Bharat Rakshak

Brig. Gen. Esmaeel Ahmedi Moghaddam, commander of police of Iran, opines that watching programs on foreign satellite TV stations is the root cause of most crime across Iran.

Mr. Moghaddam said: "Much of the crimes that happen in the country, whether it is moral crimes, murder, obscenity, or drug abuse, has its roots in satellite dishes." He waxed further: "We ought to blockade the broadcasting of alien culture."

Iranian authorities often limit access to satellite programs. Every so often Iranian police enter into the homes of citizens and confiscate satellite dishes and receivers. Similarly, owning or installing satellite gadgetry is a punishable crime.

The Islamic Republic is similarly suspected of using static to sabotage foreign satellite transmissions.

Mr. Moghaddam has said that to combat the satellite threat, Iranian radio and TV must create and broadcast a greater variety of programs so that the public "go less often to the satellite and alien channel's, and the propagation of alien culture in the country is stopped."

The commander of Iranian police has said that the battle against the satellite has "not been without effect", as the number of users of satellite dishes has indeed gradually but significantly decreased.

Similarly, Mr. Moghaddam has said that drug smuggling from Afghanistan into Iran has decreased by 30%.

He said that the 'sense of security' in Iran has gone up 20%. {eh?}

Similarly, regarding the recent firing of the Tehran's chief of cyberpolice, Mr. Moghaddam said it has nothing to do with pressure (surrounding a recent high profile case).

Col. Mohammad Hasan Shokrian, Iranian cyberpolice chief, has recently been removed from office after the outrage over the suspicious death of blogger Sattaar Beheshti in police detention. His family has said he was killed by the hands of the police.

The police commander (Mr. Moghaddam) said about this affair: "It isn't right if some coincidence occurs and and we said so-and-so should resign or be fired."

He similarly said in defence of the (brutal) style of action of Iranian police that while bad manners on the part of policemen is not a matter to support, yet he challenged: "Come, just one time change into uniform and stand alongside our policemen, if by the afternoon you haven't whacked the public then I will accept your charge (of police brutality)."

Translated excerpt wrote:In this survey, Indians are even worse than Arabs.
...
This survey conducted by Thomson Reuters, many criteria such as education of women, hygiene, job opportunities, violence against women were kept in view.

This survey says that the reason for the lowest rank to India is the tradition of child marriage, female enslavement and female infanticide.

Carl wrote:I also find it strange, though, that the same news agencies such as BBC, go out of their way to portray China in a very positive light w.r.t. Iran. Its easy to understand why they want to keep Iran and India apart, but I'm having trouble explaining their promotion of China in Iranian minds.

Johann wrote:While Mashaei is unlikely to win anything without the full support of the Supreme Leader and the Revolutionary Guards, I'm posting this longer profile because he is profoundly interesting.

He's part of a non-clerical, lay Shi'ite Islamism that Shariati helped build and which was sucked into Khomeini's movement when Shariati died. Its the kind of Islamism most likely to survive in Iran after the current generation of ageing clerics kicks the bucket.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2 ... shaei.html

Syriana

On the road to Damascus, US plans for the Middle East would impact India.
By Gautam Sen (10 December 2012)

London: The pointed US threats in the last few days to the Bashar al-Assad regime about the dire consequences of using chemical weapons against rebels suggest it is preparing to intervene directly in the Syrian civil war. The likeliest scenario could be the use of chemicals by the Syrian rebels themselves, which will, helpfully, provide a supposed casus belli for an aerial assault by the US and NATO. It will be specifically aimed against the political and administrative personnel of the Assad regime itself as well as key military formations. Evidently, the US and its allies, who have been baying for blood as well as equipping and financing its shedding for months, are determined to administer the coup de grace to Assad. Instigating a chemical-use incident through its proxies within Syria cannot be difficult, with Saudi and Turkish incitement to facilitate it.

The Israelis have rather preferred Bashar al-Assad who, like his father Hafez, has usually been long on talk, but restrained in action. The Golan Heights, despite all the nationalist breast-beating of the regime about foreign occupation, has been tranquil. It rather recalls that the regime had once declined to seize it militarily when the opportunity presented itself. At the critical moment, Hafez al-Assad had diverted crack troops to Damascus, instead of the Golan Heights, fearing a possible threat to his own rule. The Syrian regime, surely not the nicest people in the world, had also looked on with cold-hearted indifference while the Palestinians were being brutally slaughtered at Tal Al-Zatar in 1976. And one might recall the unsparing bloodbath in Homs in the 1980s as well. The Assad family has often had its hands full and Israel was less of a threat to the survival of the family and its Alawite clan, the principal goal, than other domestic sectarian and ethnic realities.

The Israelis are nevertheless risking the extant peaceful life to deliver a potentially severe blow to both Iran and Hezbollah, the latter dependent on Syrian support to flex its muscles on the Israeli-Lebanese border. Both of them are a bigger headache for Israel than preserving the welcome quietude it has hitherto enjoyed in the Golan Heights. It must surely be aware that a new Syrian regime, of any stripe, will be under popular pressure to end this discreet bonhomie. However, the Iranian threat is fundamental for Israel because a nuclear-armed Iran will match its conventional check on Arab ambitions with the kind of Pakistani threat that has stymied Indian freedom to act against Jihadi terror sponsored by it. But Israel and the US don’t really want to attack Iran militarily, unless the clerical regime was on the verge of collapse and a well-timed armed nudge delivered, with due precision, would ensure its disappearance. The cost of a full-scale military intervention would be high, the outcome uncertain and a future that does not guarantee Iran would not resume its quest for a nuclear deterrent. It is regime change that Israel and its allies have been attempting to provoke from a distance. And the unexpected resilience of the clergy is an understandable frustration though they have come very close to unseating them. The implied US argument over the Syrian adventure is that the path to Tehran lies through the ruins of Damascus and it is a contention not without merit.

Regime change in Iran is the most important contemporary strategic goal espoused by the US and its local ally, Israel. It would then make sense of the overthrow of the Baathists, which has, paradoxically, empowered Iraqi Shias sensitive to an Iranian clergy hostile to the West in general and Israel in particular. But the incumbent Iraqi government, emplaced at such high cost in treasure and lives, would be sympathetic to counsel from a new Iranian regime brought to power through US intercession. And both would surely be beholden to the US and the West for their political survival. This rearrangement of the Middle East and Persian chessboard has portentous significance for the world because it will allow the US to wield a resurgent, regional Shia coalition against the truculent Sunni Arabs, responsible for 9/11 and much turmoil across the world besides. And with the threat of worse to come, with one Sunni state, Pakistan, apt to wave its nuclear manhood at the drop of a hat, there is unfinished business for the US. It does not take kindly to being in a position of constantly reacting to events, initiated by countries of little consequence. In addition, it now has unexpected allies to possibly right this predicament once-and-for-all.

The overthrow of regimes in Iraq and Libya also highlights a wily additional US venture that might be termed the “little Kuwait” syndrome. It entails, as it did with the original severing of Kuwait from Ottoman Iraq, the creation of small statelets, which are basically only oil fields, and turning them into full sovereign countries. The onset of this process is becoming visible in Kurdish Iraq and now Libya. Claimants to regional autonomy are poised to take control of oil fields in their area and are already entering into one-sided contracts with multinational oil majors. The deluded Saudis, who imagine they are playing a pivotal role remaking the world at present, while booking whole floors of the London Claridges hotel for a spot of sordid fun, are going to have a very nasty surprise once the Iranians became more manageable. The oil rich provinces in Saudi Arabia are dominated by Shia populations and removing them from Saudi control will be less demanding than relieving an ageing geisha of her silk purse! This will be the final pending payback for 9/11. It will also prevent any Chinese ‘smash and grab’ of oil resources in the way they are attempting in the South China Sea. These minor entities controlling much of Middle Eastern oil resources in the future, in largely Shia areas, will be beyond China’s manipulative reach and beholden to the US and its allies.

Political power has eluded Shias since the founder of Safavid Iran, Shah Ismail I, changed the sectarian loyalties of his Persian subjects by force in the early sixteenth century. He turned a Sunni population into Shias to ensure their political loyalty. But this was a brief interlude of Shia self-assertion, usually the historic privilege of Sunni potentates, which reached an apogee under his illustrious grandson, Shah Abbas. More to the point, the primordial grievance of the original betrayal of the Prophet’s descendants remains undimmed for Shias over the centuries. It is a phenomenon that modern sensibility cannot fully grasp, but held with equal ferocity by Shia nuclear scientists and uneducated Shia bazaaris, both displaying guileless certainty about supposed injustices that occurred thirteen hundred years ago.

This ineluctable truth of historic treachery and assassinations will cement a Shia alliance with the West against their sworn Sunni enemies for the foreseeable future. It is a vast underpinning of hatred which daily prompts the murder of innocent Shia women and children engaged in worship by the Sunni faithful in Pakistan and Iraq. Such divided loyalties and animosities will likely temporarily override Shia suspicions of the West and the fairness of the price paid for oil. This is the destiny American policymakers have discreetly arranged for the hapless Muslim faithful, stranded in the modern world of science and intrigue.

The Islamist regime of Turkey, busy dismantling the secular legacy of its founder, Kemal Ataturk, has allowed over-confidence to overwhelm discretion. It threatens the European Union for denying it full membership while vying for leadership of the sectarian Islamic world in some sort retaliatory pique. It apparently chooses not to remember the fate of a similarly deluded Ottoman Empire that crumbled and the religiosity that repeatedly curtailed reform, which might have salvaged the remnants of its imperial reach. But it has now turned against the two countries, Israel and Syria, though for different reasons, with which it previously enjoyed affable relations. It has jumped onto the American bandwagon against Syria with an opportunistic alacrity familiar in its recent history and that of the UK in relations with the US. But serious dangers portend for Turkey if US intervention leads to the establishment of more autonomous Kurdish authority in Iraq, where it is almost a reality, and then Syria. Were this to be followed by a resultant weakening of Iranian control over its own Kurdish population, Turkey might face a dilemma of greater severity than its Kurdish separatists have posed in the past. The price of one’s own duplicity might be its karmic retribution through the duplicity of a third party only mindful of its own national interests.

India would also be affected adversely in the short run because a sharp rise in fuel prices owing to conflict in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf will impact negatively on growth. Indeed it will pose a serious dilemma for the Indian government because it no longer has the financial resources to subsidize the price of fuel, which so many Indians have come to regard as some sort of birthright! In addition, unrest in the Middle East exposes India’s Achilles heel by underlining its real status as a poor, undeveloped nation that finances its balance of payments deficits by massively exporting labour to work in conditions that are shamefully scandalous. They also underline the desperate circumstances within India that drive so many into the arms of agents, vicious Middle Eastern employers and their governments, who all regard them as subhuman. Thus, a double whammy could be in prospect if the situation in the Middle East was to become dire for any length of time, which is possible. An Indian budgetary crisis will then combine with a balance of payments one. It will create an unprecedented situation for India that had apparently been relegated to the past once it begun traversing the path to sustained growth in the mid-90s, although that too has seemed doubtful lately. And how will India finance the 2G Pharaonic lifestyles to which its politicians and many bureaucrats have become accustomed?

Yet, there is a silver lining if India can survive the immediate setbacks arising from Middle Eastern turmoil. The destruction of Sunni Arab financial power and its ideological fount in Saudi Arabia will bring respite from the insidious Wahhabi villainy that has been poisoning the serenity of Indian Muslims. Its retreat will likely curtail the funding of terror that originates in Saudi Arabia and the repulsive adjacent statelets of the Gulf, who will have their conceited wings smartly clipped. The ending of Wahhabi ideological incitement to truculence, mayhem and terror, that now routinely disrupts life in major Indian cities, including Hyderabad, Kolkata, Chennai and Mumbai, will impose a check on the resources available for mischief. In addition, there will be an impact on the self-confidence of Pakistan that stems from a bizarre belief in the timeless supremacy of its founding ideology and its alleged superiority to all other alternatives, despite the accumulating diabolical evidence to the contrary that is consigning the country to the flames of barbarity and oblivion. The end of Saudi funding and absence of Wahhabi incitement will indeed benefit Pakistan, by allowing it to dimly perceive the harsh reality of its modest place in the scheme of things. Perhaps it will then also behave with appropriate realism in its relations with India.

American policy in the Middle East may offer India some respite from the mighty Jihadi storm brewing within the country, incited by Wahhabi ideology, Pakistani succour to terrorism, and India’s own appalling votebank politics. But like the best laid plans of mice and men, much can go wrong and America’s ambitious attempts to reorder the Middle East radically may come to grief. The biggest known unknown, as one American war criminal once inelegantly voiced, is the reaction of the ordinary masses of the Middle East to events. They are not all fools and zealously ready to sacrifice their lives for political goals. But they are also easily distracted by unfathomable concerns of scriptural verity and dress codes for women, as the on-going Egyptian revolution is demonstrating right now. They may revolt and force pliant regimes to sing a different tune, even if they were brought to power by US and Western imperial designs. The immediate Iranian reaction to the overthrow of Assad’s Alawite Shia regime is also relevant though they may suspect a trap inviting them to intervene. The Hezbollah have stronger cause to join the fray to protect their Syrian lifeline and both Assad and the Iranians may wish to spread the violence to Lebanon to complicate the situation for the US. It is not clear what Russia can do in the event of the aerial bombardment of Syria by NATO, short of having their own troops man anti-aircraft missiles and batteries in Syria. However, they are likely to baulk at the option. Much bloodshed and drama are now promised in the Middle East and India needs to watch and wait, doing little and hoping for much.

Dr Gautam Sen has taught Political Economy at the London School of Economics.

Carl wrote:There is a deliberate BBC and general Western policy of trying to keep Iran and India estranged.

Rony wrote:The West may have its own reasons for keeping India and Iran estranged but the Iranians also share the major part of blame in unnecessarily poking India. Press TV is no less anti-Indian than BBC persian. Press TV infact is directly interfering in India's internal affairs and openly instigating the Kashmiris. India should remind the Iranians to look into their own house and listen to the legitimate aspirations of the Baluchis\Kurds\Bahias\Sunni muslims.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sfStuazzBY

abhishek_sharma wrote:A Crass and Consequential Error

Yonathan Bethkoliya, representative of Iran's Assyrian Christian minority in the 9th Majles, has protested against the "insults to religious minorities" in some radio and television programs broadcast by state media, and has requested Ezzatollah Zarghami, head of these broadcasting services, to stop the further repetition of such programs.
[...]
In other public speeches in the Majles, he had pointed out that executive agencies often prefer not to recruit Assyrian Christian employees. He requested the President to personally look into this because "this lack of opportunity caused by the prejudices of some executives is directly responsible for the emigration of Assyrian Christians out of Iran, being in dire straits."

Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians are formally recognized as religious minorities in Iran, but they do not enjoy the same rights as others. Their situation has been the subject of protest from human rights organizations.

The judiciary has not responded in any way to these repeated protests and requests of Assyrian Christians.

As examples of legal discrimination, Mr. Bethkoliya cited certain articles of Iran's civil law (such as Article 881 [revised]), as well as the double-standard law of Qesaas (punishment by retribution or compensation). He expressed the idea that discrimination in such matters based on religion or ideology is not consistent with human rights.

E.g. according to Article 881 [revised], if there are two legally defined potential heirs of a person, one of whom is Moslem and the other non-Moslem, then all of the inheritance goes to the Moslem and nothing to the other - even if the Moslem is a more distant relative to him than the non-Moslem.

Similarly, regarding the law of Qesaas also, there is a difference in punishments for, say, the murder of a Moslem and a non-Moslem.

In these courts, if a non-Moslem is convicted of murdering a Mosalmaan, he is likely to be given the most severe possible punishment. Whereas if a Mosalmaan murders a non-Moslem, that sort of punishment will not be enforced.

Mr. Bethkoliya urged that Assyrian teachers be allowed to be recruited into schools for Assyrian Christian children. He also opposed the renaming of one such school, from "Hazrat Maryam (Mary)" to "Hayaat e Tayyebeh (Pure Life)".

At the same time he urged that old and decrepit Assyrian schools be renovated, and warned that otherwise there is the fear of the dying out of such schools.

In spite of such speeches in the Majles, Mr. Bethkoliya joined everyone else in condemning the report of Mr. Ahmed Shaheed, UN special reporter on denial of minority rights in Iran.

According to one section in Mr. Shaheed's 3rd report on minorities in Iran published 2 months ago, it turns out that 300 Christians have been imprisoned in that country since around June 2010 until the publication of the report, and 41 of them have been languishing in jails for between 1 month and 1 year without even being charged.

According to this report, churches (in Iran) are required to notify the government of any new members in the congregation, and anyone who newly accepts Christianity is arrested on charges of apostasy and subjected to pressure.

Morteza Talaee, member of Tehran City Council, said during an interview with the Ilna news agency that partnerships between girls and boys in Tehran without formal marriage has witnessed an increase.

Mr. Talaee warned that this manifestation is a "societal calamity" and will have "dangerous consequences".

In this regard he said that the official statistics of such occurrences have not yet been released, but that this would carry with it difficult and new manifestations of modern calamities.

Less than a month ago, Majid Doost'ali, Cabinet Secretary, had also said, "the increase in the number of single households is one of the threats of the enemy."

The safekeepers who rule over Iran's social problems, especially things like relations among the youth and their attire, are keeping an eye out for those elites whose lifestyles are different from Iranian citizens.

Before this also, Iranian officials had sought to place limits on the possible life situations of Iranian youth. Among other things, they placed barriers to single young people being able to rent apartments.

RamaY wrote:So basically Shias of Pakistan are pu$$ies.

Pakis have to kill 10-20 million Shias followed by atleast 30-40 million Munafiqs before Islam starts showing good results to them.

Can pakis pull this trick? They should take help from Maos.

Shonu wrote:(I'm not disagreeing with you but rather pointing something out) You do realise that by calling them pussies you are actually saying that they are not suside bombers and terrorists. Kinda like the hindus.

RajeshA wrote:Shonu ji,

we are talking here strictly green on green!

shiv wrote:I think you have missed the pisk-ops in Rajesh's post. He is right. Iranians are pussies and they can do nothing about the massacre of Shias in Pakistan.

Carl wrote:RajeshA ji, didn't the Prophet say something about an eastward jab in Ghazwat-ul-Hind before the Mahdi moves west from Khorasan to Jerusalem? Well, if circumstances are an indication, then the hour is nigh. If Iran is to morph from being Persian Pu$$y to Mahdi Army, then first it must give a fitting response to the genocide of Shi'a happening just east of Khorasan, in Hind.

Carl wrote:RajeshA ji, didn't the Prophet say something about an eastward jab in Ghazwat-ul-Hind before the Mahdi moves west from Khorasan to Jerusalem? Well, if circumstances are an indication, then the hour is nigh. If Iran is to morph from being Persian Pu$$y to Mahdi Army, then first it must give a fitting response to the genocide of Shi'a happening just east of Khorasan, in Hind.

RajeshA wrote:

Carl wrote:RajeshA ji, didn't the Prophet say something about an eastward jab in Ghazwat-ul-Hind before the Mahdi moves west from Khorasan to Jerusalem? Well, if circumstances are an indication, then the hour is nigh. If Iran is to morph from being Persian Pu$$y to Mahdi Army, then first it must give a fitting response to the genocide of Shi'a happening just east of Khorasan, in Hind.

Carl ji,

you're very correct. But the Ayatollah's of Iran are afraid of Mahdi and don't want him to return. Would Ayatollah Khamenei want to share power with the Mahdi? Would any one else from the regime want to give up their privileges and perks by giving up the reins of Iran to some Mahdi?

No, I think the Iranian regime is doing their utmost in obstructing the return of the Mahdi, and thus are not willing to attack Hind, just east of Khorasan. What would the Mahdi say about the callousness of the Iranian Mullahs who were more interested in saving their treasures rather than saving the lives of the devout Shi'a, who are being butchered day in and day out by the Wahhabandis in Hind, in Quetta, in Karachi, in Gilgit, all under the approving eyes of the Pakistani Army.

The Iranian Mullahs are the biggest obstruction in the return of the Mahdi and the biggest accomplices in the genocide of the Shi'as in Western Hind (Pakistan).

RajeshA wrote:I sense a certain troubling development in Iran viz-a-viz India.

As Iran gets a bloody nose in West Asia, with Iran losing out Syria, and the accompanying levers to push pressure on Israel, thus losing a major spoke for its pan-Islamic leadership claim, I see Iran building its Pan-Islamic leadership plank in the Indian Subcontinent, trying to get official Pakistani support for it.

Altair wrote:RajeshA
There is significant area of Baluchistan under Iranian occupation also. Everyday Baluch people get butchered by Iranian security forces. But since the media in Iran is so tightly controlled news seldom gets out. Just yesterday Iranian security forces murdered protesting unarmed women demanding an end to Iranian occupation of Baluchistan. If we are to support Baluchistan overtly, Iran goes for a toss. Make no mistake about that.
Altair

1. To coerce Saudi Arabia to look for a nuclear umbrella with Pakistan, thereby forcing Saudis to become both dependent on Pakistan for the Sunni Bomb, as well as to continue to support its nuclear program.
2. To make Iran strong enough to resist any dismantlement of the state. This is important for Pakistan because Iran helps it preserve its duopoly in Central Asia! USA remains dependent on Pakistan for giving them access to Central Asia. What makes Pakistan's location of great geostrategic importance? Of course, it is 'Duopoly for Central Asian Access' and furthermore the fact that it has better relations with the West than Iran.

Carl wrote:(a) It crushes Baluchi aspirations,
(b) it creates an Iran-Pak condominium in Afghanistan

Balochistan, as the Baloch refer to their homeland, is divided today between Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan. But the fact that the region is a virtual no-go area for the international media shouldn’t disguise its potential strategic importance. After all, the area—roughly the size of France—holds significant reserves of gas, gold, copper, oil and uranium, and also has a 1,000-kilometre coastline at the gates of the Persian Gulf.

‘(But) unlike what happened in Pakistani-controlled Balochistan, Tehran hasn’t exploited the energy and mineral reserves in the area,’ says Prof. Taj Muhammad Breseeg. ‘It prefers that the region’s resources and population remain undeveloped.’

According to figures from Amnesty International, Iran executed at least 1,481 people from 2004 to 2009, with the London-based International Voice for Baloch Missing Persons claiming that about 55 percent of these were Baloch. The organization claims that the Baloch in Iran have endured the highest concentration of death penalties handed down as a percentage of population in the world for nearly a decade under the Islamic regime.

Carl wrote:RajeshA ji,

It looks like the Arabs and the US are definitely more likely to actively support trouble in West Baluchestan (Iranian-occupied) than East Baluchestan. Even in Baluchi demonstrations in the US when Ahmadinejad visited, some of them were discouraged from carrying anti-Pakistani placards along with anti-Iran ones. If they want funding, then they should focus on Iran, is the message.

Carl wrote:OTOH, the Baluchi intelligentsia (which seems wholly based on E. Baluchestan) prefers that Paki-held Baluchis gain freedom first and lead the whole movement in general, rather than the W. Baluchis, for whom they seem to have disdain

Carl wrote:So far, internal lack of unity has been the bane of the Baluchi freedom struggle. This East-West difference could add to that. It would be interesting to see how the powers that are funding it will get everyone on the same page.

Carl wrote:Moreover, in a case as transparent as this, an Iran-Pak-China axis is a possibility. Pak-China can easily bear down on India to deter us from participating actively. The chances of active Indian participation seem higher if TSP itself was the chief target of the first round of Baluchi liberation (East). But if W. Baluchestan is going to be the chief focus, and the co-operation of a section within Pakistan is also required, then its conceivable that - even if the break-away happens - Indian participation could be kept down.

W. Baluchis usually tend to be involved in drug-running or other schemes to make money, rather than a well-thought out ideology, or else they tend to focus more on Sunni Islamism and in demanding more rights from Tehran. Moreover, the E. Baluchi intelligentsia in TSP prefers to keep the ideology of Baluchi nationalism relatively non-sectarian and "secular" (relatively speaking). Since the 1800's, a lot of Baluchis became "Zikris" (a Mahdi-ist movement), plus there exist some Baluchi Shi'a. But Baluch movements focused on Iranian Baluchestan tend to be Wahhabi funded and indoctrinated. As it is, the Zikris are merging back into the regular Hanafi Sunni fold, so this added Wahhabi extremism and its macabre tactics with groups like Jondullah is even more unwelcome according to these Baluchi thinkers.

3. Why is a wall being built dividing Pakistani and Iranian Balochistan?

Iran has started constructing a 700km concrete wall along the border that has divided Baloch people into Pakistan and Iran from Taftan to Mand. The Iranian government claims that 3 feet thick and 10 feet high concrete wall is being constructed to stop illegal border crossings and stem the flow of drugs. The BPP strongly believe that construction of the wall serves political goals of the Iranian regime which is to divide the Baloch people and to suppress opposition voices claiming a unified Baloch nation. Close relatives live on both sides on the border and the wall will divide community politically and socially and seriously impede trade and social activities of the Baloch.

Jhujar wrote:Shia hero not needed in a Sunni play
PLG vsADG

For once, I agree with Ahmed el-Tayeb, the grand mufti of Al-Azhar in Egypt, who told the visiting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad not to interfere in the matters concerning Sunni Arabs.

The Iranian President is on a three-day visit to Egypt, where he is attending the 12th annual summit of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). In an afternoon visit to Sunni Islam’s most revered school of learning, Al-Azhar, the Iranian President was reminded of the centuries old schism between the Shia (mostly Iranian) and Sunni Islam. “Mr. el-Tayeb said attempts to spread Shia Islam in mainly Sunni Arab nations were unacceptable,” reported the Associated Press.

Since the Iranian revolution in 1979, Iran has tried to assume the role of chief spokesperson for the entire Muslim community. Given that Shias are a tiny minority amongst the billion-plus Muslims, the majority of Sunnis did not appreciate the attempts by a minority sect to take the centre stage. This, however, has not deterred the cleric-led post revolution Iran for trying to assert itself in conflicts that have pitched Sunni Arabs against others. I would argue that Iran should immediately halt meddling in conflicts involving Sunnis and instead, restrict its efforts to improving the welfare of Shias, who are currently being hounded by extremist Sunnis in places like Pakistan and Bahrain.

As a child growing up in Pakistan, I saw the rise of Iranian influence amongst Shias. The Iranian revolution in 1979 galvanised not just the religious minded Shias, but even the liberals. Iran emerged as a strong and bold voice against imperialism. I remember being woken up to hear the early morning call for prayer from Tehran on our shortwave radio. The fact that pre-dawn prayers in Tehran were held 90 minutes before the break of dawn in Islamabad did not dissuade many from cutting short their sleep. The euphoria of a Muslim (and not necessarily a Shia) revival was contagious.

The months and years following the revolution saw the emergence of a more orthodox version of Islam in Iran. Soon many realised that it was not the revolution that Dr. Ali Shariati advocated for. Instead, Iran ended up with a rigid version of Shia Islam that resembled the orthodoxy of the Wahabi version of Saudi Islam. The liberal strands of Shia Islam that relied on the principle of Ijtihad (“the effort to derive Islamic laws from their original sources within one’s human comprehension”) were pushed to the back and in its place emerged the orthodoxy of Imam Khomeini’s Vilayat-e-Faqih (the guardianship of Islamic jurists).

Up until the late 70s, Shias in Pakistan and elsewhere travelled to Iraq to study Shia jurisprudence at the Hawza ‘ilmiya. In the early 80s, Iran started to offer scholarships and bursaries to attract the new generation of Shia scholars to Qom. Hundreds flocked to the seminaries in Qom where they learnt about Shia jurisprudence, and at the same time they embraced the political doctrine pushed by the organised clergy in Iran.

Death to every one

It was during the 80s that I saw the radical shift in the script of sermons delivered at Shia mosques in Pakistan. A chant emerged as the centre-piece of prayers that denounced the US, Russia, and Israel. It ended with the prayer seeking Khomeini’s longevity until Imam Mehdi’s appearance. The prayer in Persian read as follows:

Mergber Amreeka, mergber Rouseeyah, mergber Israel, mergber dushman-e-wilayatehfaqih

Ilahi, Ilahi, tawinqalabe Mehdi, Khomeini ranageh daasht

(Death to America, Death to the Soviet Union, Death to Israel, and death to anyone who opposes Khomeini. Oh God, until the emergence of the 12th Shia Imam Mehdi, please look after Khomeini).

While Iran was pushing its propaganda in Pakistan, so were the Soviets. As the Americans forced Pakistan and Afghanistan into a not-so-covert war with the Soviet Union, the reds struck back with propaganda and scholarships for journalists and leftist/socialist leaders. Again, hundreds from Pakistan left for higher education in Russia and its client states. While I was studying at the Peshawar University, we used to receive free copies of Pravda delivered to our university residence to be disbursed to students. In downtown (Saddar) Peshawar, bookshops sold subsidised literature on socialism. Many left-leaning students used to walk around the university campus wearing red scarves to show their solidarity with the political left.

It was only in the late 80s, when I was in my late teens, that I caught on to the obvious lacuna in the Iranian propaganda. While the Americans and the Soviets were at each other’s throats, Iranians were calling for the destruction of both. If the US was an enemy, why did Iran not see the Soviets as friends? After all, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The shift in Iranian propaganda came about quickly. Suddenly, and without any explanation, ‘death to the Soviet Union’ was dropped from the chant. Soviets were now friends of Iran and of Shias in Pakistan.

The US and Israel, however, have remained on the hate chant. While the Iranians do have legitimate reasons to be wary of the United States, their stance against Israel is based entirely on Iranian support for the Palestinians. Iranians do not trust the Americans and the British because of their unwelcome interventions in Iran in the past that has derailed democratic forces more than once. CIA and the British Intelligence orchestrated a coup against the democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mosaddeq in 1953 when he tried to nationalise the Iranian oil industry. Later, the Americans support for Raza Shah Pahlavi during his dictatorial reign and afterwards also annoyed Iranians. And finally, the US backing of Iraq in its war against Iran is also something most Iranians are not willing to forget or forgive.

The Iranian propaganda in Pakistan seems absurd at times. Even now, after every attack on Shias in Pakistan, the Shia clerics blame Israel and the US for Shia massacres. The fact that extremist Sunnis are responsible for most attacks on Shias in Pakistan does not deter the Iran-schooled Shia clerics from blaming the US and Israel. The clerics do this even after the Pakistani Taliban claim responsibility for the massacres.

More Arab than the Arabs in the Arab-Israeli conflict

Another Iranian invention is the Al-Quds day, which is observed on the last Friday in Ramazan to express solidarity with the Palestinians. Since 1979, Shias in Iran, Pakistan, and Lebanon, have taken out rallies in support of Palestinians, who are mostly Sunnis. This has obviously irked Israelis, to put it mildly. However, the Iranian attempt to hijack the single most important issue of the Sunni Arabs has not settled well with the Arab leadership. In fact, it has revived the centuries old Arab-Ajam rivalries. The ruling elite in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and the rest of Arab world has in fact resented the Iranian support for Palestinian grievances.

While the Arab leaders felt threatened by Iran as it tried to emerge as the champion of Muslim causes, the Sunni Arab populace, including the Palestinians, also did not appreciate or welcome Iran’s help. The thought of Shia Iranians leading the Sunni Arabs was equally unacceptable to the Arab elite and the man on the street. Wikileaks released documents in 2008 that revealed the Saudi King wanting the US to attack Iran to “put an end to its nuclear weapons program”. More than 80 per cent Egyptians in a Pew Global Attitudes Project Survey in 2010 considered a nuclear-armed Iran a threat. Most Jordanians, Nigerians, Indonesians and Turks felt the same about Iran. A 2012 survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project revealed that most Sunnis in several Muslim majority countries did not consider Shias as Muslims.

Why then, does Iran try to champion Sunni Arab causes, when its help is not welcome?

Listen to the Mufti’s free advice

President Ahmadinejad and the Iranian religious ruling elite should pay heed to the free advice from the grand mufti of Egypt. The Iranians should not discard it as yet another example of sectarian hate speech. It may be so, but it highlights the enigma Iranians face; the very people they would like to help, do not welcome it. So why bother?

The age old Arab-Ajam schism is alive. Iranians will be well-served to recognise that their advances are not welcome by the Sunni Arabs. The Iranian clergy should instead consider introspection. It is one thing to lobby for Palestinian rights and another to grant the same to the democracy-seeking Iranians.

Rony wrote:Iran Confiscates Buddha Statues To Quell The Spread Of Buddhism

Buddha statues have been added to the growing list of items that are banned in Iran. Officials have begun confiscating the statues from shops in the capital city of Tehran in order to stop the promotion of Buddhism.

The Islamic republic has long waged a ware against items such as Barbie dolls i order to limit western influence, but this appears to be the first time that authorities have shown hostility towards symbols from the east.

According to a report in the independent Arman daily, Saeed Jaberi Ansari, an official for the protection of Iran's cultural heritage, has deemed the Buddha statues as symbols of "cultural invasion."

Ansari reportedly said that authorities would not permit a specific belief to be promoted through items like Buddha statues. He did not indicate how many Buddha statues had been seized, but noted that the "cleansing" would continue.

Apparently, some Iranians buy the statues to decorate their homes and cars, but few actually care about Buddhism and simply thought that they were beautiful as decorations.

Iran's constitution recognizes Christian and Jewish beliefs as well as Zoroastrianism alongside Islam, the nation's official religion. The law states that in general, the rights of all non-Muslims should be observed. However, there are some Islamists who do not promote the production of any kind of statue as they view it as a way of promoting idols.

In a radio interview Tuesday on the Kevin Barrett Show, Honegger stated that filmmaker Ben Affleck might one day be hanged for war crimes and treason - not only for Argo, which she said is designed to pave the road to war on Iran, but also for his role in the 2001 film Pearl Harbor, an earlier intelligence operation designed to pave the road to the 9/11 “New Pearl Harbor.” According to Honegger, Affleck - like his character in Argo - appears to be a covert operator posing as a filmmaker.

Brad Goodman wrote:interesting
Pakistan's woe: For decades fighting the enemy within

....
We fought India each time to lose, because the US did not support us, but we won against the Soviets because the "free world" stood behind us.
......
The Holy Prophet of Islam desired to know the essence of things, but Muslim societies forever produced only imam, the poet Hafiz and mujahid.
.....

read full article

Increasing numbers of Iranians are settling in the former Soviet state of Georgia. Some say they are being forced to move because of Iran's poor economy, hit hard by Western sanctions. Others blame persecution by the authorities in Tehran.

The weekly magazine Aryana may be printed in Georgia but it is written in Farsi. That is because it is catering to the growing number of Iranians moving here - since its launch seven months ago, its circulation has quadrupled.

The magazine helps Iranians settle in Georgia by explaining the local culture and traditions.

Its editor and owner, Sara Ghazi, says that people in Iran are struggling to cope with rampant inflation. And she feels, as a journalist, restricted.

"I could never work there because I like to write what I think. And that's not free in Iran. They control what to write and how to think. That's not me."

Georgia is an attractive option for many: It is close to Iran, the economy is growing and Iranians do not need a visa.

Ms Ghazi's husband, Mustafa Sedighi, is a poet who moved to Georgia in the middle of March. His work is banned in Iran. But now he has been able to publish his latest poem, which is critical of the situation in Iran, in Aryana.

"I have the freedom to do what I want here," he explained. "I've never experienced this kind of liberty before, to write what I want to write."

Record unemployment has forced a growing number of Iranians to seek work in Georgia
The number of Iranians who travelled to Georgia increased by 60% last year, to around 100,000 per year. And more than 6,000 Iranians are now officially registered as residents in Georgia - a large number for a country unused to immigration.

Dollar-driven
For Iranian toy manufacturer Babak Amin, leaving Iran is an economic necessity.

I met him at a new consultancy in Tbilisi, called the Georgian-Iranian Business Centre, which gives advice to Iranians about how to open a business here. Consultants see up to 15 Iranians a day, who are looking to open a company or buy property in Georgia.

Tbilisi has an Islamic-style bathhouse

Mr Amin said it was getting impossible to sell his goods back home in Iran because, as a result of the sanctions, the currency there is constantly losing value.

"The rate of the US dollar changes every day so we cannot do business [in Iran]," he said." We buy something today and send it to Iran and on that day the US dollar goes up, and then we lose money."

The advantage of Georgia is that it is seen as the most pro-Western and business-friendly country in the region.

But there are also strong cultural and historical links between Georgia and Iran.

Georgia was once part of a large Iranian, or Persian, empire.

Those influences can still be seen today in the architecture of Tbilisi's Old Town.

One old bathhouse is built in the style of a mosque and is covered with decorated blue tiles. A lot of the old houses here have arched windows and carved wooden balconies, so typical of traditional Iranian architecture.

And many Iranians have told me that Georgian attitudes, such as strong family values or an emphasis on hospitality, remind them of Iran. So they quickly feel at home here.

Power balance
Georgia, meanwhile, hopes the influx of Iranians will lead to an economic boost.

But the challenge is how to have a good relationship with nearby Iran while avoiding antagonising the US - Georgia's most important ally - and the EU, which Georgia wants to join.

"Georgia wants to belong to European and Euro-Atlantic structures but at the same time to have good relations with every neighbour," said Georgian political analyst Alexander Rondeli.

He argues that Georgia has to manage a delicate balancing act between nearby powers, who may have different political ideologies, and key allies, who are far away.

"In this region there are three regional superpowers - Russia, Turkey and Iran," he said.

"And we cannot ignore this situation because we have to deal with all three of them. They contribute to our stability, our security. So I think having normal good relations with Iran, especially in business, is not dangerous to Georgia, and not to international security either."

But for some Iranians, Georgia is providing a safe haven from persecution.

'New Dubai'
I met a group of Iranian evangelical Christians, who have all recently moved to Georgia, as they sang hymns in the street. They have set up a stall in the middle of Tbilisi, to hand out the Bible, in Farsi, to Iranian people passing by.

Aryana magazine is aimed at Iranians in Georgia

When the group's preacher, known as Babek, tried to do that in Iran, he told me how he was sentenced to 40 days in solitary confinement, and was beaten by police so badly that his legs were broken.

"If you are Muslim and you convert to Christianity, the government can cause you lots of problems in Iran: you can go to prison, you can lose your job," he said.

Other Iranians say that living in Georgia means they feel free from harassment by the authorities for certain political opinions or lifestyle choices, such as drinking alcohol. And some Iranian women say they enjoy not having to wear a headscarf.

Meanwhile back at the printing presses, Ms Ghazi was organising the distribution of this week's edition of her magazine.

The business opportunities in Georgia now remind her of Dubai 10 years ago.

"Here if you've got the ideas and creativity and some capital you can easily invest and grow, and help the country and the market also grow," she said.

Unemployment in Georgia, though, is high. So for Iranians who do not have the capital to start a business, it is difficult to find a job.

But at least, many of them say, they have found a country where they can feel free.

An Iranian-American group suspected of acting as Tehran’s lobbying shop in Washington, D.C., was ordered to pay nearly $200,000 in “sanctions” April 9 after launching a failed defamation lawsuit against one of its chief critics.

The left-leaning National Iranian American Council (NIAC) was ordered earlier this month to pay $183,480 to the legal defense fund of Hassan Daioleslam, an Iranian-American writer who has accused NIAC of failing to disclose its clandestine lobbying efforts, which are believed to include efforts to roll back sanctions on Tehran.

NIAC, which describes itself as a nonprofit educational organization, sued Daioleslam in 2008, alleging he defamed the group by claiming NIAC has lobbied U.S. government officials on Tehran’s behalf.

Founded and run by Trita Parsi, NIAC emerged as one of Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel’s principal backers during the pitched battle over his controversial nomination to the Pentagon.

Federal District Court Judge John B. Bates cleared Daioleslam of the defamation charges in September of last year in a decision that criticized NIAC for deliberately withholding and altering critical documents during an exhaustive discovery process.

Bates then ordered NIAC pay a portion of Daioleslam’s legal expenses in an April 9 follow-up order. NIAC is appealing.

Bates wrote that his “judgment is entered in favor of defendant [Daioleslam] and against plaintiffs [NIAC] on the merits and that judgment in the amount of $183,480.09, plus interest,” according to the order.

Bates’ decision caps a protracted court battle over NIAC’s true activities, which could have violated U.S. disclosure laws governing lobbying.

“This decision is a victory for the First Amendment and the free discussion of Islamist terrorism,” said Sam Nunberg, director of the Legal Project, which coordinated Daioleslam’s pro bono defense along with the law firm Sidley Austin LLP.

“Parsi and NIAC’s predatory suit was a failing attempt to intimidate open discourse on their illicit activities and motives on behalf of the Iranian regime,” Nunberg said. “Ironically, Mr. Daioleslam’s original work was not only vindicated through NIAC documents revealed during discovery, but only the tip of the iceberg.”

NIAC, which continues to maintain it won the case despite Bates’s decision, has filed an appeal to a D.C. circuit court panel.

The group claims Daioleslam’s “pro-war,” “neoconservative” defense team fabricated “false and nonexistent discovery issues to facilitate exorbitant costs for NIAC.”

“NIAC strongly disagrees with the decision to share the costs of this process,” the group said in a statement posted on its website. “NIAC should not bear any responsibility for Daioleslam’s failure to produce any evidence to back up his egregious claims as well as his grotesquely disproportionate and wasteful discovery tactics.”

“NIAC anticipates that a D.C. circuit panel will recognize that Judge Bates’s cost-shifting orders contained multiple errors and therefore should be reversed or vacated,” the statement said.

However, Bates’ initial opinion outlined NIAC’s repeated attempts to alter internal documents, as well as withhold critical pieces of correspondence that may have exposed their alleged pro-Tehran lobbying efforts.

NIAC withheld more than 4,000 calendar appointments that had been subpoenaed and deleted some 82 references to the word “lobbying.”

While NIAC maintains Daioleslam “retreated from his outrageous claims,” Daioleslam denied that claim in an interview with the Washington Free Beacon.

“Just to see the statement [NIAC] released shows how they lie easily,” Daioleslam said. “They were caught by the judge and have to pay, but they still lie.”

Bates’ decision is “a punishment because they lied,” he added. “What they said to the court is untrue.”

“They are lobbying for the regime” in Iran, Daioleslam said, reiterating his original claim that sparked the lawsuit. “Trita for years has seen he has support in the State Department and many places, and he can get away with whatever he wants.”

Nunberg said Parsi and NIAC are upset they could not strong-arm Daioleslam into recanting his statements.

“As a result of Parsi and NIAC’s blatant malfeasance and disregard for the rule of law, now not only have they lost all credibility but are also faced with $183,480.09 problems,” Nunberg said. “The scales of justice certainly tipped on the side of freedom and national security in this matter.”

Statements by the US officials threatening to attack Iran militarily are ineffectual if not counterproductive. On March 3 at the annual AIPAC conference, Vice President Joe Biden threatened military intervention and declared, “We mean it. And let me repeat it: We … mean it.” Biden’s approach was in line with Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu’s message to the same conference asserting that only credible military threat will stop Iran from pursuing its nuclear program.

During President Obama’s visit to Israel in March, he told reporters: “The United States will continue to consult closely with Israel on next steps. And I will repeat, all options are on the table.” And in the latest development the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted to endorse Resolution 65, affirming that the United States will go to war with Iran in case Israel does.

In early April’s talks in Almaty, Iran rejected the P5+1 proposal. The Iranians argued that its commitment to the world powers' demand for maximum level transparency, assuring no nuclear breakout capability, should be rewarded by both respecting Iran’s fundamental rights to peaceful enrichment under the NPT, as well as sanctions relief. Such a rational argument should not be met by continued threats of military action against Iran. While talks are heading toward a rational direction, persistently threatening Iran with military attacks only helps to derail the current momentum, thus solidifying the impasse.

Two theories may explain the recent amplified US threats against Iran.

First, some believe that applying threats will coerce Iran to depart from its principle position defending its legitimate rights to peaceful nuclear technology. However, this strategy has never worked, nor will it work in the future.

One major reason among several is a broadly shared view among Iran’s power elite that any compromise, such as suspending uranium enrichment, “under coercion, threat, and intimidation,” would open the door to more coercion and demands of concessions by the United States. They maintain any flexibility would mean to the US that coercion is working; therefore, it will start raising other issues such as human rights and sponsoring terrorism to clamp down with even more threats and pressure to topple nezam (the political system).

Moreover, military threats are ineffectual in persuading the Iranians to halt their peaceful nuclear program because military experts in Iran believe the US cannot sustain a long-term military operation. Among several destabilizing responses at their disposal, they believe that by conducting an asymmetric war in the Persian Gulf, the passage of oil cargo will become exceedingly dangerous and the flow of oil will almost come to a halt. This, they reason, will cause oil prices to skyrocket, potentially forcing the US military to retreat under economic pressure from inside the United States, as well as from the international community.

Whether Tehran is militarily capable of doing this or not is not the issue. The issue is that, in the minds of Iranians, Iran has the potential and capacity to disrupt oil production in the region by attacking oil tankers, pipelines, refineries, and production facilities. With this perspective in mind, the language of threat is not an effective weapon, as Iranians believe it can only go so far.

The second theory supporting heightened threats against Iran is that the US genuinely “means it” and intends to attack Iran if the current talks fall short of US expectations. If this theory holds the strategy is blemished on several accounts.

On Sept. 13, 2012, a document titled Weighing the Benefits and Costs of Military Action Against Iran was released after being signed by more than 30 senior security experts of the United States, from the high ranks of elected office, military, and diplomatic branches. Among the signatories were well-known names which interestingly included the recently confirmed Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel.

The report concluded that a unilateral attack by Israel would set the Iranian nuclear program back only two years while an American attack would set the program back four years. No attack can eliminate the indigenous nuclear know-how Iranians have acquired. If Iran is attacked, it will pull out of the NPT and prospectively seek nuclear weaponization. That would defeat the purpose of US coercive policies. But more importantly, an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities will undoubtedly result in an all-out war, even if the US does not intend to enter one. Iran will react as fiercely as it can.

The US approach of heightened threats against Iran will not work. If the US government truly seeks a diplomatic solution, then — contrary to its belief — this language acts is a major obstacle in reaching such solution. Moreover, if the US intends to attack Iran, it should not underestimate Iran’s capabilities. Underestimation has been the leading factor of many protracted wars including the US wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, the consequences of such war for the US would be even larger than the Afghanistan and Iraq wars combined.

On April 17, “The Iran Project” released its third report titled, Strategic Options for Iran: Balancing Pressure with Diplomacy. Former senior national security officials, military officers and experts with decades of Middle East experience joined to present a balanced report on the strategic options for dealing with Iran. In that report, it was argued that the time has come for Washington for real engagement with Iran.The authors and supporters of the report assess that 90% of the energy that the US spends on the nuclear issue is dedicated to sanctions, not diplomacy. They call on Washington to balance, get beyond the nuclear program with Iran, and discuss wide range of issues of common interest such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. The reality is that the US has never tried a genuine strategic engagement with Iran.

Iranians elect a new president in June 2013 and most likely will select a moderate candidate who's loyal to the supreme leader and seeking rapprochement with the US. Washington should end its 34-year failed strategy of coercion and instead prepare a new agenda for making peace with Iran. Demonstrating good will through constructive, meaningful actions would be the right approach to a peaceful solution, thus thwarting a disastrous war.

After 2½ years of intense legal work, the European Court of Justice ordered the EU to lift its sanctions against an Iranian bank. As the first step toward containing tensions and moving toward a diplomatic solution, President Obama could avoid blocking the implementation of the European court’s verdict. This would be an easy, legal, and fast-acting option for the US to show benevolence, thus enabling Iran to take the next trust-building steps.

Seyed Hossein Mousavian is associate scholar at Princeton University. He served as the Head of Foreign Relation Committee of Iran’s National Security Council from 1997 to 2005. He is author of The Iranian Nuclear Crisis: A Memoir, published by Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in 2012.

Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei “has become a hostage” of an elite branch of Iran’s army that has quietly consolidated its economic and political power, a top analyst said Tuesday.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) appears to have supplanted Khamenei and other top clerics in a significant power shift that has left Iran a “military dictatorship,” according to Ali Alfoneh, who has spent years investigating the IRGC.

...

Thirty-four years since the Iranian revolution installed an extremist Islamic leader, the country has “degenerated into a military dictatorship which is disguising itself. … They want to preserve the illusion the regime” is still in power, he said.

The IRGC, Iran’s principal fighting force in its 1980 war with Iraq, has quietly seized control of Iran’s economy and political bodies and controls around $80 billion in private economic assets, according to Alfoneh.

The IRGC paid $9 billion in cash to purchase the Telecommunication Company of Iran, Alfoneh said. Most of the IRGC’s private holdings are owned via front groups that are controlled by its members.

This combination of wealth and military prowess has permitted the IRGC to position itself an Iran’s true power broker.

While religious ideology was once Iran’s main political criteria, now “the single factor which qualifies Iranian leaders to join public life is not just being a war vet … but being a member of the IRGC,” he said.

Outgoing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the country’s first military veteran to hold this post, initiated most of the privatization efforts that allowed the IRGC to gain its economic foothold.

The IRGC is a “vengeful” group of militants who are out to impose their will on all Iranians, Alfoneh said.

The militant group is perhaps “most vengeful against the clerical class because they feel the clerical class betrayed them” and didn’t sacrifice during the Iran-Iraq war, he added.

“They talk about the rich clerics who managed to amass great wealth during the war at the same time these people were making the sacrifice,” Alfoneh said.

As the Western world tries to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, the IRGC is doing its best to ensure the opposite outcome.

“This generation of revolutionary guards has very little respect for the U.S., particularly this president and this administration,” Alfoneh said. “Even worse, they misunderstand the signals President [Barack] Obama is sending to them.”

...

Military strategist Fred Kagan agreed the IRGC has expanded its reach significantly in Iran.

“It’s all of the same network” in many different sectors of Iranian society, “and has spread its tentacles through all of the security services,” as well as “the Iranian economy,” Kagan said.

This raises questions about what would happen should Khamenei and the IRGC find themselves at odds with one another.

“We’ve now reached the point where sanctions are hurting the IRGC and even the smugglers are hurting from the sanctions to a greater extent,” Kagan said. “What would happen if any significant power bloc in the Islamic republic of Iran decided it wanted to cash in the nuke program or some part of it in exchange for easing of sanctions? … We’ve allowed ourselves to see simplicity where this is in fact a lot of complexity.”

...We think this problem is the main reason why your organization, as well as other organizations, has overlooked the pitiable situation of Iranian refugees in India. A community that is ignored by the Indian government, and the rest of the world.

We are Iranian refugees living in India, and we are suffering a lot. We maybe a small community, but we are facing many serious problems.

We live under constant fear of the Iranian embassy who spy on us, and would not hesitate to punish us in case we become involved in kind of political activity.

We would like you to know that many of our people are both very educated and creative. However, Security problems, lack of attention and support, the strict rules regarding refugees in India and other issues are some of the reasons that silence the Iranian refugee community in India.

We are hoping to receive a positive response to our request, and we would be very grateful if we could be granted an appointment, where we would be able to describe our problems and suggest our solutions....

India had witnessed the influx of refugees’ years before the augmentation of the crackdown on dissidents in Iran after the presidential election in 2009. Since 2005, after the investiture of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the president of Iran, the crackdown caused by the security services in Iran has increased noticeably, and it resulted that many Iranian dissent leave their home country toward India seeking asylum.

With a look into the published report of ”Human Rights Watch” on ‘The Status of Refugees in Turkey’, lack of an insight on current unfavorable conditions of Iranian refugees in India was obvious. The circumstances of Iranian refugees in India, in comparison to Turkey are very different in many ways and can be said to be even more critical. Although India is recognized widely as the world largest democracy, this country, for whatsoever reason, did not accept to sign the convention on the protection of refugees 1951 and 1967, while Turkey is a member of this convention.

Approximately, 80 percent of the refugee’s population in India is from Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Tibet and Jammu-Kashmir (disputed by the Government of India and Pakistan). The office of UN High Commissioner for Refugees in India has announced that by the end of 2012, about 22 thousand refugees have been granted refugee cards, which are mostly from Afghanistan, Myanmar (Rohingyas) and Somalia. It is worthy to mention that, among all the refugees and asylum seekers in India, refugees from Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Tibet and most recently Afghanistan are supported by the Government of India. According to the statistics, the remaining 20 percent of the refugees are particularly from the countries of Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, and Sudan; Iranian refugees in this group are a lost proportion

Good relations between India and Iran; a security risk for Iranian refugees

On September 6, 2010, the Iranian Refugees Action Network, a charity, received a request from a refugee in India to help another asylum seeker who was imprisoned in Iraq. As director of the charity, I started the process of contacting the refugee's family and the appropriate officials to get the victim, formerly a university professor, and over 34 others released.

Over the course of the our efforts, we were informed that an Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) consul named Kuhi (Koohi or Kouhi) was attempting to force the professor, who was registered with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), back to Iran. This effort was made despite the fact that the professor had requested asylum in Iraq -- this after two of his family members were murdered by the regime in Iran.

One member of his family was murdered by the regime, the other gunned down near the Iraqi border as he was attempting to flee Iran. The regime perpetrators then drove the latter's body back to Iran and dumped it in the street, in front of his business, to intimidate others from speaking out against the crimes and brutality of the Islamic regime.

It is important to note that the professor went, on his own, to an Iraqi police station seeking directions to the UNHCR field office. Instead of helping him, however, they arrested him for entering the country illegally, for which he was sentenced to five years and one month detention and, upon the completion of his sentence, immediate deportation to Iran.

After the Iranian consul and two of his fellow thugs beat the professor for resisting their attempt to force him back to Iran to be murdered, they threw him back into his cell in an unresponsive state. Our translator was again notified through third parties of his situation, and we immediately forwarded the information to the ICRC and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). A complaint to the prison was raised, and the professor was taken to hospital. Before he had chance to recover, and while he still had intravenous lines attached, the Iranian thugs took him from the hospital and returned him to the Iraqi prison, where he was then placed back into a cell, unattended.

After that, it took three weeks for the ICRC to get a security escort so they could visit the professor. In the meantime, I requested asylum for him at UNHCR Baghdad. After about two months of negotiations and court hearings, delayed by the interference of IRI Consul Kuhi, the professor, highly traumatized, was finally transferred to a safer prison in Kurdistan away from the regime thugs.

....

Well-known Iranian human rights activist Kouhyar Goudarzi -- who had been banned from his studies, jailed a number of times, and sentenced to five years in prison -- recently fled Iran.

Goudarzi, a member and former head of the Committee of Human Rights Reporters, was honored while behind bars with the National Press Club’s 2010 John Aubuchon Freedom of the Press Award. The award is given each year to individuals who have contributed to the cause of press freedom and open government. Goudarzi was also among those arrested in the aftermath of Iran’s 2009 postelection crackdown.

RFE/RL: Why did you decide to leave Iran?

Kouhyar Goudarzi: I faced many problems and limitations. I was jailed, my friends and family were pressured because of me, I was banned from studying at Sharif University.

In addition, I had two more reasons why I decided to leave. I needed to be able to work in an academic environment, and it was difficult for me to see that I was caught in the monotony that we are all facing in Iran.

RFE/RL: To what extent do you think the Iranian government has been successful in its campaign to silence dissenting voices? A number of activists remain in prison, some have been released on high bails, and others such as yourself have been forced to leave the country.

Goudarzi: To some extent, I think that’s true. But [the establishment] has not managed to silence all voices because being affected by certain conditions doesn’t necessarily mean defeat. In some period of time you might see ups and downs, but what is important is the continuation of a process and that it moves toward improvement.

But one must acknowledge that, for a number of reasons, civil society is in a state of desperation and that the establishment has managed to instill fear and silence dissent through measures it has taken...by inducing into the public consciousness that dissent and civil disobedience have a heavy price.

RFE/RL: I’d like to ask you a question about the international sanctions against Iran. You were in Iran until very recently and you experienced the impact of the sanctions and of inflation on daily life. To what extent are people blaming the government for the difficult situation they’re facing and to what extent are they blaming the United States and other countries that have imposed crippling sanctions against Iran over its sensitive nuclear work?

Goudarzi: The effects of the sanctions are, indeed, visible in the daily life of Iranians. You see how the quality of life of Iranian families is worsening sharply. Families are forced to give up some of their basic needs to secure some of the other more important needs they have. The conditions are getting worse day by day because of inflation. It’s getting increasingly difficult for people to pay for food, housing, transportation, and health services.

I haven’t heard people talking about foreign pressure in relation to the current situation. Most people complain about the inability of the government to control prices. Some believe the source of the problem is the nuclear issue. What I find interesting is that with the increase of the economic pressure, people are becoming more focused on finding ways to make a living, instead of becoming more interested and concerned about politics and expressing discontent.

Carl wrote:Latest high profile political refugee:
Iranian Activist Flees Iran, Says 'Civil Society Is In A State Of Desperation'

shiv wrote:English reading Indians pick up cues from this kind of trash and develop their attitudes. Then they become liberal academics and media bdutts.