Rooyesh

Conservative politicians in Iran today began to align themselves with President Mahmud Ahmadinejad following his high-profile appearance at an academic conference in New York on September 24. 

Other Iranian reaction to the outspoken leader’s first day in the United States has been slow to emerge, but early signs suggest Ahmadinejad is unlikely to have bridged any divides.

Source: Radio Farda

When Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s combative president, provoked his latest controversy in New York this week by asserting that there were no homosexuals in his country, he may have been indulging in sophistry or just plain wishful thinking.

While Mr Ahmadinejad may want to believe that his Islamic society is exclusively non-gay, it is a belief undermined by the paradox that transsexuality and sex changes are tolerated and encouraged under Iran’s theocratic system.

Iran has between 15,000 and 20,000 transsexuals, according to official statistics, although unofficial estimates put the figure at up to 150,000. Iran carries out more gender change operations than any country in the world besides Thailand.

Sex changes have been legal since the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, spiritual leader of the 1979 Islamic revolution, passed a fatwa authorising them nearly 25 years ago. Whereas homosexuality is considered a sin, transsexuality is categorised as an illness subject to cure.

While the government seeks to keep its approval quiet, state support has increased since Mr Ahmadinejad took office in 2005. His government has begun providing grants of £2,250 for operations and further funding for hormone therapy. It is also proposing loans of up to £2,750 to allow those undergoing surgery to start their own businesses.

Maryam Khatoon Molkara, leader of the country’s main transsexual organisation, said some of those undergoing operations were gay rather than out-and-out transsexuals. “In Iran, transsexuals are part of the homosexual family. Is it possible that a phenomenon exists in the world but not in Iran? Transsexuality is a real disaster. It’s a one-way street. But if somebody wants to study, have a future and live like others they should go through this surgery.”

At Columbia University on Monday, Mr Ahmadinejad said homosexuality did not exist in Iran. “In Iran we don’t have homosexuals like in your country,” he told a questioner who accused his government of executing gay people. “In Iran we do not have this phenomenon. I don’t know who has told you that we have it.”

But Ms Molkara - who persuaded Khomeini to issue the fatwa on transsexuality - said his stance was inconsistent with the state’s sex-change policy. “They are saying homosexuality doesn’t exist, but they have never given me a chance to use my influence among transsexuals to prevent transsexuality from happening,” she said. “You could change the culture but the press and state TV are not allowed to write or say anything about transsexuality.”

The president’s claim was an eye-opener to Iranian human rights lawyers, who said the country’s Islamic legal code made draconian provision for homosexual offences by men and women.

It also outraged international gay rights activists, who recalled numerous executions under Iran’s sodomy laws. When legal officials announced the execution of 12 prisoners at Tehran’s Evin prison in July, they said the condemned included several “sodomites”. According to campaigners, several gay men have been caught up in a wave of hangings over the summer, although the claims are hard to verify.

There have been other high-profile cases in recent years, including that of two teenagers, Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni, who were publicly hanged in the north-eastern city of Mashhad in the summer of 2005 after admitting having sex. This summer, Pegah Emambakhsh, an Iranian lesbian, was granted permission to take her case to the court of appeal in Britain after claiming she would be in danger of execution if the Home Office implemented its ruling to deport her to Iran.

“Homosexuality is defined both for men and women in law. There is a section devoted to homosexuality,” Shirin Ebadi, the Nobel peace prize-winning human rights lawyer, said. “There is one part for homosexuality in men, which is called lavat [sodomy], which is punishable by death. There is another for women, which is called mosahegheh. If the crime is committed up to three times, the penalty is 100 lashes. On the fourth, it is execution.”

Source: The Guardian

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has clashed with the head of New York’s Columbia University while making his controversial appearance at the campus.

Columbia President Lee Bollinger described Mr Ahmadinejad as a “cruel dictator” who denied the Holocaust.

In response, Mr Ahmadinejad called the remarks “an insult”, adding that more research was needed on the Holocaust.

He again defended Tehran’s right to have “a peaceful nuclear energy” and said there were no homosexuals in Iran.

Speaking to US media earlier, Mr Ahmadinejad said that Iran is not heading for war with the US.

Washington accuses Iran of seeking to build a nuclear bomb and arming insurgents in Iraq - Tehran rejects the charges.

Mr Ahmadinejad has been denied a visit to the site of the 11 September attacks in New York in 2001, with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice saying that “it would have been a travesty”.

“This is somebody who is the president of a country that is probably the greatest sponsor - state sponsor - of terrorism,” Ms Rice told CNBC television.

‘Brazen’

Mr Ahmadinejad was invited to Columbia University to address its students at the university’s World Leaders Forum.

He received a hostile welcome from Mr Bollinger, who described the Iranian leader as “a petty and cruel dictator”.

“You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated,” Mr Bollinger told Mr Ahmadinejad, referring to his denial of the Holocaust.

In response, Mr Ahmadinejad said that Mr Bollinger’s remarks were “an insult to information and the knowledge of the audience”.

Addressing the Holocaust issue, Mr Ahmadinejad said he simply wanted more research to be done.

He also said the issue was abused by Israel to justify what he said was its mistreatment of the Palestinians.

“Why is it that the Palestinian people are paying the price for an event they had nothing to do with?” Mr Ahmadinejad asked.

‘Evil has landed’

Many Americans had said he should not have been invited to speak.

The New York Daily News’s front page headline on Monday read “The Evil Has Landed”, while the New York Post described Mr Ahmadinejad as “Madman Iran Prez”.

Dozens of protesters gathered outside the university on Sunday with placards saying: “Don’t give a platform to hate,” and calling the Iranian leader a “Hitler wannabe”.

Mr Ahmadinejad has called in the past for an end to the Israeli state and described the Holocaust as a “myth”.

Mr Bollinger defended the university’s invitation, saying it was a question of free speech and academic freedom.

Tickets to the event were snatched up within an hour of becoming available.

The Iranian leader is in New York to attend the UN General Assembly, where he is due to speak on Tuesday.

Source: BBC

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrived in New York to protests Sunday and said in a television interview that Iran was neither building a nuclear bomb nor headed to war with the United States.

The president’s motorcade pulled up to the midtown hotel where he will be staying while he appears at a series of events including the U.N. General Assembly and a forum at Columbia University, where about 40 elected officials and civic leaders decried his visit. Ahmadinejad’s public-relations push appears aimed at presenting his views directly to a U.S. audience amid rising strains and talk of war between the two nations.

Tensions are high between Washington and Tehran over U.S. accusations that Iran is secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons, as well as helping Shiite militias in Iraq that target U.S. troops — claims Iran denies. “Well, you have to appreciate we don’t need a nuclear bomb. We don’t need that. What need do we have for a bomb?” Ahmadinejad said in the “60 Minutes” interview taped in Iran on Thursday. “In political relations right now, the nuclear bomb is of no use. If it was useful it would have prevented the downfall of the Soviet Union.” He also said that: “It’s wrong to think that Iran and the U.S. are walking toward war. Who says so? Why should we go to war? There is no war in the offing.” Before leaving Iran, Ahmadinejad said the American people have been denied “correct information,” and his visit will give them a chance to hear a different voice, the official IRNA news agency reported. Washington has said it is addressing the Iran situation diplomatically, rather than militarily, but U.S. officials also say that all options are open. The commander of the U.S. military forces in the Middle East said he did not believe tensions will lead to war. “This constant drum beat of conflict is what strikes me, which is not helpful and not useful,” Adm.

William Fallon, head of U.S. Central Command, said in an interview with Al-Jazeera television, which made a partial transcript available Sunday. Ahmadinejad’s scheduled address to the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday will be his third time attending the New York meeting in three years. But his request to lay a wreath at ground zero was denied by city officials and condemned by politicians who said a visit to the site of the 2001 terror attacks would violate sacred ground. Police cited construction and security concerns in denying Ahmadinejad’s request. Ahmadinejad told 60 Minutes he would not press the issue but expressed disbelief that the visit would offend Americans. After the Sept. 11 attacks, hundreds of young Iranians held a series of candlelight vigils in Tehran. “Usually you go to these sites to pay your respects. And also to perhaps air your views about the root causes of such incidents,” Ahmadinejad told the network. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini also appeared dismayed that the request was rejected. “What kind of damage will the U.S. face (by Ahmadinejad visiting the site)?” Hosseini said at his weekly press conference Sunday. Columbia canceled a planned visit by the Iranian president last year, also citing security and logistical reasons.

University President Lee Bollinger has resisted requests to cancel Ahmadinejad’s speech this year but promised to introduce the talk himself with a series of tough questions on topics including the Iranian leader’s views on the Holocaust, his call for the destruction of the state of Israel and his government’s alleged support of terrorism. Ahmadinejad has called the Holocaust “a myth” and called for Israel to be “wiped off the map.” At the protests, New York state Assemblyman Dov Hikind said Ahmadinejad “should be arrested when he comes to Columbia University, not invited to speak for God’s sake.” Ahmadinejad’s visit to New York is also being debated back home. Some in Iran think his trip is a publicity stunt that hurts Iran’s image in the world.

Political analyst Iraj Jamshidi said Ahmadinejad looks at the General Assembly as a publicity forum simply to surprise world leaders with his harsh rhetoric. “The world has not welcomed Ahmadinejad’s hardline approach. His previous address to the assembly didn’t resolve any of Iran’s foreign policy issues. And no one expects anything better this time,” he said. But conservative lawmaker Alaeddin Boroujerdi said it was a good chance for Iran to air its position. “This trip gives the president a good chance to meet world leaders and inform them of Iran’s rightful position,” IRNA quoted Boroujerdi as saying.

Source: Reuters

The people of Iran are experiencing difficult times both internationally and domestically. Internationally, they face the threat of a military attack from the US and the imposition of extensive sanctions by the UN Security Council.

Domestically, a despotic state has – through constant and organized repression – imprisoned them in a life and death situation.

Far from helping the development of democracy, US policy over the past 50 years has consistently been to the detriment of the proponents of freedom and democracy in Iran. The 1953 coup against the nationalist government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq and the unwavering support for the despotic regime of the Shah, who acted as America’s gendarme in the Persian Gulf, are just two examples of these flawed policies. More recently the confrontation between various US Administrations and the Iranian state over the past three decades has made internal conditions very difficult for the proponents of freedom and human rights in Iran. Exploiting the danger posed by the US, the Iranian regime has put military-security forces in charge of the government, shut down all independent domestic media, and is imprisoning human rights activists on the pretext that they are all agents of a foreign enemy. The Bush Administration, for its part, by approving a fund for democracy assistance in Iran, which has in fact being largely spent on official institutions and media affiliated with the US government, has made it easy for the Iranian regime to describe its opponents as mercenaries of the US and to crush them with impunity. At the same time, even speaking about “the possibility” of a military attack on Iran makes things extremely difficult for human rights and pro-democracy activists in Iran. No Iranian wants to see what happened to Iraq or Afghanistan repeated in Iran. Iranian democrats also watch with deep concern the support in some American circles for separatist movements in Iran. Preserving Iran’s territorial integrity is important to all those who struggle for democracy and human rights in Iran. We want democracy for Iran and for all Iranians. We also believe that the dismemberment of Middle Eastern countries will fuel widespread and prolonged conflict in the region. In order to help the process of democratization in the Middle East, the US can best help by promoting a just peace between the Palestinians and Israelis, and pave the way for the creation of a truly independent Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel. A just resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the establishment of a Palestinian state would inflict the heaviest blow on the forces of fundamentalism and terrorism in the Middle East.

Your Excellency,

Iran’s dangerous international situation and the consequences of Iran’s dispute with the West have totally deflected the world’s attention and especially the attention of the United Nations from the intolerable conditions that the Iranian regime has created for the Iranian people. The dispute over the enrichment of uranium should not make the world forget that, although the 1979 revolution of Iran was a popular revolution, it did not lead to the formation of a democratic system that protects human rights. The Islamic Republic is a fundamentalist state that does not afford official recognition to the private sphere. It represses civil society and violates human rights. Thousands of political prisoners were executed during the first decade after the revolution without fair trials or due process of the law, and dozens of dissidents and activists were assassinated during the second decade. Independent newspapers are constantly being banned and journalists are sent to prison. All news websites are filtered and books are either refused publication permits or are slashed with the blade of censorship before publication. Women are totally deprived of equality with men and, when they demand equal rights, they are accused of acting against national security, subjected to various types of intimidation and have to endure various penalties, including long prison terms. In the first decade of the 21st century, stoning (the worst form of torture leading to death) is one of the sentences that Iranians face on the basis of existing laws. A number of Iranian teachers, who took part in peaceful civil protests over their pay and conditions, have been dismissed from their jobs and some have even been sent into internal exile in far-flung regions or jailed. Iranian workers are deprived of the right to establish independent unions. Workers who ask to be allowed to form unions in order to struggle for their corporate rights are beaten and imprisoned. Iranian university students have paid the highest costs in recent years in defence of liberty, human rights and democracy. Security organizations prevent young people who are critical of the official state orthodoxy from gaining admission into university, and those who do make it through the rigorous ideological and political vetting process have no right to engage in peaceful protest against government policies.

If students’ activities displease the governing elites, they are summarily expelled from university and in many instances jailed. The Islamic Republic has also been expelling dissident professors from universities for about a quarter of a century. In the meantime, in the Islamic Republic’s prisons, opponents are forced to confess to crimes that they have not committed and to express remorse. These confessions, which have been extracted by force, are then broadcast on the state media in a manner reminiscent of Stalinist show-trials. There are no fair, competitive elections in Iran; instead, elections are stage managed and rigged. And even people who find their way into parliament and into the executive branch of government have no powers or resources to alter the status quo. All the legal and extra-legal powers are in the hands of the Iran’s top leader, who rules like a despotic sultan.

Your Excellency,

Are you aware that in Iran political dissidents, human rights activists and pro-democracy campaigners are legally deprived of “the right to life”? On the basis of Article 226 of the Islamic Penal Law and Note 2 of Paragraph E of Section B of Article 295 of the same law any person can unilaterally decide that another human being has forfeited the right to life and kill them in the name of performing one’s religious duty to rid society of vice. Over the past few decades, many dissidents and activists have been killed on the basis of this article and the killers have been acquitted in court. In such circumstances, no dissident or activist has a right to life in Iran, because, on the basis of Islamic jurisprudence and the laws of the Islamic Republic, the definition of those who have forfeited the right to life (mahduroldam) is very broad.

Are you aware that, in Iran, writers are lawfully banned from writing? On the basis of Note 2 of Paragraph 8 of Article 9 of the Press Law, writers who are convicted of “propaganda against the ruling system” are deprived for life of “the right to all press activity”. In recent years, many writers and journalists have been convicted of propaganda against the ruling system. The court’s verdicts make it clear that any criticism of state bodies is deemed to be propaganda against the ruling system.

Your Excellency,

The people of Iran and Iranian advocates for freedom and democracy are experiencing difficult days. They need the moral support of the proponents of freedom throughout the world and effective intervention by the United Nations. We categorically reject a military attack on Iran. At the same time, we ask you and all of the world’s intellectuals and proponents of liberty and democracy to condemn the human rights violations of the Iranian state. We expect from Your Excellency, in your capacity as the Secretary-General of the United Nations, to reprimand the Iranian government – in keeping with your legal duties – for its extensive violation of the articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights covenants and treaties.

Above all, we hope that with Your Excellency’s immediate intervention, all of Iran’s political prisoners, who are facing more deplorable conditions with every passing day, will soon be released. The people of Iran are asking themselves whether the UN Security Council is only decisive and effective when it comes to the suspension of the enrichment of uranium, and whether the lives of the Iranian people are unimportant as far as the Security Council is concerned. The people of Iran are entitled to freedom, democracy and human rights. We Iranians hope that the United Nations and all the forums that defend democracy and human rights will be unflinching in their support for Iran’s quest for freedom and democracy.

Yours Sincerely,

Akbar Ganji

Source: Time

In the wake of escalating tensions between United States and Iran, touching on both the nuclear standoff and the situation in Iraq, the two sides need to take tangible steps aimed at reducing the escalating tensions between them, and the sooner the better.

But those steps, such as confidence-building measures in the Persian Gulf that would avert an accidental war between the U.S. and Iranian navies, must be anchored in a better understanding of each side’s intentions and interests - both in Iraq, Afghanistan and the broader region.

Unfortunately, today’s climate in U.S.-Iran relations is fogged by poisoned rhetoric, accusations and counter-accusations, labeling and misperceptions. One such misperception is that the United States and Iran operate at complete cross-purposes in Iraq and today’s Iraq represents a theater of “zero-sum” conflict between Tehran and Washington.

Yet, a clue that the picture is, indeed, much more complex and there are coinciding interests between the two nations was given by Iran’s Ali Larijani, the head of powerful Supreme National Security Council, in his recent interview with the Arabic network, al-Jazeera, when he stated that Iran is not in favor of an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. This echoes an earlier statement by Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, in his recent interview with the Financial Times, stating that Iran favors an orderly, gradual withdrawal of foreign forces from Iraq.

Such news from Iran may be surprising to the hawkish U.S. politicians and media pundits, who portray Iran as America’s mortal enemy. Yet this is not so, when seen from the prism of Iran’s national security interests, and especially given Iran’s concerns about conflict spillover, refugees, and the like, that would result from a chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. In fact, Iran’s willingness to hold rounds of direct dialogue with the United States on Iraq’s security, ending 27 years of diplomatic non-communication, reflects those shared interests.

Iran has given generous economic assistance to Baghdad’s government and has a burgeoning trade with Iraq that exceeded $2 billion last year. Iran has a vested interest in a politically and economically stable unified Iraq, and is opposed to Iraq’s disintegration.

Similarly in Afghanistan, where the United States and Iran cooperated in bringing about the downfall of the Taliban in 2001, the government of Kabul has adamantly rejected White House allegations of Iranian support for the Taliban. Iran is concerned about the resurgence of the Taliban insurgency, backed by al Qaeda, as well as about the growing drug traffic from Afghanistan, which takes the lives of hundreds of Iranian law enforcement officials each year.

At the same time, Iran is worried by the United States’ post-9/11 encirclement of Iran, categorization of Iran as part of an “axis of evil,” and, more recently, the branding of Iran as a new cold-war enemy that precludes the politics of “engagement” recommended by the Iraq Study Group. From Iran’s vantage point, the U.S. military’s plan to build a base near the Iran-Iraq border, ostensibly to prevent the flow of arms into Iraq, is a convenient excuse for a long-term U.S. presence in Iraq.

What is needed is continued multilateral talks and diplomacy in order to de-escalate the dangerous crisis over Iran’s nuclear program, which has been certified by the International Atomic Energy Agency, after extensive inspection of Iran’s facilities, to be devoid of any evidence of military diversion. In light of the steady progress in Iran-IAEA cooperation, the direct dialogue between the United States and Iran on Iraq’s security, and Iran’s ability to play an even more constructive role in regional stability, the stage is set for a thaw in U.S.-Iran relations. With sufficient political will on both sides, Washington and Tehran can achieve this by adopting concrete confidence-building measures and by imposing a mutually agreed-upon moratorium on demonizing each other.

A start would be for the United States to release the five Iranian diplomats seized by U.S. forces in the Kurdish city of Irbil. Another would be to explore the idea of an “incidents at sea agreement,” whereby the chances of accidental maritime warfare between United States and Iran would be minimized.

What’s necessary is not the “grand bargain,” as called for by some American pundits, but concrete baby steps aimed at incremental improvement of the U.S.-Iran climate - something that is feasible, and yet sadly lacking today. Given the potential flash points in the region and the proximity of the U.S. military to Iran, it would be imprudent not to pursue those steps, in the interests of regional and global peace.

Abbas Maleki, a former deputy foreign minister of Iran, is a visiting scholar at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. Kaveh L. Afrasiabi teaches international relations at Bentley College and is the auth of books on Iran’s foreign and nuclear policies.

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

Major powers said on Friday they had “serious and constructive” talks about new U.N. Security Council sanctions aimed at trying to force Iran to halt its uranium enrichment activities.

But the officials of the five permanent Security Council members and Germany said they will keep pursuing a “dual track” approach to Iran — trying to persuade it to abandon enrichment via negotiations while considering new sanctions.

Western nations, which suspect Iran may be seeking to develop an atomic bomb under the cover of its civil nuclear program, have demanded Tehran suspend its uranium enrichment, a process that can produce fuel for a bomb.

Iran says its nuclear program is to generate power so it can export more of its oil and gas and has so far rebuffed three U.N. Security Council resolutions — including two that imposed sanctions — demanding it halt uranium enrichment.

“The discussions were serious and constructive,” U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said on behalf of the political directors of Britain, China, France, Russia, the United States and Germany after they met in Washington.

“They had a detailed discussion of the elements of a new United Nations Security Council Resolution, as well as possibilities of continued dialogue with Iran,” he added.

“They reaffirmed their commitment to maintain a dual track approach on Iran’s nuclear activities.”

While France and Britain strongly back a U.S. push for harsher Security Council sanctions, China and Russia oppose this. Other European nations also have qualms about further sanctions.

NEW FINANCIAL SANCTIONS?

The Security Council on December 23 imposed trade sanctions on Iran’s sensitive nuclear and advanced missile programs. On March 24, the 15-nation body froze the assets of 28 groups, companies and individuals and banned Tehran’s arms exports.

New U.N. Security Council measures under consideration include additional financial sanctions and an inspection of cargo to and from Iran to search for banned nuclear-related materials, diplomats have said.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, who on Sunday raised the specter of war with Iran but has since backed away from his comment, stressed diplomatic efforts to end Iran’s suspected nuclear arms program.

“It is important to note that we have set out a diplomatic path that includes negotiation as the preferred means by which to resolve this issue,” Rice told reporters at a joint news conference with Kouchner.

“We will seek further resolutions in the U.N. Security Council should Iran not take up the negotiating track,” Rice added, noting the Security Council had used both asset freezes and visa bans to punish Iran in the past.

“There are any number of ways that we can expand those efforts,” Rice said.

Kouchner reiterated France’s support for stronger penalties for Iran from the Security Council.

“We may hope that there will be a third resolution to reinforce the sanctions, which up until now have not been very effective,” Kouchner told reporters.

Source: The Reuters