Spotlight on Iran
Spotlight on Iran
Spotlight on Iran
Spotlight on Iran
Reformist opposition website, www.kaleme.com
Ayatollah Sane’i’s office after the attack, from Sane’i’s official website
from Sane’i’s official website, www.saanei.org
living on the streets of Tehran
living on the streets of Tehran
 |
 |
 |
|
Highlights of the week
|
Iranian press reacts to Security Council resolution imposing sanctions on Iran
The Iranian press reacted strongly to the UN Security Council resolution to impose a fourth round of sanctions on Iran, and stressed that it would not change Iran’s policy with regard to its nuclear program. Twelve countries voted in favor of the resolution, passed last Wednesday. Brazil and Turkey voted against it, while Lebanon abstained.
Asr-e Iran, a website affiliated with the pragmatic conservative camp, claimed that the Security Council resolution increased Iran’s distrust towards the West; therefore, it would not only not stop the process of uranium enrichment, but it would only serve to further accelerate it. A commentary article published by the website says that the resolution, passed despite the agreement achieved between Iran on one hand and Turkey and Brazil on the other, proves that the US deals with Iran based on a pre-determined plan that cannot be changed, and that it uses the nuclear issue only as an excuse. At the same time, the website criticized President Ahmadinejad’s dismissive attitude towards the resolution, claiming that the negative impact of the sanctions on Iranian economy cannot be ignored. The resolution may not be significantly different than previous resolutions passed by the Security Council against Iran, targeting activities in which Iran is already experiencing difficulties (for example, the resolution bans fighter plane sales and restricts the ability of specific companies to do international business). However, the resolution undermines the ability of Iranian traders to perform transactions on international markets, posing challenges to banking, trade, and maritime industry. Those challenges directly and indirectly affect the lives of Iranians; therefore, the claim brought up by those who submitted the proposal, saying that the sanctions target the government of Iran rather than its people, is false.
The article concludes by saying that the Security Council resolution weakens Iran’s moderates, strengthens the anti-American faction, and compromises Iran’s willingness to continue negotiating with the international community. Many in Iran now believe that not only it is Iran’s right to have nuclear energy, but that under current conditions, when two of Iran’s greatest enemies (the US and Israel) have nuclear weapons, there is no reason that it should not have such weapons as well (Asr-e Iran, June 10).
The economic daily Pool (Persian for "money”) also claimed that the economic repercussions of the Security Council resolution must not be dismissed. According to the daily, sanctions formerly imposed on various countries, including Cuba and North Korea, failed to change their policies; however, they did hit their economies. Countries cannot rely solely on their internal resources—they also need foreign investments to increase their production capability.
The daily added, however, that the negative effects of the sanctions can be reduced, and some of them can even be turned into new opportunities for the Iranian economy. The daily claimed that while Iran would have to pay some economic price due to the sanctions, their effect would be relatively limited due to its ability to continue trading with its neighbors and due to its major role on the world energy market. Iran is a wealthy country whose ability to deal with the sanctions far exceeds that of North Korea and Cuba; accordingly, the Iranian people are unlikely to pay too heavy a price because of the UN Security Council resolution (Pool, June 11).
The conservative daily Jomhuri-ye Eslami stressed that the Iranian authorities and people will not bow down to attempts by world powers to keep Iran from fully realizing its legal rights. The daily accused the West of trying to exact vengeance on the Iranian people for supporting the Islamic revolution and the regime, having failed to separate it from them for 31 years. Once again, the people of Iran will be successful in dealing with the sanctions and emerge victorious. According to Jomhuri-ye Eslami, the 31 years of the Islamic revolution proved that pressure and sanctions only strengthen the people and boost their achievements in science, industry, and economy.
The daily further claimed that the Security Council resolution has created new conditions for Iran. First, China and Russia’s joining the US, Britain, and France requires all the factions in Iran to join forces and act in concert against their outside enemies. Second, the authorities must turn the economic threats brought about by the new sanctions into opportunities, and take appropriate action to easily overcome the current difficulties. Third, the fact that several African and Asian countries normally considered Iran’s friends voted in favor of the Security Council resolution is indicative of the fundamental flaws of the Iranian foreign policy, requiring a reevaluation of that policy by those in charge (Jomhuri-ye Eslami, June 12).
The conservative daily Keyhan also linked the Security Council resolution to the West’s failure this past year to act against the regime by means of the internal opposition. An editorial published by the daily earlier this week says that the resolution undermines the legitimacy of the Security Council, and that international efforts should be made to change the structure of the council (Keyhan, June 13).
Furthermore, the conservative daily Ebtekar claimed that Iran must reexamine its cooperation with IAEA within the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The daily noted that in recent years, Iran has followed a strategy based on cooperation with IAEA, did not change that strategy despite Security Council resolutions imposing sanctions on it, and allowed IAEA inspectors to continue their work. That cooperation, however, did not bring about a change in the stance of the world powers, which continue their irrational insistence on the suspension of uranium enrichment and impose more sanctions on Iran. Therefore, Iran must reconsider its strategy and the Majles must compel the government to suspend its cooperation with IAEA (Ebtekar, June 12).
Anniversary of presidential election: the mass protest that never was
The anniversary of the Iranian presidential election marked last Saturday (June 12) passed without major incidents amidst reports of increased deployment of internal security forces. During the day, opposition activists reported isolated incidents between demonstrators and internal security forces in various sites in Tehran. Tehran’s deputy police chief Hossein Sajedinia confirmed that 91 citizens had been arrested during the incidents (ISNA, June 13).
On the eve of the anniversary, reformist opposition leaders Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karoubi announced the cancellation of the mass protests planned for that day due to concerns about damage to people and to property in clashes with the authorities. In a special memorandum of opinion released last Thursday, the two opposition leaders claimed that they had submitted a request to the governor of Tehran and the Interior Ministry to allow them to hold the processions on the anniversary to avoid tension, not to give the regime any excuse to suppress the people, and to maintain public safety; unfortunately, they received no reply. They therefore decided to cancel the mass protests in order to protect the lives and property of the people. Mousavi and Karoubi called on Iranians to continue fighting for their rights in less expensive and more influential ways. An illegitimate government will only allow its supporters to protest, the memorandum says, but the path of the Iranian nation cannot be blocked and the opposition will keep fighting until sunrise dawns on a new day (Rah-e Sabz, June 10).
In response to Mousavi and Karoubi’s announcement on the cancellation of the mass protests planned for the presidential election anniversary, the conservative daily Keyhan claimed that the announcement was to be expected since the reformist opposition leaders were concerned about insignificant participation in the protests, which would reflect the defeat of the opposition. The daily reported that the announcement of the opposition leaders shocked the "anti-revolutionary” camp and was cause for rage and despair among "green movement” supporters, some of whom went as far as to accuse the opposition leaders of cooperating with the government (Keyhan, June 12).
Reformist opposition website, www.kaleme.com
In contrast, Kalemeh, a website affiliated with the supporters of Mir-Hossein Mousavi, justified the decision made by the opposition leaders to cancel the mass protest on the election anniversary, claiming that the reformist movement had to exercise more caution in light of the regime’s policy. The website reported that the decision was made following reports on the regime’s intent to forcefully suppress the demonstrators, fueled by its increasing distress on the domestic and international scenes. Opposition activists must be careful not to provide the regime with opportunities to use violence against defenseless civilians, the website said (Kalemeh, June 11).
Violence by government supporters continues: offices of two senior
reformist clerics attacked by demonstrators
Only one week after pro-government demonstrators prevented Hassan Khomeini, the grandson of the leader of the Islamic revolution, from completing his speech on Ayatollah Khomeini’s death anniversary, this week demonstrators attacked the offices of senior reformist cleric Ayatollah Yousef Sane’i and Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri, a senior reformist cleric who passed away last December. Montazeri’s office was sealed by the authorities following the attack.
Ayatollah Sane’i’s office in the city of Qom was attacked Sunday (June 13) during a meeting he was having with reformist opposition leader Mehdi Karoubi. Demonstrators smashed the office windows, destroyed property and sprayed slogans on the walls against the senior cleric. Also attacked at the same time were Ayatollah Montazeri’s office in Qom and Mehdi Karoubi’s car. According to opposition sources, while security forces were present during the attack, they did not intervene to stop the acts of violence and destruction
Ayatollah Sane’i’s office after the attack,
from Sane’i’s official website, www.saanei.org
Ahmad Montazeri, the senior cleric’s son, reported that, shortly after the attack, 15 people from the Intelligence Ministry appeared and sealed his father’s office under orders issued by the special court for clerics. Prior to that, they had searched the office and confiscated equipment damaged in the attack. According to an announcement released by Montazeri’s office, the attack was preceded by threats from security and intelligence forces, asking Ahmad Montazeri to close down his father’s office and not to allow religion students to enter (Rah-e Sabz, June 14).
The organized attack on the offices of the two senior reformist clerics sparked strong reactions from the reformist camp. Daryush Qanbari, a Majles member and spokesman for the reformist minority faction, condemned the incident and demanded that the security forces explain why they had not intervened (Parleman News, June 14). A memorandum of opinion published this week by opposition leader Mir-Hossein Mousavi says that the attack on the offices of the senior clerics and Mehdi Karoubi was an attempt by the authorities to create a new crisis in order to hide their failures in running state affairs. Such an offense against clerics discredits the legitimacy of the government and indicates that it had not learned the lesson from the attack on Imam Khomeini’s residence during the Shah’s reign, which led to the uprising of 1963 and the Islamic revolution in 1979 (Rah-e Sabz, June 14).
from Sane’i’s official website, www.saanei.org
Meanwhile, Hossein Shariatmadari, the editor-in-chief of Keyhan, has strongly criticized the senior clerics who condemned the attack on Khomeini’s grandson last week. In an editorial published by the editor-in-chief of the conservative daily, Shariatmadari wondered why those clerics had remained silent when the leaders of incitement (i.e., the reformist opposition), their supporters from the Mojahedin-e Khalq organization, the Baha’is, the royalists, the Marxists, and their collaborators in the "Zionist regime”, the US, and Britain offended the sanctity of Islam and the revolution. Instead of condemning the expressions of resistance by the people against Hassan Khomeini and considering them to be an offense against Imam Khomeini, those senior clerics had better announce the threat posed by the opposition leaders and issue a call to fight them. Their silence over the betrayal of the opposition leaders begs the question, is defending the sanctity of Islam and the revolution less important than defending Khomeini’s grandson, who cooperated with the leaders of incitement (Keyhan, June 15).
Scenarios for an Israeli attack in Iran: view from Tehran
This week, news website Asr-e Iran has published a commentary article by commentator Seyyed Ziaoldin Ehtesham, discussing the various possible scenarios following an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The article first presented an optimal scenario for Israel: Israeli fighter planes arrive from Jordan, northern Saudi Arabia, and southern Iraq, and attack four targets simultaneously: the uranium enrichment facility in Natanz, the uranium enrichment facility near the city of Qom, the heavy water reactor in Arak, and the uranium conversion facility in Esfahan. The four sites are destroyed in several minutes, the fighter planes safely return to base, and the pilots receive a hero’s welcome back home. The Iranian government holds an emergency meeting, condemning the Israeli attack as a blatant violation of international law. The Iranian representative to the UN also releases a strong-worded announcement against Israel. Anti-Israeli protests are held in Iran, with the protestors chanting "death to Israel”. Several countries in the world support the Israeli attack, calling it a necessary act of self-defense. Other countries condemn the attack, while still others remain silent. After several days of extensive media coverage of the destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities by Israel, the situation settles down and things go back to normal.
However, it is the commentator’s view that this scenario is far from what would actually happen. Iran of 2010 is not Iraq of 1981, and the consequences of the Israeli attack on the nuclear reactor in Iraq cannot be compared to those of an Israeli attack in Iran. Iraq was busy fighting Iran and had no desire to confront Israel. Iran, however, is focusing all of its military and defensive plans on the threat posed by Israel, it has the political willpower and national ability to launch a military response to any Israeli attack, and it will never settle for a diplomatic response to a military attack by Israel.
The Iranian response will be reflected in asymmetrical warfare. Israel’s nuclear facilities may be the first victim of an Israeli attack on Iran. Even if Israel believes it has the ability to protect its nuclear facilities, there is nothing it can do against various kinds of rockets coming in from various directions. Iran is likely to surprise Israel, just as Hezbollah surprised it in the "second Lebanon war”.
Even if Israeli fighter planes reach Iran, they will face a difficult, complicated mission. First, Iran’s air defense system will put the Israeli pilots face-to-face with a new and unfamiliar reality. Second, the nuclear facilities are hidden in various sites across Iran, some of them deep underground, and they are defended by missiles and anti-aircraft defense systems. Even if some of the planes made their way back, there is no guarantee that they would be able to return to Israel. There is no question that the Iranian missiles will hit Israel’s air force bases even before the planes return to Israel, and the pilots may not be able to contact their control towers, which would be destroyed minutes after an Israeli attack.
According to the commentator, news agencies in the world will report simultaneously on the Israeli attack in Iran and the Iranian counter-attack that will follow immediately. After the Iranian response, Israel will have two choices: first, remaining silent over the strong Iranian response and accepting the restoration of the nuclear facilities and the continuation of Iran’s nuclear activity, which would mean a strategic defeat for Israel. Second, continuing the attacks on Iran, which would mean broadening the conflict with it. A war between the two countries would result in widespread destruction in Iran; however, such a war would spell the end of Israel. Unlike the Israelis, who would never be able to cope with sustained warfare, the Iranians lived through an eight-year war against Iraq. A war like that would set Israeli cities ablaze and erase all that Israel has created in the past six decades to attract Jews from all over the world. The commentator concluded by saying that the first bomb Israel were to drop on Iran would begin a process of changing the political map of the Middle East, sparking a fire in the region that would affect the whole world—directly or not (Asr-e Iran, June 14).
Pictures of the week: living on the streets of Tehran
