zengan, who has been in detention since 28 August 2007 and currently she is kept in Evin prison. Her husband, Mr Behruz Seferi who was arrested sometimes at the end of May 2007, is also under detention in Evin prison.

Security officials had threatened Mrs. Seferi that any pursuance of her husband's case and publicising him in international media will result in the authority's harsh treatment. Mrs. Leyla Seferi, did not publicise her husband's detention and not even disclose this to close friends, bowing to the strict blackmailing threats of the authorities. Not withstanding this, she herself was arrested on 28 August 2007 when she went to visit her husband in prison as arranged previously.

After being kept one month in the detention facilities of the Ministry of Information in Zengan , she was transferred to Evin Prison on 4 December 2007 together with other prisoners of conscience in Zengan. Mrs Leyla Seferi's family managed to visit in Evin Prison on 31 December 2007, who were informed of torture ordeals that she was subjected to as the authorities were forcing her to confess to the terms dictated by them.

According to Leyla Seferi`s family, she is currently being kept in solitary confinement and that she was repeatedly tortured together with her husband.

One female activist, who was released recently from Evin prison, expressed concern on Mrs. Seferi and the manner of interrogation methods that she was subjected to and the grave condition that she in.

According to this released activist, Mrs. Seferi was suffering from severe migraine headache and that she was in bad physical and mental state. Security officials had threatened her family afterward saying that should they pursue this case and publicise her in international media, she would suffer unforeseen consequences.

It is noticeable that although five months have passed from her arrest, no information has been given on charges against her; it is not known on what legal basis she has been put under arrest; she has been interrogated without the presence of a lawyer, let alone a lawyer of her choice; the judiciary systems has issued no communiqué on her case.

It should be mentioned that Mrs. Seferi was the owner and manager of the Chichek (a Turkic Azerbaijani word meaning blossom) Bookstore, but it was shutdown under seal by Department of Estates and the Information Department in 2006. The Bookstore was engaged in trading of Azerbaijani books, music cassettes and other cultural materials. .


Elirza Metinpur

Imprisoned on 28 August 2007

Elirza Metinpur was arrested on 28 August 2007, as a way of exerting pressure on his elder brother, Seid Metinpur.

This Southern Azerbaijani activist has been in detention for the last 5 months. He was transferred to Zengan prison after one month of being kept in detention facilities in Zengan. In a wave of escalating pressures, he was transferred to Evin prison together with other prisoners of conscience in Zanqan. Now he is kept in a cell there, sharing it with few others.

Metinpur's family managed to visit Elirza in the prison on 17 December 2007. According to his family, Elirza is in bad mental and physical state and that he has lost a lot of weight.

This prisoner of conscience has not been indicted; he was denied of the right of access to a lawyer, let alone a lawyer of his choice; and he has not been tried. Metinpur's family has expressed their concern and demand a lawful treatment of the children.

Open letter to:
Ban Ki-moon, the General Secretary of United Nations

A student is killed by the Islamic regime while in custody!
Condemn Islamic Republic of Iran!

According to the statement issued by Kurdistan Journalist Association in Iran a student was killed while in police custody in the city of Sanandaj. This follows the recent wave of attacks and arrests of many university students in Tehran, Sanandaj and other cities in Iran by the Islamic Republic of Iran. So far more than 60 students have been arrested all over the country; many are subjected to torture and denied visits by their families.

Ebrahim Lotfollahi, student at the Payam Noor University in Sanandaj was arrested after leaving the exam room on 5th January 2008 and taken to the office of the Etela-at (secret services) in Sanandaj. The news of his death was given to his family yesterday 16th January 2008. He was tortured and murdered in the cruelest way by the secret service agents.

The general discontent and hatred against the Islamic Republic of Iran is wide spread. Workers’, women’s and student’s movement have in many instants protested against suppression, injustice and violation of civil and social rights. They are demanding the overthrow of the Islamic Republic of Iran and are for establishment of free, equal, secular and a better world. The Islamic Regime in Iran is the cause of poverty, deprivation and suppression. The increasing number of political prisoners in Iran signifies two major events in Iran. The degree of protests against the regime on the one hand and the suppressive nature of the regime which can be summed up by one word: criminal!

What could the United Nations do about this situation? We demand the following:

1-The UN has to put pressure on the Islamic Republic of Iran. Strongly condemn the arrests and demand the immediate release of all political prisoners in Iran.
2- Send UN representatives to Iran to inspect the prisons and hear what political prisoners and their families say without reprisals from the Iranian authorities.

3- Stop backing criminal states such as the Islamic Republic of Iran. This regime has brought nothing but misery and poverty to the people of Iran and should be thrown out of every international community.

4- The Islamic regime is a criminal regime. It should be expelled from all international organizations.

5- People in Iran demand the Iranian officials be tried at international court of law for crimes against humanity
19.01.2008

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 Politica 06.12.2007

http://www.cpj.org
http://www.cpj.org/Briefings/2007/imprisoned_07/imprisoned_list_07.html

Saeed Metinpour, Yarpagh
IMPRISONED: May 25, 2007

The Committee to Defend Azerbaijan's Political Prisoners (ASMEK) reported that authorities seized Metinpour, 32, an editor for the Azeri-language weekly Yarpagh, and his wife, Atiyeh Taheri, in the northwestern city of Zanjan. They jailed Metinpour, transported his wife home, and searched the couple's property. The officers confiscated Metinpour's personal computer, books, and other personal belongings. They cut the

telephone lines and warned Taheri not to tell anyone about the incident.

The charges against Metinpour remained undisclosed. Defense attorney Mahmoud Faghihi was denied access to his client beginning in October.

Metinpour, who contributed to the daily Mardom-e No and other local papers, frequently criticized Iran's social and political system and the regime's harsh treatment of Azerbaijani activists. In his last piece before his arrest, he described Iranian police carrying out missions for the Security and Intelligence Ministry. Local journalists who spoke with CPJ said they believed his articles were behind his imprisonment.

Authorities have transferred Metinpour among several jails, including Tehran's Evin prison, ASMEK reported. Taheri was able to speak with him a few times by phone for short periods, ASMEK reported. The journalist's mother was allowed to visit him once.

Metinpour was previously arrested on February 21 along with other Azerbaijani journalists during a protest in Zanjan on International Mother Language Day. They had been demonstrating against government restrictions that prohibited them from writing and publishing Azeri-language material. Metinpour was released on bail after 10 days in solitary confinement, ASMEK reported.

Jelil Ghanilou, freelance
IMPRISONED: June 27, 2007

Security officials seized Ghanilou, 30, from his home in Zanjan, the capital of northwestern Zanjan province, on June 27, his brother, Tavakol Ghanilou, told CPJ. They held Ghanilou for nearly four months at the Ministry of Intelligence and Security jail in Zanjan before transferring him on October 21 to another prison, Tavakol Ghanilou said.

Ghanilou had not been tried when CPJ conducted its December 1 census, and the charges against him had not been disclosed. Tavakol Ghanilou told CPJ that he believed Ghanilou's articles about the civil and cultural rights of Iran's ethnic Azerbaijani minority were behind his current detention.

Authorities had arrested Ghanilou earlier in the year as well. On February 21, he was seized while attending a protest in Zanjan organized by Azeri journalists and cultural activists for International Mother Language Day. They were demonstrating against government restrictions prohibiting them from writing and publishing material in their native language. He was released on bail after spending 26 days in solitary confinement. Tavakol Ghanilou told Advar News, which is affiliated with the Office for Fostering Unity, a pro-reform student organization, that Ghanilou was subjected to physical and psychological torture during that detention. That case remained pending in late year, Tavakol Ghanilou told CPJ.

Ghanilou worked as a freelancer for several local newspapers, including the daily Mardom-e No, the weekly Farday-e Roushan, the now-defunct weekly Omid-e Zanjan, and the monthly magazine Payk-e Azerbaijan, according to Alireza Javanbakht, spokesman for the Committee to Defend Azerbaijan's Political Prisoners.

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-belie