BBC Persian's Version of What Happened at Manchester University

I attended a two day seminar and workshop at Manchester university last week. The scholarly seminar was organised by Drs. Oliver Bast and Siavush Ranjbar-Daemi and examined the fall of the Iranian Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadeq, in 1953.

The seminar included academics from around the world, who had researched and studied the documentary evidence of the 1953 events in Iran. It was both enjoyable and illuminating as the experts on the subject presented their arguments and conjectures based on the different aspects of the evidence and archived documents they had studied.

Siavush Ranjbar-Daemi gave a brief presentation of what the various newspapers at the time had reported and in particular which political groups had called for a Republic in the two day aftermath of the initial failed attempt to bring down Mossadeq on 16th August, 1953.

Shahram Kholdi, from Western University in Canada, gave a presentation of the Iranian legal constitution at the time, its origins and what the legal authority of the Shah and the Prime Minister were. An important study to determine whether the toppling of Mossadeq was a coup or a legal constitutional move.

The American scholar, Mark Gasiorowsky, talked about the evidence he had gathered from the people he had interviewed, which included CIA operatives at the time.

Darioush Bayandor criticised Gasiorowsky for not having taken into consideration the declassified information that has been available since 2000 and that what most bothered him was an attempt by Gasiorowsky and his co-author, Malcolm Byrne at splashing some sensational headlines that new evidence proved the role of a CIA coup on 19th August as undeniable and argued that they were much sensationalism about nothing. A point that Gasiorowsky himself later admitted.

Regarding the mystery of who brought out the crowds on 19th August that toppled Mossadeq, Bayandor offered his theory and the reasons as to why in his view, it was actually the influential Ayatollah Boroujerdi.

Oliver Bast, on the second day of the seminar, listed the popular myths propagated into the public consciousness by the media and the role of academics in this. Some of these myths were:
Mossadeq nationalised the Iranian oil industry - it was nationalised before Mossadeq became PM
Mossadeq was democratically elected by popular vote - He was appointed by the Shah
The Shah was reinstated after a CIA backed coup - He never abdicated
The 1953 was a huge national trauma for Iranians- there have been many more events that can be described as a national trauma in recent Iranian history
That Mossadeq was brutally dealt with - Bast compared what happened to Hoveyda after 1979 revolution and the trial he got with that of Mossadeq
and finally the East German born scholar ridiculed Madeline Albright for having apologised to the Islamic Republic of the 1953 coup, describing her as ill informed and badly advised on the subject.

I was very much in agreement with Oliver Bast as to what he had to say about the media myths about Mossadeq. A recent report by CNN on Malcolm Byrne's sensational headlines for example, mentioned how Iran had gained its independence from Britain and Mossadeq had been sentenced to death for nationalising the Iranian oil!

Oliver Bast also mentioned that in terms of tangible results, Mossadeq's success was almost zero and that there were other Iranian Prime Ministers, before and after Mossadeq, who were far more successful in achieving real results.

There was also an interesting glimpse into the few Russian documents that are available on the subject. Next to nothing has been declassified by the KGB as this is not the norm in Russia but some diplomatic correspondence that were made available to one Russian born academic, showed contacts were established between Ayatollah Kashani and the Soviets who regarded Ayatollah Kashani as the only player able to bring the crowds into the streets.

It was a lively debate and perhaps, there were only two points that all sides agreed on:
a) There was nothing new in Malcolm Byrne's sensation headlines
b) Until more documents are released and declassified, what actually happened on 19th August, 1953 will remain debatable.

I hope in writing the above notes, I have given a flavour of what happened during the two day seminar at Manchester University, which is in far contrast to the simplistic and biased report aired by BBC Persian television. See below:

Fariba Sahraei, the BBC Persian reporter narrating the above footage, reduced the seminar into a much simpler event. According to her, there is no doubt that Mossadeq was toppled by a CIA coup on 19th August, 1953 and almost all academics and experts agree on this except one man, Darioush Bayandor, who is single handedly trying to give a different version, and Bayandor's statements were strongly challenged by other academics who attended the seminar!

A vivid example of lazy journalism and biased reporting that is becoming predominant on BBC Persian television.

The “Result" of Khomeini

The word for great grandchild in Persian is “Natijeh” which also means result. Last week the great granddaughter of Ayatollah Khomeini, or the “Result” of Ayatollah Khomeini, Naima Taheri, became the subject of much discussion throughout the Iranian cyberspace.

Ayatollah Khomeini’s granddaughter, Naimeh Eshraghi, posted this on her Facebook:
“A young Iranian girl, has won the first prize in OCE student competition, held in Ontario, Canada. Guess, who this young talented student is? My own daughter, Naima Taheri, studying international relations” and she finished her Facebook status by saying:
“Naima, my beloved daughter, I congratulate you for having won the first prize of the Ontario state’s competition for the elite”.

The competition that Naimeh Eshraghi referred to, was in fact a student video competition, not so much  a competition for the creme-de-la-creme or the elite of the Ontario state, as she had implied on her Facebook page. Khomeini’s great grand daughter also did not win the competition single handedly, but was part of a team who were awarded the first prize in 'Discovery Video Competition'.

Exaggerating the eliteness of the competition and the role of her daughter in winning the prize is not untypical of most Iranian parents. Most typical Iranian mothers exaggerate and boast the successes of their children, especially in education. I remember a colleague of my father who was once boasting his son’s educational achievements in studying nuclear physics and later receiving a slap on the back of my head from my father, who chided me by saying “why can’t you concentrate in your studies like him so we can have pleasure in telling others about your achievements?”. Of course, most of the boasting for which I had the misfortune of receiving my father’s wrath, turned out to be wishful thinking and in the same league as Naimeh Eshraghi’s exaggeration of her daughter’s achievement.

The controversy however, was not just over the typical maternal instinct to show off the achievements of one’s child, Khomeini’s granddaughter also photoshopped her daughter’s attire. The skin tight trousers,  the close fitting top and the high heels from the original picture were replaced by a knee length manteau and the picture was cropped so as not to show her “provocative" high heels.

Since then, more pictures of Ayatollah Khomeini’s great grand-daughter have been released. This is the “Result of Khomeini” were the typical headlines in Persian. Pictures that will make Khomeini turn in his grave but also remind us that the Islamic Republic will be just a blip in Iran’s history.
Naturally I wish Naeema Taheri all the success in fulfilling her potentials for the future, as I always do for everyone else.

Where is a foreign country?

Last week, "Negin-e-Kerman", a local publication in the Kerman province in Iran, was banned. Hamid Eshaghi, the interrogator for branch 3 of the Kerman revolutionary court said the publication was banned for "Insulting the sacred values, propaganda against the Islamic Republic and perturbing the public's thoughts".

An article that was published in the form of an essay, titled "Where is a foreign country?" was deemed as an insult to the holy Koran, Islam and the Martyrs".

The essay was in fact a lampooning of the Islamic Republic's propaganda on how everything is fine inside Iran and how the foreigners are always suffering because of their misguided way of life.

Here is the translation of the essay that aroused the wrath of the revolutionary courts in Kerman:

Where is a foreign country?

A foreign country is a place where they all have AIDS.

Foreign country is where they all try to have sex with each other

Whereas in our country, everyone is faithful to each other.

A foreign country is where their leader has more than one set of clothes and therefore they are very pompous and affluent.

They also all wear neck ties which everyone knows is a sort of a sign and an arrow pointing to "below the belt" part.

All foreigners are Westoxificated.

Foreigners are always drunk and are always telling each other “You Are…”

But here in Iran we are always very polite and always ask about the well being of each other’s families.

We have everything in Iran, bread, housing and according to some, we have freedom too. The only difference is we say we don’t have these things ourselves but our officials say we do have them, but we are so nescient that we keep asking “so where is it?” Our officials are then forced to set up morality police units and force us to understand that we have all these things.

But its not like this in foreign countries, because they are so illogical.

Foreign country is a backward place where they have no morality police and they don’t get fined for wearing nail polish.

In foreign countries they still haven’t understood that black is a suitable colour for summer.

Because foreigners have a very weak religious and spiritual mind set, when they see strands of female hair, they are not provoked and they show no reaction. But if we see a few strands of female hair, we shake and shiver, because we have deep religious convictions.

Because foreigners are so uncultivated and irreligious, they have no idea what temporary marriage is and because they are so effeminate they think men and women are equal. They have never had a decent and noble teacher to make them understand that a man, is in fact, equal to four women.

They are so unrefined that when they walk into a church they walk with their shoes on and burn incense, they have no idea that the joy of speaking to God is in the sweet fragrance of old socks mixed with rosewater.

They sing their prayers with music, because they are such donkeys that they do not realise when man speaks with God, he is not permitted to be joyous. God is very frightening and only Iranians know this. 

Our conclusion at the end of this essay is that a foreign country is a very bad place and a foreign country is where every one has AIDS.

CIA Documents, GWU Much Ado About Nothing

Malcolm Byrne, Deputy Director and
Director of Research at GWU National Archives

News of CIA finally acknowledging its role in the 1953 coup in Iran after the National Security Archive Dept at George Washington University used the "Freedom of Information Act" to obtain some new CIA declassified documents, quickly hit the headlines last week.
Headlines such as:

"CIA finally admits it was behind 1953 coup which deposed Iranian prime minister who stood up to the West" - Daily Mail

"CIA documents acknowledge its role in Iran's 1953 coup" - BBC

"CIA admits role in 1953 Iranian coup" - The Guardian 

Reading beyond the news headlines however quickly indicated that none of the authors of these articles with the glitzy headlines had actually bothered to read the documents. The fact that there was nothing new in these documents was also admitted to me in an email correspondence I had with Malcolm Byrne, the director of the GWU National Security Archive Dept who spearheaded the media frenzy about the new declassified documents:

"They [the new documents released] do not change our understanding of the coup in a major way"

The GWU national archives published 35 documents on their web page: 

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB435/#doc1

The first document, in the list of CIA documents on the GWU website, is a 200 page account by a CIA operative named Donald Wilber. There is nothing new about this document,  it was in fact published by the New York Times in 2000. Yet even more than a decade since; it seems most media have been content at headline grabbing rather than actually reading the Wilber account. 

Perhaps it is unreasonable to expect a news reporter, faced with a one day deadline for publishing, would have the time to read more than 700 pages of documents in such a short time, but nevertheless most news readers and viewers also stop at just reading the sexy headlines and ignore the actual contents of the source. This is how you get the "know it all" plebs in meetings about Iran, who think they know all about the 1953 events in Iran or worse still, this is how the likes of Madeline Albright, Bill Clinton's US Secretary of State, ends up apologising to the Islamic Republic about the US involvement in the removal of Mossadeq in 1953. If only Albright or her advisors had read the documents, they would realise those ruling Iran now are the very ones who helped the CIA in their objectives.

Wilbur's account is in fact full of references to the role of the clergy in the overthrow of Mossadeq. In fact there are so many items listed as possible risks to the project, but the one thing both the British and the US spy stations in Iran are fully confident about, is that they can rely on the clergy to carry out their role in the overthrow of Mossadeq.

Appendix B, pp20 from Wilber's documents:

Another excerpt from Wilbur's documents even spells out what the clergy in Iran must do on the "appointed day":

and another excerpt :

The Islamic terrorist group at the time connected to the clergy in Iran, the Fedayeen Islam, is not mentioned explicitly in this excerpt but with a high degree of certainty one can assume it is this group which is referred to in this excerpt:

Threatening the pro-Mossadeq deputies and his entourage by the Fedayeen Islam terrorist group, with "direct action", of course is another word for assassinations.

The other myth is that the documents reveal the project to overthrow Mossadeq is because of oil. The documents in fact suggest that central to the success of the project is the co-operation by the Shah, which is listed as the top risk for the project's failure or success. In order to convince the Shah to co-operate, the documents suggest that an enormous effort must have been made to convince the Shah that the pursuit to overthrow Mossadeq was not because of the oil nationalisation issue, which the Shah was sympathetic towards but that Iran's economy was on the verge of collapse, the Tudeh Party, Iran's Soviet backed Communist Party was becoming increasingly powerful and the American feared Iran would fall to the Soviets. That is why the project is code named "TPAJAX", short for Tudeh Party cleansing in Iran. 

It is also debatable whether the overthrow of Mossadeq should be called a coup. It is in fact a quasi-legal move and not a coup. Mossadeq had become increasing dictatorial, he had dissolved the parliament and the dissatisfaction with him had reached  even his own close ranks. The documents in fact reveal that his own supporters were thinking of replacing him with another National Front candidate. 

In the absence of the parliament, according to Iran's constitution, it was the legal authority of the Shah to dismiss the Prime Minister by issuing a Firman. What the TPAJAX project required to do was to convince the Shah and encourage him to put his signature at the bottom of a Firman (Shah's order) that replaced Mossadeq with the new Prime Minister, Gen. Zahedi.

The project TPAJAX was supposed to have been carried out on the 16th of August, 1953. The plan however had leaked to Mossadeq, this was one of the major risks listed during the planning. Mossadeq was ready with his troops and when the Firman to replace him was delivered to him, his troops arrested the messenger. The Shah fled and this sparked a series of demonstrations by the Tudeh Party across the country calling for a republic, accompanied by fiery speeches from Mossadeq's supporters who demanded the Shah to abdicate. Yet all this helped to mobilise the support for the Shah in a way that surprised everyone.

Wilbur's documents describe the turn around of fortunes:

In another part of the document the make up of these pro-Shah crowds is described as such:

Document 3 on GWU's website list is also not new, it was declassified once in 1981 and again in 2011. Judging by the footnotes in the document, it is thought it was written either in 1974 or after. An unexpected feature of the document (Appendix C) is the inclusion of a series of lengthy excerpts of published accounts of the overthrow designed, apparently, to underscore how poorly the public understood the episode at the time.

Document 4 was written in 1998 and most parts, even the table of contents, are fully excised.

Document 5 is the first in the list that has been recently classified. It is a memo by Kermit Roosevelt written on 14th July, 1953. It is a regular report of the events unfolding in Iran, including the prospect of Mossadeq closing the parliament.

Document 6 is another memo by Kermit Roosevelt written on July 15th. Again it is a report of the legalities of how many MPs must be present for a vote by the deputies to have legal effect. It also mentions article 48 which gives the Shah the authority as the only person to dissolve the parliament.

Document 7, another memo by Kermit Roosevelt on 16th July, 1953, examines Zahedi's military assets and mentions Zahedi is against extra-legal moves to oust Mossadeq and considers this to be a political suicide.

Document 8, is anther report by Kermit roosevelt on the resignation of deputies, the idea being to avert Mossadeq's move to call for a referendum by making sure the minimum required number of deputies will not be present. 

Document 9 is a brief on 22nd July, 1953 to Mr. Waller by an unknown writer saying that Roosevelt wishes Mr. Waller to pursue the preparation of a statement after the fall of Mossadeq. Document 10 is the draft text of that prepared statement.

Document 11 is a proposed commendation for the communication specialists who kept the CIA headquarters informed as the events unfolded.

Document 12 is another request commendation specifically asked for John Waller.

Document 13 is mostly excised, except for one line which says perhaps its best an unspecified person should not receive commendation for security implications.

Document 14 is written on September 10, 1953 and is a memo by the acting chief of Division of Africa and Near East and is giving an update on the latest status of the Tudeh Party.

Document 15, written by Kermit Roosevelt on 21 Sept, 1953 is reporting on the internal power struggle of the Zahedi government. It also mentions that Zahedi's government had been financially supporting Ayatollah Behbahani. The influential Ayatollah was responsible for organising a mob of thugs and hoodlums in support of the Shah on 28th Feb, 1953. He also rallied behind the Shah in the events of 19th August later that year but in June 1963, Behbahani backed Ayatollah Khomeini's reactionary opposition to the Shah's reforms.

Document 15 also reveals that Ayatollah Behbahani's son, Ja'afar wanted "the portfolio of Minister of National Economy, but because Zahedi had refused to give him the job, it had caused a rift between Zahedi and Ayatollah Behbahani.

Document 16, bullet point 5, talks about Zahedi's restlessness in wishing to execute Mossadeq and that he had sent 5 messages to the Shah requesting him to order the Military Tribunal to expedite execution of Mossadeq and others but the Shah had not complied.

Document 17 is yet another memo by Kermit Roosevelt and it talks about the Shah's fears of an imminent Tudeh Party attack.

Document 18 reveals two further payments to Ayatollah Behbahani by Gen. Zahedi.

In Document 19, written by Roosevelt on 20th October, 1953, Zahedi is reported to have visited Ayatollah Kashani's house and how friendly the meeting was.

Documents 20 and 21 are just some mumbo jumbo and the rest of the documents are British records,  previously released, mostly in 1978, where the meetings are not about the events of 1953 but in which there may be a hint or a small mention about 1953 with the British mostly requiring to be put in the loop if the relevant documents are to be released and declassified by the Americans.

So there you have it, nothing new in the documents, much ado about nothing, just a brilliant marketing strategy by the GWU National Security Archive department by banking on the news media not having time to read the contents but keen to create the headlines to make the department get a lot of attention and possibly more funds.

Mystery of Rowhani's First PHD before GCU

On the day, Hasan Rowhani was inaugurated, a documentary was shown on the Islamic Republic state TV about the new president.

The "Elected President" was the name of the documentary which glorified Hasan Rowhani as a long serving trusted figure of the establishment, who has been through the thick and thin and served in various key positions as a loyal reliable servant of the regime.

In the documentary a letter was shown- see screenshot on the left. It commends the air defence personnel for their courage and successes in recent operations. Nothing wrong with that of course. The letter is signed by the then head of Iran's Air Defences, Dr. Hassan Rowhani.

The date of the above letter is April 20, 1986, almost a decade before Rowhani got his PHD from Glasgow Caledonian University.

So the question once agains remains unanswered, where did Rowhani get his other PHD from?! This time there can be no accusations of misunderstanding by the reporter who interviewed him or photoshop forgeries of documents to slander him, it is an official letter shown on his own documentary which was aired from Iran's state TV.

A nice "moderate" start?

Labour’s shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander, said the decision by Britain to decline the invitation to attend the inauguration ceremony of the new president of the Islamic Republic was “ill-judged and short sighted”.

It would be good to know what Douglas Alexander would have expected the UK representative to do when the rest of the invitees to the inauguration ceremony were asked to chant “Death to those who oppose the Supreme Leader, Death to America, Death to England, Death to Israel” as seen in this clip from yesterday's inauguration ceremony?

And in this clip below, the Supreme Leader tells the inauguration audience how Iranians have only ever “tasted democracy” during the 34 year rule of the Islamic Republic, as the cameras pan across the elite and the beneficiaries of this “democracy”



The new “moderate” president is also seen here meeting the representative of North Korea, one of Islamic Republic’s closest allies



Former Iranian president, Mohamad Khatami, who did so much of the leg work to bring the crowds to the polling stations, wasn’t even allowed any where near the ceremony.

It was also unclear from the live coverage if Omar Al-Bashir was in the audience but Iran’s news media  were saying that the wanted war criminal was definitely amongst the invitees and would attend the inauguration ceremony.

It seems its business as usual for Islamic Republic but few nice words and a few smiles here and there can pull the wool over the eyes of many including those of Douglas Alexander.

Islamic Republic State TV Special Report on the Birth of the Royal Baby

See Full Transcript below:

Transcript:

Nothing could have manifested English people's hatred of their monarchy as much as the birth of this baby

A birth that took place after 9 months of controversy during which the Queen of England tried her best to seen more and cover up her weaknesses

VT report:

[bells ringing]

The sound of church bells can be heard ringing again, bells that are indicative of a high costs the people of England have to pay.  England has one of the most reactionary and medieval forms of governments.

This time the bells are not ringing for the coronation or another royal wedding, but this time the bells carry the news of a new birth in the Royal family.

The royal family had placed a whole collection of media outlets and their cameras, from a month before,  outside the hospital where the royal bride was being looked after

What the media outlets had to do during the birth of this latest heir to the throne was to convince the public opinion of the people in England that monarchy is accepted by them. 

[the VT then shows Pooneh Ghoddoosi from BBC Persian outside the palace wearing a black dress]

But amongst all this when the presenter of the official English media was making a live report wearing a black dress outside the palace, the Queen's guards apparently gave her a scolding and forced her to change her dress [she is then seen wearing a formal white suit]

Finally on Tuesday, they unveiled the new heir to the throne, the baby is a boy and the announcement was placed on a luxury tripod in the palace yard.

[a VT of a parliamentary ceremony is then shown]

and the "red jackets" once again threw in a big party. Without a doubt, he is the most expensive baby in the history

[report shows some presenter as saying..the subtitle that the birth is boosting Britain's economy is ignored]

"..it is estimated the cost of this baby so far has been $375 Million"

The prodigality of this royal family has resulted in much protests across this country. People are fed up with the power and wealth concentrated in the hands of a few

[a protester is interviewed]

These expenses are paid out of the pockets of tax payers

This troublesome baby has already resulted in the death of a nurse. This nurse had been talking to reporters about the royal bride being pregnant and died a few days later, in mysterious circumstances

The British government claimed the nurse had committed suicide because she was so upset at disclosing the news of the pregnancy

[a passer by is interviewed who says all this luxury and lavishness for the birth of a baby is unacceptable]

[David Cameron is seen congratulating the couple outside Downing St.]

[A Ladbroke spokesperson is interviewed saying the government is constantly cutting back on health services but there is never a penny cut back on Royal family expenditures]

The Queen reigns as an absolute dictator in this country

She can annul the parliament and appoint the key positions

The Prime Minister is also chosen by a parliament whose members have been appointed by the Queen

This baby is the third in line to the throne

If Queen Elizabeth II, who has been reigning for 60 years, dies there are two other waiting in line

An Exceptional Act of Courage

In the Islamic Apartheid Republic of Iran, all religious minorities have been made into second class citizens. Even Shiites who adhere to a different interpretation of the faith than the official state ideology have been victims. However, one can say without a shadow of doubt that the Iranian Bahaiis have sufferd the most and have been the biggest victims of this religious apartheid regime.

Iranian Bahaiis are stripped of all citizenship rights and are discriminated against in all walks of life. One of the most shameful discriminations against the Bahaiis in Iran has been to deny them the rights to higher education. Imagine what tumultuous uproar there would have been, if the Israelis denied their Arab citizens the right to higher education and yet there is such a disgraceful silence on the plight of Iranian Bahaiis by the so-called "progressive" forces in the West.

The parents of Artin, the little four year old boy in the picture, are in prison and Artin is being looked after by his grandmother. Artin's parents are not criminals however; Kamran Rahimian and Faran Hessami are Bahaiis who were teaching in an online university for Iranian Bahaiis who wanted to receive higher education. They have both been sentenced to four years in prison.

The man seen in the picture is Mohammad Nourizad. An Iranian filmmaker and a former journalist in the hardline Kayhan Daily printed in Iran. Nourizad was once an ally of the Supreme Leader but he broke ranks with the Supreme Leader in 2009. In an open letter to the Supreme Leader, Nourizad urged Ayatollah Khamenei to apologise to the nation for the bloody crackdown on the protesters.
"As commander in chief of the armed forces, you didn't treat people well after the election. Your agents opened fire, killed the people, beat them and destroyed and burnt their property. Your role in this can't be ignored, ... Your apology can cool down the wrath of the people."

Nourizad was sentenced to three and half years imprisonment for writing the letter. In prison he saw more wrongs that had been done to the nation. He met young talented people suffering imprisonment and ill treatment who would in any other normal country been regarded as the nation's assets and promoted. The prison made Nourizad even more resolute to make up for the times he had been on the wrong side.

Yesterday in an another exceptionally courageous act, Nourizad went to meet the little Artin and kissed the feet of the four year old and apologised as a Shiite Muslim for the injustice this innocent little boy was made to suffer. Considering the "Representatives of God on Earth", who rule Iran, regard the Bahaiis as "unclean", to do this in the holy month of Ramadan took exceptional courage.

Nourizad wrote on his Facebook page:
"Artin's innocent little eyes looked me in the eyes and asked me, 'You who consider yourself a Shiite, clean and Godly, was it not the prophet himself who said 'seek knowledge from cradle to grave?' So what was it that my parents did wrong? were they not merely teaching physics, chemistry and sciences? So why should they be in prison now and my grandmother have to look after me?'
"
Artin's grandfather was executed by the Islamic Republic many years ago.

Rafighdoost: "Supreme Leader Engineered the Elections Beautifully"

When it comes to revolutionary credentials, Mohsen Rafighdoost has it all. He is said to have been active against the Shah since he was ten years old. In 1964, when he was in his early twenties, he is reputed to have battered a man to death with a club, because the man was thought to have been a SAVAK agent.

Rafighdoost was an active supporter of the MeK [Mojahedin Khalq Organisation] before the revolution until an ideological battle within the MeK resulted in a Marxist splinter group and a bloody internal infighting within the organisation.

Prior to the split within the MeK, Rafighdoost helped the organisation by smuggling guns and ammunition from Lebanon via the Kurdish borders for the MeK operatives fighting against the Shah
.
Rafighdoost was imprisoned in 1975, along with the rest of the MeK leadership. In prison, he distanced himself from the MeK and joined the Islamic Coalition Society.
Upon Khomeini's return from exile, Rafighdoost was the driver who drove the Ayatollah through the frantic crowds from the airport to the cemetery.

After the victory of the 1979 revolution, Rafighdoost was made in charge of repossessing the properties of the officials from the Ancien Régime until the decision was made to form the Revolutionary Guards and he was called to help shape this new military corps. Rafighdoost always says with pride, if the formation of the IRGC can be narrowed down to 5 to 10 people, he is the top man amongst them.

Rafighdoost was then the head of the Dispossessed Foundation for years until he was removed from there and now runs many lucrative businesses and is particularly active in construction and medicine.


In an interview with the Iranian news website, Khabaronline, Mohsen Rafighdoost talks about his memoires of the new Iranian president, Hassan Rowhani, during the war years, when Rafighdoost himself was the Minister of the Revolutionary Guards and also expresses his views about the last presidential elections in Iran.

Most interestingly during the lengthy interview, Rafighdoost talks about how the Supreme Leader "beautifully engineered" the last election.
"We all thought after the events that took place in 2009, the participation by the eligible voters will be under 40%, but the Supreme Leader beautifully engineered the elections. Even we never imagined there would be a 72% participation"

Rafighdoost also refuses the notion that this was a victory for the reformists and says "If the reformists had even the slightest confidence that they have the votes, they wouldn't ask Aref to withdraw. Most of the principalists I know are pleased about the election outcome"

Rafighdoost praised the Islamic Republic election process and said "It is a source of much pride that nowhere in the world has free elections like Iran...After the elections I went to see the Supreme Leader and he said he was very pleased about the election results"

Don't Give in to Bullying

Female Iranian long distance swimmer, Elham Al-Sadat Asghari, or Elham Asghari for short, swam 18 kilometres in sea waters under 9 hours, in doing so she set a new record for women's open water swimming; but the Islamic Republic authorities have refused to register her record.

The reason given by the Islamic Republic authorities for their refusal to register Elham's record is said to be because there is no officially sanctioned female swimwear for such an event.  Elham however states that she was wearing the 'proper clothes' which included, the swim suit, cover, cap, goggles and head dress and she swam from the women's beach where no men apart from her father were present. Yet the authorities are still concerned that her "curvatures" may have been visible and are therefore uncomfortable to give her the recognition she deserves.

Elham has been told to change her sport to something more "appropriate" for women.

The extra attire that Elham has to put on to conceal her "curvatures" when she swims, weigh an extra 6 kg and are a burden to her swimming. "No where else in the world, would female swimmers put up with having to swim in these silly clothes. Imagine if Rezazadeh [Iran's former weightlifting champion] was told he had to cover himself up like this?"

The news of why her swimming record was not being recognised, quickly spread through the Iranian cyberspace, and was even covered in some official Islamic Republic websites like Fararu, Tehran Mayor and presidential candidate's news website.

Elham Asghari then released this video below and thanked all who publicised her case. Elham asked the Iranian women "not to give in to bullying, because swimming is not just for women"

"The Beautiful Unifying Chant of Death to America" - Dr Hassan Rowhani 1995

The newspaper page on the left is from the Ettela'at Daily, printed in Iran. Publication  date is 17 of May, 1995. The Title in large bold letters quotes Dr. Hassan Rowhani as saying "The Beautiful Chant of 'Death to America' is Unifying Our Country".

Glasgow Caledonian University claims Rowhani or Hassan Feridon, graduated with a PHD from the university in 1999. So when Ettela'at Daily referred to him as Dr. Rowhani, four years earlier, which other PHD qualification was it referring to?

The Killing of Shiites in Egypt and the Late Tame Reaction by the Islamic Republic

The killing of Shiites on Sunday in Giza, Egypt, by the Salafi hate mob, was one of the most barbaric and inhumane crimes I have ever had to endure watching yet. It ranked second in terms of extreme brutality, only to the similar mob lynching of the Ahmadieh followers in Indonesia.

The Salafi mob which killed the defenceless Shiite worshippers in the Giza village, were not human beings, they were not even animals, for I know of no animals who would do this to each other. These were devils reincarnated who were standing over four suffering men, watching them die slowly, while cheerfully chanting Allah Akbar, God is Great! and in their warped skulls with their single cell brains, they deluded themselves by imagining they were securing a place for their own after life in paradise, with 72 virgins.


I expected a strong swift reaction and condemnation by the Islamic Republic, the state which claims to be the defender of the Shiite faith. I expected to see similar reactions and swift condemnations and rabble rousings I have seen by the Islamic Republic when civilians die in the Arab-Israeli conflicts. Had this been an Israeli lynch mob beating four Arabs to death and dragging their bodies in front of cheering crowds, the Islamic Republic state TV would have been constantly showing the scenes and stirring the Muslims across the globe to rise up for revenge.

Yet, there was nothing! Nothing on state TV and nothing on their news websites! Once again the Islamic Republic hypocrisy had been selective in what to report and what to condemn. It must have been a memory lapse on my part not to have remembered Islamic Republic's selectiveness in condemning atrocities, like how they were silent against the killing of Muslims in Chechnya and in China.

It wasn't until late in the evening the following day that finally Farsnews reported the incidence and a statement by the Iranian FMA followed 24 hours later. The late  FMA statement incredibly placed the blame on none other than the Zionists! It asked the "wise and revolutionary people of Egypt in unison with their astute political leaders to smash the Zionist plots as they did in the past when the Zionists had tried to divide the Muslim and Christians in Egypt".

The real problem in my opinion however lies with the foreign policy dilemma that the Islamic Republic has got itself into. How can it refer to the Egyptian revolution as "Islamic Awakening" and claim it was inspired by the Iranian revolution and the Egyptians were looking at the Islamic Republic of Iran as their role model and at the same time show defenceless Shiite worshippers be lynched by their fellow Egyptian revolutionary compatriots in such a way?

Hats off to the Supreme Leader

I would like to think I will always be a fair person, when your rival or enemy plays the game skilfully, the right thing to do is to show your admiration. It is with this ingrained sense of fairness that I say hats off to the Supreme Leader for managing to get over 70 percent of the Iranians to take part in his sham "elections".

So after all that blatant vote rigging in 2009 and the heavy handed crackdown which led to so much suffering, how did they do it?

No one knows the psychology of the Iranian people better than the ruling clerics and the elite. Their tactics to bring the masses to the ballot box was no different than the good cop/bad cop methods they use in breaking down prisoners in the Islamic Republic.

For four years the people are deliberately humiliated, they are trodden on, none of their demands are met, they are counted as nothing and made to suffer. When the price of chicken goes through the roof as a result of mismanagement and hoarding, they are told "So what? you don't have to eat chicken, eat something else". Then only one week in a year, the same people who have suffered four years of constant humiliation are suddenly endeared and they suddenly matter, so long as they say the "right thing" and do the "right thing". The humiliated beaten soul, hungry for a small piece of affection and respect, will then find the moment so joyful and intoxicating that it will do anything for its tormentor.

Iranian nationalism which is frowned upon as anti-Islamic is rejuvenated in the weeks before the elections. Iranian patriotic songs showing the glories of the pre-Islamic past and the country's mountain peaks and other natural land marks are constantly played on state TV. Stage managed interviews with passers by suggest that ALL Iranians will go and vote. Women without the state preferred cover, the chador, and even with make up and loose head scarfs are also interviewed, they too, all say they will vote.

The most common answers in front of the cameras as to why they will vote are :
"Because it is my patriotic duty"
"Because I want to choose my own destiny"
"Because I have been given the right to vote and I should appreciate it"
"Because the martyrs would want me to vote"
and so on.

No passer by is heard in the stage managed interviews saying but they have hand selected the candidates for us or that nothing ever changes by their votes.
All good people will vote and its only the baddies and the enemies who will boycott.

This time the Supreme Leader and the ruling elite made an even bigger effort to get the public to vote. The Supreme Leader even appealed to those "who for whatever reason are against our Islamic system but love the country" to come and vote. His reasoning was that a large turnout will strengthen the regime in its negotiations with the West.

Who the people voted for was irrelevant. Why should it matter which hand selected candidate they voted for? Ayatollah Makarem, even spelled it out explicitly "everyone should come and vote, even if they cast a blank vote" and Mashad Friday Prayer warned the faithful that "those who do not vote, for sure will go to hell"

The local council elections which was due to be held three years ago, had been postponed without a reason and instead held on the same day that the presidential elections was to be held. Many Iranians will vote in the local elections regardless of what they think of the regime and it made sense to bring them to vote too. What was important, was to show queues of people voting, not who they voted for or in which election they voted.

On top of all this, the regime got the help of the BBC Persian and the reformists in Iran too. It is important to clarify what is meant by reformists here. Reformists in Iran should not be mistaken by what you may imagine as those who organise and mobilise non-violent civil disobedience movements. For some time now, Iranian reformists are merely those who try to please the establishment so that they may once again be included in the government administration.
The reformists backed the participation in the elections without asking for any concessions and without demanding any pre-conditions and this was their best chance. Even the former spiritual leader of the US embassy hostage takers in the 80s, Ayatollah Moussavi-Khoeiniha, now a reformist  questioned the merits of taking part in anything under any conditions and any price.

The regime didn't want queues just inside Iran, they wanted pictures of queues outside Iran too. They held ballot boxes in their embassies and consulates and many Iranian expats who had taken part in the Green demonstrations outside Iran in 2009, also took part in the masquerade election.

To me their treachery is unforgivable. Even if I can be persuaded somehow to understand the justifications for voting inside Iran, I will never accept that it was necessary for Iranian ex-pats to vote outside Iran. At least they could have gone and voted with T-shirts of Neda and other 2009 martyrs, or they could have been holding posters of Green Movement leaders and current political prisoners or chanted anti-establishment slogans while they were queuing in the street, but they went in like sheep being directed to their pens. They showed no protest or discontent. When I asked one of them why they didn't do so, the reply was "Moussavi and Karroubi's pictures were in our hearts!".
Unfortunately cameras can not take such pictures yet!

The expat voters could not even demand from the embassies and consulates to have their own election monitors to count the votes. It was capitulation pure and simple, shame on them.
Many of them got involved in the Green Movement protests thinking it will be a quick victory, they were not prepared for a long life in exile and they saw this as their chance to patch things up with the regime.

The establishment also needed to create the usual lesser evil choice. Hassan Rowhani (Feridon) who has been a pillar of the establishment and involved in the highest ranking intelligence circles of the Islamic Republic was remanufactured as a "reformist" saviour!

Rowhani has never been a reformist, even according to the Iranian version of reformists. He was a staunch supporter of Ayatollah Khomeini right from the beginning and was the first person to suggest calling him  Imam Khomeini, a title usually saved for revered Shiite saints only.

In 1999, Rowhani as the head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council demanded the death penalty for student protesters after 19 universities were engulfed in six days of protests across Iran.

Even during the post-election protests, Rowhani never sided with Moussavi and Karroubi and on 14th February 2010, when the last major street protest by the Greens led to the house arrests of Moussavi and Karroubi, Rowhani condemned the protests as "an attempt by a few misguided people" and asked the judiciary to "carry out its innate duties against this counter-revolutionary protest".

During the TV debates however, Rowhani talked about moderation, avoiding extremism and how he managed to fool the West in negotiations and buy more time during his time as Iran's nuclear negotiator. He boasted how the Islamic Republic managed to quadruple its number of centrifuges during his time as the negotiator without suffering sanctions, and he described himself as a lawyer and not a warlike figure.

On the morning of the elections a reliable source told me it looks like the Supreme Leader's office  are happy with Rowhani becoming the next president and they will avoid the second round too. The six remaining candidates were Rowhani on one side and a fragmented vote amongst the other five on the other side. They need a new face to negotiate with the West and they think Rowhani can get them out of the present quagmire. While everyone was anticipating whether it will go to the second round or not, I was telling them confidently that Rowhani will be announced the winner in the first round.

So the most important thing for the Supreme Leader was to get a large turn out on the election day. Something many had not anticipated to be possible after the events of 2009 and the Supreme Leader proved them wrong by playing it beautifully. The international public opinion however must not interpret this large turnout as a vote of support for the regime, instead it should look out the celebrations after and the football celebrations last night and what people are chanting for:

Protesters singing the unofficial Iran national anthem and chanting 
"Neither Gaza nor Lebanon, We Die Only for Iran"


Protesters remembering Neda and chanting against Jalili


Anti-riot police attacking football celebrations in Rasht:


The Supreme Leader won the main battle but the price of the victory had some costs for him too. The long time it took to count the final votes and announce the results showed that the swift announcement of the results in 2009 was a mere wizardry. The few votes cast in favour of Jalili in remote villages and provinces broke the myth, propagated by mainly Western analysts, that Ahmadinejad had a lot of support in villages and small towns. The actual support for the regime and the Supreme Leader can be extrapolated from these results as around 8 million in the most optimistic estimate, around 10-15% of the population. Nevertheless the main price, another massive turnout, was what they gunned for most and they got it.

This may be the last time we see a directly elected pre-selected candidate in the Islamic Republic. The presidential elections are always a headache for the regime and as the Supreme Leader has hinted in the past, next time we may well see a constitution change that will lead to the Majlis choosing the next president.

BBC Persian Employees with Islamic Republic Flag in Trafalgar Square

BBC Persian Employees led by Massoud Behnoud in Trafalgar Square، showing their loyalty to the Islamic Republic flag

British tax payers money is spent on these people raising the Islamic Republic flag in Trafalgar Square.

Young girl inside Iran waves the Iranian tri-colour without the Islamic Republic insignia:

Islamic Republic's Stomach Churning State Propaganda

Why is propaganda by tyrants so stomach churning? Because only they can twist facts so much and so badly. Here is an example of Islamic Republic state TV propaganda below.



The state TV presenter asks the question "what would happen if we allowed BBC Persian reporters to come to Iran and freely walk about and interview the people? What would be their reaction?"
So to answer the question, he puts on a tie and a BBC sign on his microphone, calls himself Arya Azadmehr (almost Azarmehr),  poses as a BBC Persian reporter and in the most amateurish stage managed trash way makes out the majority of Iranian people have no wish to talk to a reporter who works for foreign press and are weary of them not praising the Islamic Republic as they should.

One "passer-by"even calls him a spy and tells him to get lost. All the ones who do talk to him say they will vote in the "elections" on Friday and all the ones who talk to him, say they are prepared to endure the hardships of sanctions for as long as it takes but they are not prepared to compromise.
All unequivocally believe in the Islamic Republic and will support it to the end.

The "passers by" are orchestrated to pretend they are from all walks of life in Iran. Even the women with loose hejab and make up and the one guy wearing a decadent tie are supportive of the Islamic Republic. In short everyone loves the regime and all say what the Supreme Leader says and that alone justifies why there should be no foreign reporters in the country!

Here is a picture of reality on the other hand. Press TV reporter, Narges Mobaleghi, freely walking in the streets of London with the protection of the UK police and talking to passers by.

So Who Wants Iranians to Vote on Friday?

The propaganda on Iranian State TV calling Iranians to go to the polling stations and vote on Friday is almost non-stop. Patriotic music, although any mention of Iranian nationalism is normally frowned upon as a non-Islamic thing, is unashamedly played throughout the election campaigns.

Hundreds of "passers by" are interviewed both inside and outside Iran by state TV, all without exception say its everyone's patriotic duty to take part in the elections and "honour the martyrs of the revolution and the war with Iraq by voting". State TV seems unable to find even one Iranian citizen who has decided to boycot this election farce.

Mashad's Friday Prayer leader, Ayatollah Alamolhoda, told the faithful during his sermon last Friday, that "those who do not vote on the election day will definitely go to hell".

Tehran's Friday leader, the ghastly reactionary Ayatollah Ahamd Khatami also told his sermon goers that "under no circumstances should they stay at home on the election day" and he predicted that "with the help of God, we will witness a maximum participation by the people".

Ayatollah Makrem Shirazi, the holocaust denier whose representative office in Harrow Road in London, received a grant from Brent Council for 'promoting religious freedom and religious tolerance' also said it is the religious duty to vote and "all should go to the ballot boxes on the election day even if they cast a blank vote!"
The most blatant confession that the regime is not that concerned about the vote count but is most keen on showing off pictures of long queues to the outside world.

The Supreme Leader himself makes it very simple, if you want to support the regime then you will vote and if you want to weaken the regime, then you will boycot. "What the enemy wants to see is empty polling stations, they want people to say 'why should I vote?' and people to think they can not make a difference, but those who want to see us strong will come and vote" Supreme Leader said during one of his recent speeches.

All the above is as you may have expected, however the call for people to vote also comes from other unexpected quarters, like BBC Persian.

BBC Persian employee, Massoud Behnoud who has dubious connections with the Islamic Republic,  has once again broken with all professional media and journalistic norms and rather than helping the BBC Persian to broadcast the Iran election news in a non-partisan way has been arguing restlessly for Iranians to go and vote this Friday both inside and outside Iran. His logic is the same l I have heard in the past 34 years by those who claim they are not with the regime but still go and vote, i.e. 'Lets save things from getting worse'

Massoud Behnoud, also runs Roozonline, a website that receives its grant from Hivos, a Dutch organisation which in turn is funded by the government of Netherlands. Not sure if it is even allowed for a BBC Persian employee to also run another news website but the way Behnoud always seems to do the Islamic Republic's dirty work is disturbing as always.

Islamic Republic state TV showing someone urging Iranians to vote on election day, so that Islamic Republic will remain a role model for other nations and they will wish they had an Islamic Republic too.

Ultimate Humiliation for the Post of Presidency in the Islamic Republic

The live televised Islamic Republic presidential debate, shown on state TV today, quickly turned into a hilarious farce that made many viewers laugh aloud as they watched something which was more like a game show than a presidential debate.

Eight approved candidates were asked random questions about their plans to sort out the economy and none had any specific solutions but merely described the problems and hardships as they stand now.

There was a glimmer of hope that Aref would transgress the red boundaries and spice up the bland debate when he talked about the necessity for freedom of speech, the freedom to criticise and the benefits of using experts regardless of their factional loyalties, but Velayati quickly dashed these hopes by saying experts should all be loyal to the regime and obey the Supreme Leader. A pre-condition that all candidates had to nod and agree to immediately.

Tehran mayor and one of the presidential candidates, Mohamamd Bagher Ghalibaaf, had a  laptop in front of him but it was unclear what use he was making of his laptop. He started almost everyone of his replies with the "In the name of Allah, the most compassionate and the most merciful" and plugged his successes as the Tehran mayor. For example he boasted about setting up the 110 emergency telephone number which gave equal access to all citizens without any discrimination to call the police as an example of equal opportunity for all and a precursor to his economic fairness policies.

Jalili seemed to think the answer to all problems was to continue with the revolutionary dialogue and endeavour.

Seventy Two Year old Gharazi boasted about his generation having secured the support of 98% of the population for the Islamic Republic and pined at how that support over the years had dwindled by his successors and their mismanagement.

Aref and Adel exchanged success and failure stories of reformist factions versus principalist factions when in government.

Rezaei suddenly deemed the un-Islamic architecture of the new buildings to be a problem of high priority. All were critical of Ahmadinejad's years as president with Jalili being the least critical and promising to continue with much of Ahamdinejad's policies but in a better managed way .

Hadad Adel thought Iranians should change their Western lifestyles to an Islamic life style and hence reduce consumption and the need for the present uncontrolled chaotic imports.

All said they would continue with the subsidy cash handouts and either increase it or include basic commodity hand outs as part of their plans but admitted that the cash liquidity injection in the economy by the payments is causing soaring inflation which means less purchasing power for people and difficulties in government's balance of payments.

And so the first half of the program went on with the candidates racing against each other, within the three minutes time they each had allocated, to say nice things like meritocracy, fulfilling the potentials, support for production, turning threats into opportunities, making Iranians proud etc.

The best was to come in the second half however. Candidates were suddenly shocked into thinking the multiple choice questions the presenter described they were going to be asked was a general knowledge quiz. Aref displaying the most fear and outrage said last time he answered multiple choice test questions was when he was a student 40 years ago and he was not going to take part and answer the questions. Other candidates also backed Aref. The presenter had to go out of his way to say the format was a joint decision by the lawful bodies within the state TV and the Guardian Council and that it was not a general knowledge test. With that reassurance by the presenter, other candidates calmed down but it was too late  for Aref who had categorically stated he would not answer the questions.

Gharazi complained that the presenter missed asking the first question from him. Presenter asked him the first question again and asked him to answer the second question too. Gharazi said he didn't understand the second question and was just keen to answer the first question.

Next shock came when the presenter said the multiple choice questions will now be followed by a picture round. Aref back tracked and said he will take part in the picture round. Eight pictures were shown in total and each time, candidates were asked what was the first thing that came to their mind?

Picture Caption Question from Presidential Candidates

A picture of a US mine in Utah was one of the eight pictures that was shown. Aref thought it was a valley in Iran with the potential to become a tourist attraction while Gharazi thought it was an abandoned mining project in Iran where the owner had already fled or had been imprisoned. Rezaei confidently said he recognised the mine to be somewhere in Yazd, Central Iran. Rowhani thought he had visited the place recently and Velayati too thought it was another unfinished government project. Jalili expressed regret at how this abandoned mine demonstrated not using the full potentials of the country.

A picture of a traffic jam brought up the air pollution problem for the first time in the election campaign. Ghalibaaf said during his time as the Mayor of Tehran he had asked everyone, who has the "ownership" of this problem and no one knew. Gharazi simply sufficed by saying "May God have mercy on all of us".

Another picture of a crowded bazaar prompted replies like "it shows there are a lot of people but no one is spending because they have no money in their pockets and instead are getting in each other's way".

The most entertaining program ever to be shown on Islamic Republic state TV ended with the last picture question displaying a clock that showed the time to be at 7.15 and the presidential candidates having to say what it made them think of!!!