IRAN AND IRAQ

Eric Lee of "Labour Start" is circulating an email which contains the following important items about an area of my special interest - the Trade Union Movements of Iran and Iraq.

IRAN: ALL OUT FOR 26 JUNE GLOBAL SOLIDARITY ACTION DAY

Four global union organizations representing over 170 million workers have called a worldwide action day on June 26 to demand justice for Iranian workers. Demonstrations will take place outside Iranian embassies and consulates to protest the ongoing denial of rights and arrests of trade unionists within the country. Please visit the campaign's new website at http://www.justiceforiranianworkers.org/ and make sure to click on the 'Get Active' link.

IRAQ: VICTORY FOR THE TEACHERS' UNION

Thanks very much to the 4,856 of you who signed up to support the campaign we launched on LabourStart in April in support of the Iraqi teachers' union. According to reports we've received, "the union won a legal battle against the government on 7 May. The landmark ruling against the government decision ... to take control of the ITU was a symbolic victory and stopped the government move to dismiss the ITU's democratically elected leadership." The struggle continues.

One Of The Efforts For Change In Iran

See Azarmehr and his video link.

League Table Of Shame

Click onto the above to enlarge and read the statistics of judicial murders.

Amnesty has published its report on "Death Sentences and Executions in 2008" stating - "Last year 2,390 people were executed in countries around the world. This represents a significant increase since 2007 with more countries in Asia using the death penalty than anywhere else. Amnesty’s annual death penalty report also reveals that at least 8,864 people were sentenced to death. The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. Beheadings, electrocutions, hangings, lethal injections, shootings and stonings have no place in the twenty-first century."

China carried out at least 1,718 executions, 72% of the global total — the actual number (as in many other countries) is believed to be much higher. But if the populations of the 15 countries that carry out the most executions are taken into account, Iran and Saudi Arabia emerge as more zealous employers of capital punishment than China. At the top appears the hideous league table for executions per million for the "top" nations executions.

Hat Tip : Iraqi Mojo

Act Immediately - Updates

UPDATE 1 DECEMBER : See Labour Start, link to 28 November.

INITIALLY POSTED 26 NOVEMBER : Iranian Trade Unionist Farzad Kamanger is to be executed today - your urgent help is needed to attempt to prevent this. See here.

Further information here and here.

NOTE - 27 NOVEMBER : News is still awaited about the intended execution. Unfortunately 10 other executions took place yesterday, but Farzad may still be alive.

NOTE - 28 NOVEMBER : Farzad is still alive, but remains under death sentence. Nationally and internationally Labour, Trade Union and Human Rights Organisations are pressing the Iranian authorities in efforts to protect Farzad. Your support is still needed via the early links.

FURTHER UPDATE - 1 DECEMBER : Press TV, the Iranian state-funded station has today started broadcasting on Sky on Channel 515. If anyone comes across any mention of Farzad Kamanger (in say a question which manages to find its way onto the George Galloway programme), please let me know. Or even if this case makes main- line British TV.

Azarmehr On Arash

Good News. See here on this.

Help Arash (Abudi) Mohajerinejad

His brother has posted this appeal. My own explanation on how you can help appears here.

Defend Iranian Democrats

Tony McNulty MP
The letter below is self explanitory. I have sent a completed version to my MP (who isn't Tony McNulty opposite, but provides an avenue to approach him in his capacity as a Government Minister).

If you agree with the letter, then I hope that you will adapt it for use with your MP. To discover your MP's email and/or web-site details click into the list here. If you need to check out who your MP is then add your post code in the box provided.

Even if your MP is unsympathetic to the points made, there is no reason why they can't forward the letter to the relevant Government Minister on your behalf and seek a reply which can be forwarded to you. MPs have a set of standard forms for such purposes and you can expect them to act on behalf of a courteous and seriously expressed representation from one of their own constituents.

The case being dealt with concerns the well-being of one of Tony McNulty's constituents. Tony is also the Government Minister handling the case. The Speaker's ruling is merely that when an MP takes up a case involving someone else's constituency, they should let the Constituency MP know what they have done. So your MP at the most needs to tell Tony McNulty the MP that they have written to Tony McNulty the Government Minister!

Now for my email covering the serious issue involved -


Dear ......,

Arash (Abu-Ali) Mohajerani-Nejad has been arrested and detained in Charing Cross police station and is in danger of being deported back to Iran at any time.

In Iran he will be in considerable danger from the authorities as he is an active Iranian pro-democracy dissident advocating peaceful forms of opposition in support of his stance. His views and actions are similar to those of his brother Gholman-reza Mohajerani-nejad as expressed here -
http://www.iranian.com/Opinion/2001/March/Students/index.html

Whilst the Home Office needs to be active in containing Islamic fundamentalism and terrorist threats, Arash's position is that of a genuine Iranian secular pro-democracy activist who pursues actions entirely in conformity with the principles he advocates. He should be encouraged and not have his life and liberty placed in serious danger by being deported.

Can you make representations yourself to the relevant Home Office Minister, Tony McNulty or at least forward this representation to him and request a reply. When it comes to you undertaking the normal courtesy of letting Arash's own MP know that you have taken up this issue, then this is Tony McNulty himself !

Thank you for your anticipated help.

Yours sincerely,
................ (add your address).


Hat tip - Azarmehr

TUC Protests to Iran and Iraq

IRAN

TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber has written to the Iranian authorities protesting about the sentencing to death of Iranian Kurdish teacher trade unionist Mr Farzad Kamangar (see photo), urging the government to re-examine his case and commute his death sentence. He states

"The Trades Union Congress, representing British people at work through our 58 trade unions and their 6.5 million members, is deeply concerned about trade union repression in Iran, as my frequent letters to you demonstrate. I hope that you will register with your Government the concerns of British trade unionists about the case of teacher trade unionist Mr Farzad Kamangar, and urge them to re-examine his case and commute his death sentence...

We understand that Mr Kamangar was sentenced to death on 25 February 2008 by the Tehran Revolutionary Court on charges of 'endangering national security.' Aged 32, Farzad Kamangar has worked for 12 years as a teacher in Kamyaran. He was member of the Kurdish Teachers Trade Association and was in charge of public relations for the teacher union until it was outlawed. Farzad Kamangar was also active in defending human rights, minority rights and women's rights."

For full details see here.

IRAQ

Brendan Barber has also written to the Iraqi Minister for Labour and Social Affairs expressing concerns about the state of trade union law in Iraq as it operates outside of Iraqi Kurdistan. His concerns include (a) Iraqi Government moves to manipulate elections within their Trade Union Movement,(b) the confiscation of Trade Union funds by the State and (c) the continuation of Saddam Hussein's ban upon Trade Unions operating within the major public section of the Iraqi Economy.

For full details see here.

Don't Forget About Mansour Osanloo

See this fine video about Mansour Osanloo (left) the President of the Bus Workers Union in Tehran who is still in jail a year after his last brutal arrest. The International Transport Workers Federation, the International Trade Union Confederation and Amnesty International have put out this combined statement reminding us of his plight.

The Struggle For Basic Rights In Iran

After 40 days over 3,000 workers at the Hafttapeh Sugar Cane Company in Iran (on the left) have suspended their strike for 15 days to see what the management will now deliver following promises that they will address the workers' demands. These include the need to pay wages, which are now three months overdue. For details of the dispute see here.

Then there is Mashad which is the second largest city in Iran and is a centre for protests against the Iranian regime's economic, financial and political corruption. Railway workers and students have led recent protests against the lack of basic rights. See this video and Azarmehr's coverage here and here. He provides much more on this key issue.

Democracy Gone Wrong

In Zimbabwe and Iran.

Solidarity With Iranian Trade Unionists

Mahmound Salehi (right) released. Mansour Osanloo still imprisoned.

Good news from the TUC's International Web-site, but much more needs to be achieved. They say -

The TUC has welcomed the news today (Sunday 6 April) that Iranian bakery workers' leader Mahmoud Salehi was released from the City of Sanandaj‘s central prison at 3pm. He had completed a one-year jail sentence for trade union activities nearly two weeks ago, but the authorities had refused to release him. The TUC reiterated its call for the Iranian Government to release bus workers' leader Mansour Osanloo from the notorious Evin prison in Tehran, to free all jailed Iranian trade unionists, and to abide by international labour laws.

For the full TUC Media Release, see here.

Our Man In Iran

Trade Unionists (in particular) should join in this Amnesty Campaign to assist Mahmoud Salehi of the Bakers' Union in Saqez. He is ill, imprisoned, on hunger strike and abused by the Iranian authorities for pressing for free Trade Unionism.

The Female Chartists Of Iran

Iranian Women Rights Activist Ahmadi Khorassani
Chartist meeting on Kennington Common. 10th April 1848. The world's first photograph of a crowd.





The Chartist Movement in Britain organised three massive petitions in favour of adult male suffrage and other democratic reforms in 1838, 1842 and 1848. Numbers of women also campaigned for the objectives of these petitions as they saw them as advancing the say of working class families. Although Chartism had no immediate success, by 1858 one of its demands reached the statute books with the end of the property qualification for candidates. Other successes were to follow.

The struggle for votes for women became a significant force especially under the campaigning of the suffragettes. The Women's Social and Political Union being founded in 1904. By 1928 the bulk of the demands of the Chartists and the campaign for an equal franchise for women had triumphed.

In Iran today women have the vote, but the electoral system is manipulated to block out numerous reformist candidates who would provide an avenue for pressures for women's rights.

As an article in the current issue of Amnesty International points out -

"Women do not have equal rights with men in marriage, divorce, child custody or inheritance. They cannot be judges. Criminal harm suffered by a woman is less severely punished than the same harm done to a man. Evidence given in court is worth half that given by men....in the eyes of the law they are second class citizens."

A female Chartist-style campaign called the Campaign For Equality is under way in Iran (with male supporters) seeking a million signatures to demand an end to discriminatory laws.

International support is being sort for this campaign here. See also the Amnesty International web-site here.

There is no reason why this campaign should not come to have the significance in Iranian politics which the Chartists and the Suffragettes had in advancing democracy, justice, civil rights and social reform in Britain.

Khatami's Reformist Army?

Khatami was the President of Iran from 1997 to 2005. After an obligitary break, he is entitled to stand again for President. But will he? And what other feasible candidate could make the ballot paper and fly the reformist flag?

Now see the "Daily Telegraph" (of all papers)

In the run up to the Iran's problematic elections for their parliament, the Daily Telegraph have been producing a series of telling articles on the politics of Iran. In today's issue David Blair describes the economic difficulties faced by Iran's youthful population. He ends by speculating upon whether the reformist and former President Khatami will seek a come-back and stand for a third term of office in next year's Presidential elections.

Khatami was President between 1997 and 2005. Under the provisions of the Iranian Constitution he was not allowed to stand in 2005 against Ahmadinejad. I was surprised to discover that he is in fact eligible to stand again in 2009. But I now see from the wording of Article 114 of the Iranian Constitution that David Blair is correct. If Khatami can be persuaded to stand it will be a huge boost for the reformers camp in Iran, even if his subsequent policies are again frustrated by the ruling theocracy. For if he stands, it will give the Iranian people a meaningful election to look forward to and will stimulate social pressures for change by the reformists.

Article 114 states "The President is elected for a four-year term by the direct vote of the people. His re-election for a successive term is permissible only once."

I have now corrected my entry alongside Ahmaninejad's photograph here to take account of the fact that Khatami is eligible to stand in 2009.

The Shia Revival

THE SHIA REVIVAL : HOW CONFLICTS WITHIN ISLAM WILL SHAPE THE FUTURE by VALI NASR (W.W. Norton & Company, 2007 edition).

This book has a great deal going for it. To start with, the paperback edition which I bought at Waterstones is beautifully published and is a work which book lovers will enjoy handling. Then, the author, Vali Nasr has a compelling, readable and intelligent style. From the introduction onwards we come across memorable phrases, such as "(w)e live in an age of globalisation, but also of identity politics. It is as if the world is expanding and contracting at the same time."

Above all, the book has a compelling theme. It deals with the Shia of Islam, who account for some 10% of the world Muslims compared to the Sunni's 85%. But as the sub-title indicates we are at a cross-roads in history where the Shia are struggling for their place in the sun. Modern developments in Iran, Iraq and the Lebanon where the Shia have prominence, illustrate this.

Although Vali Nasr centres upon the above major trends amongst the Shia, he provides well crafted and helpful background details about Shia history and its wider international canvas. The significance of the festival of Ashoura is handled sympathetically and the spread and variety of Shia activities is shown to accommodate to (amongst others) Hindu practices in India.

Amongst the insights I gained about Shia politics was that they learnt lessons from the growth of the Iraqi Communist Party which had reached its peak in 1959. The bulk of the labourers who moved into work in the oil industry, Baghdad's factories and Basra's port were Shia. An appeal to their class interests and help for them via Shia social services became part of the religious communities conventional wisdom.

The author takes the side of the moderate, quietest and reflective Shia tradition, rather than of the revolutionary, terrorist and totalitarian tradition. So Sistani's advocacy of the power of the franchise in Iraq (then elsewhere) to extend the Shia's political influence is seen as the big hope for peace and prosperity. He looks to this as an avenue to counter the impact of the Khomeini revolution in Iran. If the only solution is to take sides in this internal Shia debate, then it is (of course) the correct side.

Unfortunately as the book progresses, the author's hopes for the Sistani transformation seem to me to falter in two respects.

First, Vali Nasr sees the Shia's struggle for political space as mainly being directed against Sunni influences. So Sunni politics is presented as being one-sided and oppressive, whether it operates under secular Arab leaders or via bodies such as Al-Qeada. The Sunni are never shown to have their own quietest or democratic-leaning side. Yet whilst Sistani was active from the south of Iraq, Jamal Abul Karim al-Dabban was the senior Sunni religious leader in Tikrit from 2004 until his death in 2007. He was considered to be a moderate. (The nearest Vali Nasr gets to sympathy for the politics of the Sunni camp is his admiration for the influence of King Faysal of Saudi Arabia before his death in 1975.)

Secondly when the first edition of this book was published in 2006, it left us with high hopes for coming Shia democratic and civic practices. However, by the second edition arrived in 2007, the author had to accommodate his views to the seriously deteriorating security position which arose across Iraq following the destruction of the Shia Mosque at Samarra. So he produced an "Afterword" which finds Sistani retreating to his tent to concentrate on religious texts, whilst Sunni-Shia sectarianism bounds forth. If matters have improved somewhat recently (with the tactics around the US surge), they have not yet put Vali Nasr's initial high hopes back on track.

There are only just over 250 pages of text in the book and the two problems I have listed above did not come to my attention until I reached the final 50 pages. In the meantime, Vali Nasr work impressed as a readable and worthwhile introduction to an essential topic which otherwise would be difficult to grasp. For once, I read a book mainly about the Middle East where I didn't become confused by names of the secondary characters, for each argument and analysis fitted into the books overall framework. It was only in the "Afterword" that the author was forced into a fresh situation. It was at least good to see that he did not duck from this task.

Ya'qub Mehrnehad

Support this Amnesty Campaign to save the life of Ya'qub Mehrnehad the Baluchi civil rights activist in Iran. Peter Tatchell explains the situation here and provides a series of important links.

Changing The Agenda : Part 7 Of "Understanding Iran"

For Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6.

Ayatollah Khamenei is the 2nd Supreme Leader of Iran. He followed on from late Ayatollah Khomeni who was the father of the Islamic Revolution of 1979. One path of reform which Iran could seek to follow would be a process to turn the Supreme Leader into a Constitutional figure-head with no real powers. I conclude this series with responses to the two questions raised at the close of Part 6.

1. What Are The Avenues Of Reform In Iran?

Before deciding what the West's responses should be to the situation in Iran, we need to understand as much as we can about the Iranian people and the situation they find themselves in. The first four parts of this series were structured to that end. For instance, in Part 4 whilst it was pointed out that nationalist, anti-imperialist and Shia Islamic values were a powerful mixture, it was also argued that this did not necessarily produce a monolithic and unchanging society. It is a nation with clear class divisions and other distinctions of interest, including significant struggles for women and workers' rights.

There have already been ebbs and flows in internal Iranian politics even since their Islamic Revolution. Although a Conservative theocratic line has often dominated, there has also been important reformist trends.

We are approaching the 8th election to the Majilis since the revolution. The reformists had influences or majorities after three of the first four elections. Then next year will see a new Presidential election. Ahmadinejad is the 5th President since the revolution. Two of these fell (within the context of their times) into pragmatic/reformist positions, even if they were not always successful. These were Rafsanjani (1989-97) and Khatami (l997-2005).

As shown in Part 3, candidates for the Majilis and the Presidency can be vetted and excluded by the Guardians of the Constitution. Political Parties are also obliged to register and must stand by the Constitution which gives final political control to the religious Supreme Leader, who is not subject to direct appointment nor removal from office by the votes of the people. Yet elections to the Majilis, the Presidency and for Town and Local Councils provide a focus for serious reformist pressures to emerge. The Supreme Leader and the other theocratic elements of the Constitution may feel that they rule by a sort of "divine right", but their power could be eroded via Constitutional reforms which will only come if pushed for in a determined way by the people. If in our history in England, the power of the Monarchy was changed from that of an attempt at absolute rule to that of an eventual figure-head, there is no reason why Iran can't go down a similar path in relation to its Supreme Leader.

2. How Should Those Outside Iran Respond?

A Military attack upon Iran by the West would be a disaster. The national, anti-imperialist and Shia consensus would dominate any attempts at occupation. In 2008, Iran can not be subjected to the coup tactics of 1953.

Selected bombings of nuclear and other targets would also be counter-productive, strengthening the very trends which need to be tamed by internal reformism. The Iranians would also work to see that their nuclear provisions were re-built and protected.

When contemplating lesser actions such as sanctions and patrolling the Gulf, there also needs to be an awareness of how this will play on the internal political scene. The restoration of US-Iranian diplomatic relations has more mileage, as long as this is realistic and no sell-out by the West.

There are clear areas where such arrangements must avoid anything approaching compromises and sell-outs. We have to take actions which will assist reformist and democratic forces to make their own headway in Iran. Human Rights considerations need to be the top priority. This is why the international efforts by human rights groups, women's organisations, student bodies and the trade union movement need to be central. For instance, here is today's agenda.

Western Governments will be in a better position to press such agendas to the extent that they put their own houses in order on the human rights front. A Democratic victory in the US Presidential elections would help.

We need to concentrate on the types of issues which lead to internal pressures for reform in Iran. These relate to matters such as concern about regulations on wearing the hijab, shortages of provisions in the universities, workers whose wages are outstanding, petrol rationing, the impact of inflation, unemployment and a stagnant economy. In supporting the forces for social and democratic improvement within Iran, we have to refrain from actions that will unleash social forces which will make their task more difficult. This does not, however, mean leaving reformers to their own devises, they need our solidarity and support. The trick is working out the practicalities in shifting circumstances - understanding Iran is the prerequisite to undertaking any such tasks. Unfortunately too few people understood Iraq when it was about to be attacked. Which ,unfortunately, applied to many of those opposing the invasion as well as the bulk of its supporters.

Assessing Bush's Assessment : Part 6 of "Understanding Iran"

See Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5.



Last Wednesday, President Bush met with Sada Cumber, the first US envoy to the Organisation of the Islamic Conference - a hopeful body referred to in Part 1 and also in "Criticism 1" below.

At the close of Part 5, I listed four major criticisms which the US Administration levels against Iran. I will now examine each of these in turn.

Criticism 1 : Iran Undermines The Israel/Palestine Peace Process.

This process is at a pretty low ebb at the moment and Iran's response to the current situation in the Gaza Strip is likely to confirm the Bush Administration in its entrenched position.

On Sunday Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamanei called upon the Islamic people to rise up and for their leaders to hit Israel "in the face with their nation's anger". This follows recent actions which have led to over a hundred Palestinians (including children) being killed in the Gaza Strip in retaliation to terrorist rocket attacks on Israel. He also condemned the US for supporting what he called the "Zionists... unforgivable sins".

In response to the escalating violence in the Middle East, America has deployed USS Cole and two other warships off the coast of Lebanon, where there has been a history of American naval shelling at targets in that country. The tensions rises.

The language seeking to calm the situation has come from the United Nations Security Council who have called for an end to attacks, and by the European Union who have condemned Israel's response as being disproportionate and contrary to international law. The EU has also urged all parties to use restraint.

If there is ever to a serious advance of the Peace Process, then there needs to be pressures from those closest to the protagonists which seriously press for restraint. America's links with Israel need to be used to pull her back from indiscriminate responses. Whilst bodies such as the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (mentioned in Part 1) need to use their position to seek to rein in upon the rhetorical support and military aid which certain Islamic nations and/or splinter groups provide to Hamas, Hezbollah and their equivalents.

Iran has undoubtedly been involved in such activity. At official level this was more likely to be to the fore when revolutionary and theocratic elements initially came to the fore. Some restraints on this action arose in periods when more democratic and reformist elements entered the political game.

It also needs to be remembered that politics is never static. Political changes via both the coming US and Iranian Presidential elections can aid the needed developments.

Criticism 2 : Iran Supports International Terrorism

Outside of the immediate Palestine situation, the US Administration additionally claims that Iran supports violent oppositional activities in nations such as the Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq. On the latter this is seen as being via organisations such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guards. Further afield terrorist backing is even claimed in areas such as Latin America around attacks on Israeli Embassies and Jewish Cultural Centres.

Such claims tend to be based on intelligence data and many will see such a source as problematic given the since disproven claims about Saddam Hussein holding Weapons of Mass Destruction. On the other hand, Iran has a track record of seeking to exert militant influences amongst the Shia population of Iraq which goes back to events around the Iran-Iraq War.

President Ahmadinejad has recently completed a two day official visit to Baghdad. As Iran now enjoys sound diplomatic and commercial links with the Iraqi Government, its support for militant activity may decline if it comes to be viewed as counter-productive.

Western Government's will continue to feel a need to build safeguards against Iranian links with militant groups in nations with significant Shia populations. But in acting in this, the West will need to look for avenues which will not push the populations concerned even further into the hands of extremists.

Criticism 3 : Iran Is Developing Nuclear Weapons

On Monday, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution placing its third set of sanctions upon Iran whom it claims is constructing a heavy water reactor to produce plutonium and is seeking to enrich uranium. These are key ingredients in the production of nuclear weapons. The sanctions are restricted to those which will hinder or block such developments.

Moving to such a nuclear weapons capability is contrary to Iran being a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran denies that it is involved in such activities and claims merely to be developing a nuclear energy capacity which it is permitted to do under the Treaty.

Russia supplies uranium to Iran for use at its Bushehr power station, but this is done under an agreement which returns the spent uranium fuel so that it can not be reprocessed to produce plutonium. Perhaps to facilitate Russia's signature to the sanctions decision of the UN Security Council, Bush has stated that the arrangement is satisfactory.

Iran's case for developing nuclear power (which it is entitled to do) is that it needs to provide for its future. Its hoped for growth (with an expanding population) could lead to a situation where its annual output of oil for domestic purposes would not meet its own energy requirements. Nuclear energy for internal use would also allow it to expand its export of oil for revenue purposes. Then in an estimated 75 years time its oil will run out, so it needs to prepare for its long term future energy requirements.

Its (unspoken) interest in developing nuclear weapons is that they act as a deterrent against attacks from outside. It is surrounded by US military fire power and four of its near neighbours hold nuclear weapons, including Israel with whom it has a hostile relationship.

The dangers of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons (even without them adopting threats to use them) are that this would undermine the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, with Arab nations in the region then moving in on the act. Yet only last December the American Intelligence Agency claimed that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons programme back in 2003.

There is always a problem with the current regime in Iran that pressures upon them (such as the UN Security Council's sanctions programme) will prove counter-productive, with Iran digging in its heels and undertaking exactly that which others seek to prevent. On the other hand, a sanctions programme against Iran will be seen by many as preferable to the bombing by the USA of their relevant installations.

Criticism 4 : Iran Has A Shameful Human Rights Record

Even although the USA has its own dismal record over Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary rendition, Abu Ghraib prison and the nature of its attacks on Fallujah; it is still the case that Iran has a particularly shameful human rights record. In part 2, I quoted from the "2008 World Report" of Human Rights Watch which spells this out.

Iranian authorities systematically suppress freedom of expression by journalists, editors, academics, students and others. Peaceful protests over women rights, for social improvements and for trade union recognition are suppressed. Iran has a high death penalty rate which includes public hangings (with some until recently being shown an television), the stoning to death of women on charges of adultery and the execution of juveniles. Those who renounce their Islamic faith are open to jail sentences, hard labour or even the death penalty. An Iranian Government Minister has recently defended the torture and executions of homosexuals.

The Ershed patrol (or modesty police) enforce dress codes for women, placing many into detention. Many Iranians are, however, prepared to stand out against such provisions - as is shown here.

Iran is not alone in the operations of the above forms of abuse. Saudi Arabia has a particularly damming record in these areas. This indicates that a common approach needs to be adopted in seeking to overcome such practices wherever they are discovered.


*************************************************************************************

Part 7 will be the conclusion of this series on "Understanding Iran". I will pursue two final questions - (1) What are the avenues of reform in Iran? (2) How should those outside of Iran respond?

The Great Satan v The Axis Of Evil : Part 5 Of "Understanding Iran"

See Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4.

Or could this be the shape of things to come? Ryan Cocker, US Ambassador to Iraq met with his Iranian counterpart Hussan Kazemi Qomi in Baghdad in May 2007 to look for common ground to help the Iraqi Government to help to end the daily bloodshed. Whilst today Ahmadinejad, Iran's President arrived in Baghdad for two days of talks with Iraqi leaders. Iran is lending £500million to Iraq for projects which are to be handled by Iranian companies.

Halcyon Days

Prior to 1953, the USA had a close and friendly relationship with Iran. At that time the two world powers with a track record of interference in Iran's internal affairs were Britain and Russia. These two powers even divided Iran up into differing areas of influence between 1907 and 1917. Then they occupied Iran between 1941 and 1946, dividing the territory between themselves. When the Soviet Union was reluctant to leave after the 2nd World War, it was American pressure which secured their departure.

The Break-Up

In 1951, Iran nationalised the British owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and a tussle for power took place between the Shah and the democratic majority in the Majlis led by Mosaddeq. The Shah was initially obliged to flee Iran, but he was restored to power in a coup engineered by the British MI6 and the American CIA with Mosaddeq (Iran's nationalist and democratic hope) spending the remainder of his life in prison and then under house arrest. Whilst Iranians were used to such forms of action by Britain, they were deeply shocked and offended by the actions of the USA. The Shah allowed a Western Oil consortium to run Iran's Oil Industry with American involvement. America continued to be closely involved with the Shah's regime and supplied him with arms. As the Shah operated an increasingly oppressive regime, both he and the US Government became increasingly unpopular amongst Iranians.

Revolutionary Fervour

The 1979 revolution against the Shah's regime, initially united a wide range of differing interests inside Iran who all hoped to make considerable political advances with his departure. Ayatollah Khomeini's populist appeal rested on his being Anti-Shah, anti-imperialist, having a high Shia religious status and living a simple life-style (a sharp contrast with the Shah). Rather like Lenin during the Russian Revolution of 1917, he found that power could be taken by those who were organised and disciplined around the telling national ideology of its time. He was assisted by two important developments which are dealt with in the next section.

The Heat Rises

First, there was the student invasion of the American Embassy in Tehran in which apart from the hostages who were held, documents were seized whose contents were turned against the USA. As a consequence of hostage crisis, the USA instigated trade sanctions against Iran and ended diplomatic relations. Iran responded in kind. Whilst Khomeini was able to use the crisis to advance his version of theocratic beliefs and structures, a second dramatic event then occurred which he made considerable use of. Saddam Hussein's Iraq attacked Iran in 1980. This enabled Khomeini to mobilise Iran in a war which lasted until 1988. The West was seen to be sympathetic to Saddam Hussein's invasion. This made it easier for Khomeini's views on the immorality of Western life-styles, the need for Shariah law and his condemnation that the USA was the "Great Satan", to become part of Iran's conventional wisdom.

Both Sides Fan The Flames

In 1983 hundreds of members of a peacekeeping force in the Lebanon were killed at their barracks when truck bombs were exploded. The majority of these were US Marines. The US accused Iran of assisting Lebanon's Hezbollah in this and similar attacks, which had equivalents in other areas of the Middle East and were also focused against Israel. On the other hand, Iran tends to see bodies such as Hezbollah and Hamas as being freedom fighters on a par with the ANC in the period of its struggle against apartheid. When the USS Vincennes patrolling for America in the Gulf shot down an Iranian Airbus killing 290 people including children, this reinforced such feelings amongst the people of Iran.

Recent Tensions

In 2002, President Bush included Iran within his "Axis of Evil" speech. The USA then invaded a neighbouring nation, Iraq which Bush also claimed was part of this Axis. America has also accused Iran of using its nuclear energy programme as a cover for developing nuclear weapons in conflict with Iran's commitment to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty which it signed up to in 1968. The UN Security Council has adopted various targeted sanctions against Iran's nuclear programme and is currently examining whether it should update these. Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President has also upped the rhetoric in this dispute by saying that Israel should "be wiped off the map".

Are There Any Silver Linings?

A problem with the mutual boycott between the USA and Iran is that it blocks programmes such as the exchange of students, holiday visits and a general cross fertilization of ideas between the two nations. This makes it more difficult for views to emerge which help to bridge the gaps between the two administrations. There are, however, regular informal diplomatic links which operate via the Swiss and Pakistan embassies - and occasionally more direct approaches, including the one in the photo above. Deals eventually arose over the hostages and the USA has helped with disaster relief when Iran was hit by major earthquakes. Even the invasions of Iran's immediate neighbours has its plus side. Iran supported the Northern Alliance in Afganistan and fought a horrendous eight year war against Saddam Hussein. Althoughthe circumstances are difficult, the Shia of Iran can now visit their
holy shrines in southern Iraq which had been blocked to them by Saddam Hussein. Within the next year there is also the prospect of Presidential changes in both the USA and Iran which could lead to improved relations.

How Should The West Respond?

When Clinton was President, he made three major criticisms of the Iranian regime. (A) Iran was hostile to the (then active) Arab-Isreali Peace Process. (B) Iran actively supported international terrorism. (C) Its pursuit of a nuclear energy programme had the objective of developing nuclear weapons. From its vantage point of having bases and troops surroundingt Iran, the Bush regime presses these points even more vigorously and probably now makes more out of a further point. (D) This is the claim that Iran has a hideous human rights record, involving an excessive use of the death penalty and a harsh interpretation of Sharia Law. I will examine these matters in Part 6 and respond to the question "to what extent are these claims correct?".