Iran Election Guide

Donate to EAWV

Or, click to learn more


« Iran Analysis: The Regime's Ultimate Challenge "We Will Kill You" | Main | Iran Patriotism Special: Wiping the Green From The Flag »

The Latest from Iran (29 January): Sideshows and Main Events

2320 GMT: The Committee of Human Rights Reporters has issued a statement on recent allegations against its members, many of whom are detained:
The civil society’s endurance depends on acceptance and realization of modern norms and principles. When a ruling establishment with an outdated legal system tries to impose itself politically and ideologically on a modern society, the result will be widespread protests.

2315 GMT: Correction of the Day. Although it was not widely noted, there were 40th Day memorial ceremonies for Grand Ayatollah Montazeri in Qom.

2310 GMT: Diversion of the Day. From Press TV:
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's top aide said Friday Tehran is concerned about the direction of the US administration after President Barack Obama delivered his first State of the Union address.

"We have concerns Obama will not be successful in bring change to US policies," Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai, the senior aide to President Ahmadinejad and his chief of staff, said.

With respect, Esfandiar, I don't think President Obama is your biggest concern right now.

NEW Iran Patriotism Special: Wiping the Green From The Flag
Iran Document: Karroubi Maintains the Pressure (28 January)
Iran Document: Resignation Letter of Diplomat in Japan “Join the People”
Iran Document/Analysis: Karroubi’s Statement on the Political Situation (27 January)
Iran Analysis: Leadership in the Green Movement
The Latest from Iran (28 January): Trouble Brewing

2300 GMT: Yawn. Well, we started the day with a sanctions sideshow (see 0650 GMT), so I guess it is fitting to close with one. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking in Paris:
China will be under a lot of pressure to recognize the destabilizing impact that a nuclear-armed Iran would have in the [Persian] Gulf, from which they receive a significant percentage of their own supplies....We understand that right now it seems counterproductive to [China] to sanction a country from which you get so much of the natural resources your growing economy needs....[But China] needs to think about the longer-term implications.

1. The White House is not even at the point of agreeing a sanctions package with the US Congress, let alone countries with far different agendas.
2. China is not going to agree tough sanctions in the UN Security Council. Really. Clinton is blowing smoke.
3. About the only outcome of this will be Press TV running a story on bad America threatening good Iran Government.

2250 GMT: Back after a break (Up In The Air is fantastic --- there, I've said it) to find that the reformist Islamic Iran Participation Front has written an open letter to Iran's head of judiciary, Sadegh Larijani, putting a series of questions over the executions of Mohammad Reza Ali Zamani and Arash Ramanipour.

1820 GMT: We've moved our item on the regime's apparent removal of Green from Iran's flag to a separate entry.

1755 GMT: Today's Pot-Kettle-Black Moment. Just came across a discussion on Press TV of a bill, passed in the US House of Representatives, threatening to block "anti-US" television channels.

Don't get me wrong: this is an incredibly stupid measure, although as Professor William Beeman, the most reflective of the three guests notes, it is a symbolic declaration unlikely to become law. However, I have to note that at no point do the words "Internet filtering", "expulsion/imprisonment of journalists", "jamming of satellite signals" (say, of Voice of America Persian or BBC Persian) come up in the conversation, which also includes a Dr Franklin Lamb and a Dr Seyed Mohammad Marandi.

1750 GMT: The Judiciary v. Ahmadinejad. At insideIRAN, Arash Aramesh has a useful summary of the suspension of the publication Hemmat by Iran's judiciary. The twist is that Hemmat, which ran into trouble for running an attack piece against Hashemi Rafsanjani, is a supporter of the Ahmadinejad Government. No surprise then that the President reportedly declared:
I am not very happy with some of the Judiciary’s actions. Someone published a paper and you shut it down. It is the job of a jury to order the closure of publications. We do not agree with such actions and believe that these actions show a spirit of dictatorship.

However, Aramesh does not connect the Hemmat story to the imprisonment of Mohammad Jafar Behdad (see 1230 GMT), an official in the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance, for four months.

1725 GMT: The Latest from Gohardasht Prison. Peyke Iran reports that 300 Ashura detainees are under severe pressure by Ministry of Intelligence agents, demanding confessions of "mohareb" (war against God), in sections controlled by the Revolutionary Guard.

1700 GMT: The International Committee for Human Rights in Iran has started a new blog. Current posts consider the Zamani/Rahmanipour executions and "Members of Committee of Human Rights Reporters Under Pressure to Make Forced Confessions".

1600 GMT: The Strategy of Deaths. Tehran Prosecutor General Abbas Jafari Doulatabadi has offered details on the regime's handling of executions: having put to death two pre-election detainees to death yesterday, the Government has handed down five more sentences on five people arrested on Ashura (27 December). The sentences are currently being appealed.

Doulatabadi's declaration complements a recent announcement that by Iran Prosecutor General Gholamhosein Mohseni Ejei that at least three Ashura Day detainees will be executed. Ejei also said four more pre-election prisoners had been sentenced to death. (Added to Thursday's executions, Doulatabadi and Ejei's numbers match up to the "eleven" death sentences announced by Iranian state media yesterday.)

1410 GMT: Man, 1) Ayatollah Jannati is in a really bad mood after being verbally slapped by Mehdi Karroubi; 2) the Government is scared of the forthcoming demonstrations on 22 Bahman (11 February); 3) both. The Los Angeles Times offers translated extracts from Jannati's Friday Prayers address (see 1155 GMT) in Tehran:
The prophet Muhammad signed non-aggression pacts with three Jewish tribes. The Jews failed to meet their commitments, and God ordered their massacre (by Imam Ali, the 3rd Imam Shia, despite his reputation for compassion)....When it comes to suppressing the enemy, divine compassion and leniency have no meaning.

The judiciary is tasked with dealing with the detained rioters. I know you well, judiciary officials! You came forward sincerely and accepted this responsibility. You are revolutionary and committed to the Supreme Leader. For God's sake, stand firm as you already did with your quick execution of these two convicts....

God ordered the prophet Muhammad to brutally slay hypocrites and ill-intentioned people who stuck to their convictions. Koran insistently orders such deaths. May God not forgive anyone showing leniency toward the corrupt on earth.

1230 GMT: An Ahmadinejad Official in Jail. Mohammad Jafar Behdad, head of internal media at the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance, has been sentenced to 4 months in prison. Behdad, a former head of the Islamic Republic News Agency, was convicted of disregarding judiciary warnings against provocative publications. His newspaper Hemmat had been suspended for a feature on "Hashemi [Rafsanjani] and his band of brothers".

1220 GMT: Verbal Skirmishes. Retired Revolutionary Guard General Ali Asgari, a former minister in the Khatami Government, has declared that Hashemi Rafsanjani must remain by the side of the Supreme Leader and denounced Rafsanjani's verbal attacker, Ayatollah Mohammad Yazdi, as a radical who defends a backward Islam.

On the regime side, Iran's police chief Esmail Ahmadi-Moghaddam has announced that "some of the elite are against the regime and with the enemy". At the same time, he appears to have held out a hand to Mir Hossein Mousavi, saying he "was deceived" by these wrong-doers.

1210 GMT: The "Real" Karroubi Interview. Fars News, whose distorted report on Mehdi Karroubi's views inadvertently moved Karroubi's challenge to the Ahmadinejad Government centre-stage, makes another clumsy intervention today.

Selecting extracts from Karroubi's interview with Britain's Financial Times and quoting them out of context, Fars declares that Karroubi has "100%" backed the Supreme Leader and denounced protesters.

Yeah, right.

1155 GMT: Your Tehran Friday Prayer Summary. Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, the head of the Guardian Council, had the podium today. Given that Mehdi Karroubi knocked him about a bit yesterday, Jannati was probably not in the most conciliatory of moods as he said:
Weakness in the face of events such as the "irreverence" of demonstrations on Ashura will undermine the regime. Ayatollah [Sadegh] Larijani, be a man, get tough, bring in some protesters. (Hey, but it was pretty cool that you executed those two guys yesterday to please God.)

1140 GMT: A very slow day, both for sideshows and main events. During the lull, this comment from a reader to Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish, reacting to the Zamani/Rahmanipour executions, is striking:
You see the strategy is an obvious one: start with the people who are the weakest links, some obscure monarchist group and not directly related to the reformist/Mousavi's camp or the greens, that way it would make it harder politically for [Mir Hossein] Mousavi or [Mehdi] Karoubi to defend them. Then they will advance. This is, in their mind, also the best way to send a message about Feb 11th that if you are arrested on that day, you could be executed. The combination of desperation and cruelty.

0750 GMT: Remembering Montazeri. Video of the bazaar at Najafabad, the birthplace of Grand Ayatollah Montazeri, was empty on Thursday to mark the passing of the cleric in late December. Memorials for the "40th Day" of Montazeri's death were planned for both yesterday and today.)

0650 GMT: There are a number of obstacles to clear this morning before getting to the important developments. Foremost amongst these is last night's news that the US Senate, the upper house of the Congress, has approved tougher sanctions against Iran. The focus is on petroleum, denying loans and other assistance from American financial institutions to companies that export gasoline to Iran or help expand its oil-refining capacity. The penalties would extend to companies that build oil and gas pipelines in Iran and provide tankers to move Iran’s petroleum. The measure also prohibits the United States Government from buying goods from foreign companies that do business in Iran’s energy sector.

Even if sanctions are central to a resolution of Iran's political crisis, as opposed to their place in the manoeuvres over Iran's nuclear programme --- personally, I don't think they are --- there is a lot of bureaucratic road to cover before they are in place. The Senate has to agree its version of the bill with the House of Representatives. More importantly (and The New York Times story ignores this point), the Obama Administration so far has opposed the petroleum measures because they are unlikely to be effective. The White House and State Department prefer "targeted" sanctions, aimed especially at economic interests of bodies like the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps.

Then there is the Washington sideshow of Very Important People battering each other in the guise of offering the Very Best US Policy on Iran. The Washington Post announces the boxing match between Richard Haass, formerly of the State Department and now head of the Council for Foreign Relations, and the Flynt/Hillary Leverett duo, formerly of State and the National Security Council. The punches are entirely predictable --- Haass, while proclaiming himself a "realist", has joined the chorus of US experts singing of "regime change", while the Leveretts are staunchly defending the legitimacy of the Iran Government --- and pretty much swatting air when it comes to the complexities of the Iranian situation. (But Haass was best man at the Leveretts' wedding, which turns a marginal story into a "quirky" one.)

So where are the significant stories? Well, there is yesterday's execution of two detainees, Mohammad Reza Ali Zamani and Arash Rahmanipour, who were jailed in April 2009 for endangering Iran's national security. In one sense, this is another sideshow. Obviously, neither Zamani and Rahmanipour were involved in post-election protest and the "monarchist" group to which they allegedly belonged is not significant in the Green movement.

However, the regime was far from subtle in linking the hangings of the two men to the demonstrations of Ashura (27 December), and that linkage --- inadvertently --- displays its fear of the forthcoming marches on 22 Bahman/11 February, the anniversary of the 1979 Revolution. What's more, by promising the executions of nine more detainees if everyone didn't just shut up and go away, the Government made a risky commitment. Either it goes ahead with the executions, making more martyrs for the protests, or it backs down.

And then there is The Week of Mehdi Karroubi, with the cleric launching another broadside against President Ahmadinejad and his allies yesterday. Some media continue to be led astray by confusion over Karroubi's loud and emerging strategy --- The New York Times, for example, mis-reads Karroubi's latest statement as "conciliatory remarks...shifting the blame for the violent postelection crackdown away from Ayatollah Khamenei".

They are not. Karroubi is both giving the Supreme Leader (or "Mr Khamenei", as he was labelled on Monday) a chance and setting him a test: do what you are supposed to do under our Constitution and Islamic Republic, Supreme Leader, and make your President accountable for injustices and abuses.

Enjoy all the sideshows, folks, but in this political circus, that's your centre-ring main event.

Reader Comments (29)

Many thanks for the reports.

January 29, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterRan / Si Vis Pacem

Re. 1155 GMT: Your Tehran Friday Prayer Summary.

In that sermon Jannati also says that Larijani executed two people to in order to please god.

January 29, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterGreeny

Your blog is definitely one of the coolest on the internet.


January 29, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterPublicola

From Aljazeera yesterday, Iranian blogger Potkin Azarmehr on Aljazeera about the execution of Arash Rahmanipour & Mohammad Reza Zamani and what effect this effect may have on the opposition:

January 29, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterCatherine

Also yesterday on AJE:
Arash Rahmanipour's father and lawyer speak about the execution

January 29, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterCatherine

I've been following the fate of Arash Rahmanour and Mohammad Reza Ali-Zamani for quite a while and their executions came as no surprise, unfortunately. Here's some background information that also includes the cases of Naser Abdolhosseini and Hamed Rouhinejad:

Behind the Scenes of a Scenario: All Those Sentenced to Death Arrested Prior to Election, Monday, October 12, 2009:

January 29, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterCatherine

@ 1410 GMT Jannati's FP

To all those, who still do believe in a reconciliation between Islam and democracy, I recommend an article on political assassinations and mass murders in the Islamic civil society by Baqer Moumeni. He questions the so-called "Islamic civil society", propagated by Khatami and the reformists, with reference to the Coran, Tabari's History (tarikh-e Tabari) and other historic sources, quoted here:
Moumeni concludes: "A reformist, humane and tolerant Muslim, who propagates nonviolence against members of other confessions or Non-Muslims, can only refer to the primary revelations of Mohammad in Mecca. He would have to ignore those parts of the Koran, revealed in Medina, which regulates the government and administration of the Islamic society, and would have to abandon the idea of establishing an Islamic civil society. Otherwise he would be forced to accept and defend the political murders of the Islamic Republic, i.e. the Chain murders as well as the mass executions (of prisoners) in 1988, as corresponding to the prophet's tradition of "Medinat al-Nabi" and to Allah's irrefutable commandments, written down as holy verses in the Koran."
For the Persian text see:

Obviously his remarks are outdated by current events, when even Muslims are publicly declared as outlaws by radicals like Jannati.

January 29, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterArshama

I suggest you also watch the youtube video of the confession by them! It is clear very clear that they have been under marathon practice! the way they talk. It is deplorable!

January 29, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterSahar

If someone took a side-by-side comparison of violent passages from the Bible and Koran, I'm not sure which would have more. Maybe tolerant Muslims SHOULD just ignore those later passages calling for violence. Isn't it a valid interpretation to say that those rules were only for the people directly under the Prophet's rule? So of course HE could be violent, having perfect knowledge, but now we all should refrain from violence, not having a mahdi or prophet to guide us. Something like that?

There's always a way to make ancient books mean what you want them to mean, as we can see from those who distort them to justify killing people for speaking their minds! So why can't others twist them back to meaning something peaceful and beautiful?

January 29, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterRev. Magdalen

The Senate is not the "upper house" in the same way the House of Lords is, it's just meant to be the more mature house, you have to be 10 years older to run for it, and there are only 100 spots so it's more competitive. But either house can introduce or kill a bill, and it is the Speaker of the House of Representatives who is third in line for the presidency, not any of the Senators.

January 29, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterRev. Magdalen

Rev Magdalen -

You raise an interesting question regarding the level of violence as documented between the Bible and the Koran. Not being a bibilical or koranic scolar I am not sure the answer (hopefully a reader does and can comment) so my mind goes not to just the language itself included in the Bible or Koran, but rather the interpretation as you elude to as well. A question that has risen in my head after reading the commentary here and another post from today, is while I am certain there are "fundamentalists" in all of the judeo-christian religions (limiting discussion to here for now), why does it seem there are more "fundamental" Muslims than Christians or Jews? Is it just a perception that has been created by "Islamophobia" in the West and spread by news media?

Please note I am simply asking a question and not picking sides here. I come from a diverse family where several Christian faiths and Islam are practiced by members of my family.

January 29, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterBijan

Scott -

Interesting comments at 6:50 GMT regarding the path or lack thereof, for the sanctions passed by the Senate. In response the SOTU address this week, I have heard several US analysts discussing what seems to be a fairly wide and perhaps continually widening gap between Obama and Congress..even Democrats in Congress..on a variety of issues. The Iran sactions appear as though they are just one of many items on the list of disagreements in place at this time. To your point regarding statements by the Administration, it does seem the sanctions do not have space to get past Obama's desk. However, if there attempts to reconcile and to present a more unified front as was a promise in his campaign, may the sanctions be a point of compromise to continue with other domestic items in light of the frusteration the Administration seems to have vis a vis Iran regarding the nuclear talks?

January 29, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterBijan


I think that there are actually 2 considerations here - and fundamentalism is only one of them

Firstly - there is a thing called "religious fundamentalism". For me, this is where adherents of a religion believe, follow and practice the very fundamentals of what is written in their "holy" books.

secondly - there is another thing which I called "institutionalization" of Religion - whereby, over time, the content of the religion's Holy book gets added to by priests/Mullahs/Holy men. It is this "institutionalization" that distorts and corrupts the often good wisdom which can be found in the original Holy book. It is the Churches and their priests , the Mosques and their Mullahs that look for expansion of the religion that causes most of humanities problems with that religion. Look at the damage caused by the Catholic Inquisitions of old - and look at the inherent expansionism of the Shiism as practiced by the Iranian Theocratic regime.

In regards to Christian vs Islamic fundamentalism - both have elements of expansionism - ie trying to convert others. However, in my understanding of Christian Evangelic expansionism, there appears to be no aspect of "forceful conversion" - at least not today. However Islam, does appear to me to have an element of forceful conversion and intolerance alive today - the same as in the past. It seems to me to actually form part of their Holy scripture.


January 29, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterBarry

Barry -

Point well taken (unfortunately today this discussion is much more interesting than work so apologies if my thoughts are short or incomplete).

Again let me add my disclaimer that I am not an expert but any means on religion. I did grow up attending Christian church and have self educated myself to an extent on Islam through reading and also through discussions with my family.

Your introduction of the concept of institutionalization was well thought and very relevant. I believe it was Reza Aslan (some may agree or disagree but I find him to be a good source of analysis) who was disucssing the concept of instituationalization, though he may not have used that word, in the context of Islam. The point, if I recall correctly, is that much of what is practiced today, where moderate or fundamental, is based on interpretation that has passed from religious leader to religious leader over hundreds of years..which of course logically makes sense. One only has to look to the discussion of recent on the clerics in Iran to see how this evolution if you will has occurred. As you point out the same could be said for Christianity and would guess for Judiasm as well.

To your point about Islam maintaing an aspect of force in conversion...out of curiosity, if I may, what is the basis for this view? Is it observation of actions by Muslims or your own analysis or perhaps both? I ask because I do not see this, of course this is limited by the confines of my own environment.

With all of that, I am still left with the question I posed earlier. Thank you Barry for sharing your thoughts.

January 29, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterBijan

Do you remember the "German Menace"?
The Koelner Staatsanzeiger offers a detailed report on the real "culprits", especially reknowned German science foundations as the DAAD and the Max Planck Institute or the national broadcaster Deutsche Welle:
False News and Bassirat claim that DAAD scholarships are meant to educate "spies" for a "soft revolution", and False News quotes IRGC general Jafari, asking to form special forces for embassy occupation as in 1979.

German officials should be alarmed. This regime is not only threatening it's own citizens, but obviously foreign nationals as well.

January 29, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterArshama

P.S. # 16

Pardon me, it should read Koelner Stadt-Anzeiger, a newspaper from Cologne.

January 29, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterArshama


Like you, I am no expert in religious matters. Like everybody, I have certain perceptions which come about over time - they come from many and different sources, and of course may be incorrect.

Perhaps "force" is not the good word?? Here is the picture in my mind. There are Christians ( fundamentalist or not, but certainly evangelical) - who proselytize their religion. They knock at my door, Bible in hand and gently try to discuss matters with me - their end aim is conversion. But they are really OK - because they are largely inoffensive and do no real harm. Then there are Islamic "fundamentalists" - who also believe that their religion is the one true faith but are also intolerant to non-believers - however these "true believers" are armed with AK47's and rocket launchers!! :) Now, I realize that this is probably an extreme and obviously not all Muslim people are like this - BUT unfortunately perception is (almost) everything. :)


January 29, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterBarry

@Bijan, It's really hard to tell whether there are more "violent fundamentalist" believers in Christianity or Islam. We've had incidents like the Waco Branch Davidian tragedy where Christian groups definitely had plenty of guns and went way beyond knocking on doors to converse.

Obviously everyone who is collecting guns and training young people for a coming apocalyptic worldwide spirit war is trying to hide that fact from the rest of us, who wouldn't understand and would see it as brainwashing vulnerable people and convincing them to waste their lives for meaningless fairy tales. So it's hard to tell their numbers. Just have to nip them in the bud as we find them.

What happened in Christianity's history is that at some point the majority of people eventually just agreed to overlook the violent parts of the Bible (like where God commands the people to slaughter rival tribes entirely, even the babies and the animals) and write all of that off as "an ancient mystery that cannot be fathomed, part of the Almighty's unknowable ways" and focus their religious faith around the peaceful and unifying parts of the book. I don't see why that wouldn't work for the Koran as well!

January 29, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterRev. Magdalen

For Arash and Mohammad Reza

Carl Sandburg - The Hangman at Home

WHAT does the hangman think about
When he goes home at night from work?
When he sits down with his wife and
Children for a cup of coffee and a
Plate of ham and eggs, do they ask
Him if it was a good day’s work
And everything went well or do they
Stay off some topics and talk about
The weather, base ball, politics
And the comic strips in the papers
And the movies? Do they look at his
Hands when he reaches for the coffee
Or the ham and eggs? If the little
Ones say, Daddy, play horse, here’s
A rope—does he answer like a joke:
I seen enough rope for today?
Or does his face light up like a
Bonfire of joy and does he say:
It’s a good and dandy world we live
In. And if a white face moon looks
In through a window where a baby girl
Sleeps and the moon gleams mix with
Baby ears and baby hair—the hangman—
How does he act then? It must be easy
For him. Anything is easy for a hangman,
I guess.

January 29, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterArshama

Rev Magdalen -

So may one assume, taking your comments into consideration, that the reason may be a matter of history..e.g. Christianity has existed longer and therefore has moved, as whole, to a more moderate state?

January 29, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterBijan


In general terms , I believe "Yes".

Before the Italian Renaissance, the Christian (Catholic) world lived in the Dark Ages - having forgotten the good things of Greece.

Then the Protestant Reformation brought about additional changes - plus the invention of the printing press in Europe. Education changes everything.

Now - there is a degree of "scepticism" regarding religion in the western world - seen as declining church attendances (more pronounced in different countries) . However, tradition and upbringing are strong and many who longer practice a religion are still unable to publicly admit their lack of religious beliefs - and still claim adherence. In my country. the Govt Census reveals adherence to religions which is not matched by Church attendance.



January 29, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterBarry

@Bijan, maybe, or at least people can learn from Christianity's mistakes that it never works out when you try to force people to believe the "one true religion" or when you combine religion and government. There's simply no way to make people believe something they just don't believe, and trusting in the holiness of government officials is a recipe for corruption.

January 29, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterRev. Magdalen

Barry -

Thank you for your response. Could not agree more that education changes everything. Well said. I would say your statements regarding adherence at least to religious thought is relevant in the US as well but would add the dimension of generation as well. I do not recall the numbers but a high percent of Americans call themselves Christians..though they may not attend a church on a regular basis.

Rev Magdalen -

Point well taken and agreed.

Thank you all for the discussion. It has been enlightening.

January 29, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterBijan

The problem is more than what you all think...the more you dig in the more darkness and decay in the roots of this system...old wounds start bleeding...

January 29, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterNiaz

Has anybody noticed that there has not been any comment or acknowledgement by Karroubi or Mousavi regarding execution of Arash Rahmani Pour and Mohammad Reza Ali-Zamani? That to me is a disgrace.

Once again regime played Mousavi and Karroubi like a violin. Regime by labeling these two young men as monarchist and MKO managed to show the depth of Mousavi and Karroubi hypocrisy. For me they were two Iranians, two human beings, who were executed unjustly and without due process.

If Mousavi and Karroubi believe in IR constitution, the big drum they have been beating since election, they should be appalled by conviction or execution of any Iranian without due process irrespective of person political affiliation. If Mousavi and Karroubi were principled as they advertise they should have acknowledged that execution of these two young people were not in accordance to IR penal code.

Once we sanction one execution we have sanctioned all executions whether it is in streets or in the confined of prison walls, or by order of a kangaroo court.

I hop Iranians open their eyes and take notice of silence of these men who pretend to be on the side of with people.

January 30, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterMegan

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>