Shahram Homayoun - IRI documentary

Iranian Woman's Testimony of Rape and Torture by the Islamic Republic

Anti-Regime Demonstrations - Iran

This past Monday there were once again large anti-regime demonstrations across Iran which were met with the brutality of the Islamic Republic's savage security forces. Hundreds of thousands of Iranians braving the regimes thugs shouted "Death to the dictator!" [marg bar diktator], "Death to Khameini!" [marg bar khameini], "Either Freedom or Death!" [ya marg ya azadi] and "I will fight, I will die, I will regain Iran!" [mijangam, mimiram, irano pas migiram].

There are two confirmed deaths in which the regime's security forces gunned down two Iranian student demonstrators: Sane Jaleh and Mohammad Mokhtari. There have been calls for demonstrations today (Sunday 20 Feb) which marks the 7th day since these two students were killed by the Islamic Regime.

What we have learned in the past 32 years that this hell-sent regime has been in power is that when people are united they can overcome any oppressive force. This unity has been solidifying and I hope that we are at a tipping point where the aspirations of the Iranians nation - for a free, democratic, and secular government - will be achieved.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us







The following clip shows Iranian demonstrators attacking the Islamic Republic embassy in Denmark:



There have been anti-regime demonstrations staged outside the Islamic regime's embassies across major capitals in Europe and there have been reports that yet another regime diplomat has defected (Ahmad Maleki - Consulate General stationed in Milan, Italy)

International trade is strengthening the terrorist Islamic Republic

Arvin Khoshnood, one of the founders of the "Association for Democracy in Iran" (the main website is in swedish) has recently had a scientific article published in the swedish publication "Geografiska Notiser". The article is called "The spirit of trade - International trade and democracy in Iran 1980-2006" (article is in swedish).

The article critically evaluates the theory that "more trade leads to improved political freedoms and democracy" in the case of Iran.

Since the formation of the clerical dictatorship in Iran (1979-) the EU's policy has been to increase trade (despite so-called sanctions) in a supposed effort to contribute towards the democratization of the tyrannical clerical establishment. With this in mind the paper analyses whether increased global trade has helped democracy in Iran? whether trade with dictatorships contribute towards more democracy in those countries? and whether more trade with dictatorships is the right way to go?

The theoretical foundation to the EU's trade policy with Iran has been based on the assumption that global trade leads to greater economic prosperity, which helps bring about a larger and more politically knowledgable middle class, who then will engage in championing the cause for democratization and pressuring the dictatorship into making concessions > nurturing the establishment of democratic foundations. However, the economic prosperity and successive formation of a middle class is not so much reliant on the amount of trade but more so on how wealth (generated by increased trade) is distributed fairly amongst the society - if there is an unequal distribution of wealth then a formation of a significant middle class will not come about but instead the wealth will become concentrated amongst the dictatorial state or an elite group of people.

The paper concludes that in Iran's case increased international trade has led to increased political and social repression. Freedoms have become more limited and human rights have deteriorated. This is explained by the inequalty in the spread of wealth amongst the populace. The worsened democratic situation and the increased poverty have both happened under the period when the so-called "reformist" and "conservative" camps of the regime have been in power. Furthermore the economic wealth accrued due to increased trade has gone to the clerical regime which controls more than 80% of Iran's economy. Additionally given that oil is state-owned and makes up a major part of Iran's international trade the money from this trade goes directly into the pockets of the Islamic regime and goes towards funding its various repressive apparatuses that crack down on pro-democracy activists.

For Sweden and the EU to uphold any democratic legitimacy in international relations - trade with the corrupt and dictatorial Islamic Republic is not the right way to go.

In a subsequent letter to the swedish Trade Minister Ewa Bjorling, Arvin Khosnood writes that Iran can only begin the path towards democracy with the overthrow of the Islamic Republic and that this can be realized without bloodshed if the clerical establishment looses its sources of funding. This would leave the regime with no money to pay off its repressive forces that crush any anti-regime pro-democracy initiatives and no money to fund international terrorism (the Islamic Republic is the no. 1 state-sponsor of terrorism in the world).

IRGC shows off weapons arsenal used to suppress the Iranian population

Terrorist Islamic Republic shows off their arsenal to suppress popular dissent.

Iranian human rights lawyer Mohammad Mostafaei's family in exile

Guide for Interviewing Islamic Republic Officials on Human Rights Issues

Please review.

Reporters’ Guide for Interviewing Islamic Republic Officials on Human Rights Issues

Overthrowing the occupational Islamic Republic

Amir Jahanshahi is son of Imperial Iran's former Finance Minister.

Hopefully this has been thought through properly and the necessary mechanisms are in place or are in the progress of being set-up.

Neda's father rejects links to "green movement"

SUMMARY OF CLIP:

Above clip is of Neda Agha-Soltan's father speaking out against false allegations that Neda was part of the "green movement". Mr Agha-Soltan says that nor Neda nor anyone in their family is part of the "green movement" - and that Neda only stood for "freedom" [certain factions of the "green movement" are so-called "moderates" of this very same inhumane islamic regime who only want superficial changes but want to keep the foundations of the terrorist establishment]. Neda's father goes on to say that they begged her not to join the anti-regime demonstrations however she responded that "if she doesn't go, other youth don't go, if nobody goes then who will go"? Neda also asked her father why his generation had overthrown the country's progressive monarchy and paved way for a backward inhumane theocracy? To which her father remorsefully answers "we might have been wrong". Neda's father then says that she told him she would not accept what his generation had done and that she will take her own future into her own hands and try to change things.

Side note: the overwhelming majority of "green movement" supporters do not adhere to the fundamentalist beliefs held by the figurehead of the movement (a so-called regime "moderate") who is himself a former Prime Minister of the Islamic Republic during the 1980's when mass-murders of political prisoners took place (Mir-Hossein Mousavi), however use the "green movement" banner as a pre-text under which they can operate and make themselves heard internationally.

Man Iranam

Anti-regime demonstrations and clashes with security forces are taking place in Iran today - marking the anniversary of the regime's crackdown on pro-freedom/democracy demonstrations last year. Large crowds are out in force in Tehran confronting the islamic regime's savage security forces.

(the clip below is a complilation of clips of what has taken place in the past year since the anti-regime demonstrations of June 2009).

Neda Agha-Soltan

Never to be forgotten...next week will mark the killing of what has been referred to as Iran's "Angel for Freedom" - Neda Agha-Soltan. The savage murderer (a paramilitary militiaman) and the system (Islamic Republic) who condoned the killing are still at large... it is in the hands of the Iranian nation to muster the courage and bring this barbaric anti-Iranian islamic regime to justice for the crimes against humanity that have been perpetrated by them in the past three decades.

(!WARNING GRAPHIC FOOTAGE!)



Rest in peace Neda. In hope that your aspirations for a free, democratic, and secular Iran will soon come true.

Mir-Hossein Mousavi

I found this clip an amusing way of depicting the fundamental nature of Mir-Hossein Mousavi - the former Prime Minister of the Islamic Republic, who oversaw the execution of tens of thousands of political prisoners in the 1980's, and which the regime has now tried to rebrand as a "reformist" alternative. All these stooges which the regime short-lists for people to vote for in their sham s-elections are regime-loyalists who defend the Islamic Republic and the rotten framework which it's built upon. It's incredibly sad to see that people would genuinely fall for this kind of obvious political charade by the Islamic regime, especially after 8 years of another of the regime's "reformist" projects - namely the smiling mullah Mohammad Khatami - which resulted in further prolonging the terrorist regime's life, more executions, arrests, and torture of Iranian pro-democracy activists all under the guise of the smiling "reformist" mullah who had hypnotized liberal western media-outlets.

Neda Agha-Soltan - HBO Documentary

Persian version:



English version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F48SinuEHIk&feature=channel

Manouchehr Mottaki - "murderer from a torture regime"

The terrorist Islamic Republic's foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki is greeted at the European Parliament (1 June, 2010) by European MP's referring to him as a "murderer" of a "torture regime" with photo-placards bearing the image of Neda Agha-Soltan - who was killed in cold blood by the islamic regime's thugs last year during anti-regime unrest.



SECOND CLIP

May 1, 2010 Tehran - "Death to Khamenei"

Anti-regime demonstration on May 1st:

The Fall of the Shah - Fereydoun Hoveyda

Hoveyda Fereydoun, 1979. The Fall of The Shah, Wyndham Books, NY

Amazon Reviewer:

"The author of this angry little book worked as a diplomat for the Shah of Iran for almost 30 years. His older brother served as the Shah's Prime Minister for 13 years. And yet the book is a vitriolic attack against the Shah. The reason? In the last months of his reign the Shah decided to imprison the author's brother, Amir-Abbas Hoveyda,in a forlorn bid to silence the regime's violent critics. Amir Abbas Hoveyda was made a scapegoat. When the Shah left Iran with his wife and family he abandoned Amir-Abbas to the bloodthirsty mullahs who soon seized power. That was a cowardly act on the part of the Shah. The mulahs murdered Amir-Abbas Hoveyda along with tens of thousands of other Iranians who fell into their hands. Fereydoun Hoveyda cannot forget, or forgive, the betrayal of his borther. And that is understandable.

The problem is that Fereydoun Hoveyda's emotions prevented him from writing a balanced book. His vilification of the Shah can only absolve, albeit only partly, the mullahs who actually murdered Amir-Abbas. Had the title of the book been " Settling Scores with the Shah", I would have had no obejction. The Shah was certainly no angel. But nor was he the demon that Fereydoun Hoveyda pretends.

For a more balanced biography of the Shah, and a less emotional account of Amir-Abbas Hoveyda's tragic fate, you could read William Shawcross's " The Shah's Last Ride" which remains a good example of the Western art of biography.

For a more initimate, and Iranian, view you could read Amir Taheri's " The Unknown Life of the Shah". Taheri knew the Shah well and was also regarded as a personal friend of Amir-Abbas Hoveyda.He has thus been able to remain fair to both men, although his bias, not to say hatred, of the Islamists colours his broader political judgment. A READER IN RICHMOND, SURREY, UK"

I've recently finished reading this book published by the brother of Iran's late Prime Minister Amir-Abbas Hoveyda - namely Fereydoun Hoveyda. Fereydoun Hoveyda was an Iranian diplomat who served as Ambassador to the United Nations (1971-1979) and also served as Deputy Foreign Minister during the Pahlavi Era.

This book was written within months of the takeover of government institutions by anti-Iranian islamic militants, establishment of an Islamic state, and execution of his brother at the hands of the revolutionary islamist terrorists. Although he states in the prolouge of the book that he intends to stay objective in his analysis this is not always the case as any reader comes to realize - understandable to some extent.

Many accusations in the book are subjective in nature (and this is expected after the author clearly states he hates the late Shah and lays the blame for what happened to his brother on him) rather than facts that can be verifiably established - despite this going against his expressed intent of staying objective. Most reviews of this book seem to come to this same conclusion. This leads me to believe that many of the attacks are vindictive in nature rather than grounded in facts. Would it be right of us, the readers, to accept all these subjective assesments as truths? I definately do not think so, and believe that the closest we can come in establishing something in this regard is to take into consideration a multitude of different sources upon which we can draw a fairer conclusion upon.

Having said that though there certainly are valid criticisms in the book of the late Shah, dealing with neglecting political liberties, not being hard enough on corruption, and issues pertaining to economic mismangement (most of them attributed towards the end of the Shah's reign), which can definately be taken into account when trying to come to a fair assessment on the late Shah of Iran. On top of objective criticism there are also positive objective passages regarding the advances achieved under the Pahlavi Era. A bit of further examination should be sufficient in most cases to establish which statements would fall under which category (vindictive/subjective, or objective in nature).

Fereydoun Hoveyda argues that "by 1970-72 the improvement in material conditions was requiring a parallel move toward democratization. Here the sovereign committed a serious error of judgement and let slip a number of opportunities. Yet as early as 1971 the apperance of guerilla activity, even on a small scale, ought to have alerted him."

But then he seems to contradict his first statement (society being ready for democratization) when he states later on (highlighted part being directly relevant with the rest of the passage included as a matter of interest):

"From what source did the inarticulate and often illiterate masses derive their inexorable strength? Was it simply from the fervor inspired by their deep faith? But Shi'ism had been their driving force ever since the sixteenth century. Was it from the fiery speeches of Khomeini? But the Ayatollah had been calling on them to rise up in rebellion long years since?

Who helped them to rebel? Mossadeq's National Front? The intellectuals of the right and the left? But these represented only a very small minority. Or was it the oil companies, unhappy with the Shah's policies? But their powers were limited, and after all they were still getting their oil.

There has been some talk of foreign influences. The Shah held all-day consultations with the Americans and British ambassadors. The Palestinians trained guerilla groups. Radio Peyke Iran had been criticizing the Shah from an East European country. Nixon and Kissinger had encouraged the Shah to squander the country's wealth on sophisticated armaments.

Other observers go further still. Thus, Robert Dreyfuss and his colleagues on the Executive Intelligence Review see the Iranian revolution as stage one in a grand "conspiracy" engineered in certain British and Western intelligence circles and designed to destabilize the region and dismember its component countries, so as to reconstitute them inside new frontiers. According to them, the Iranian executants of this secret plan were [Ebrahim] Yazdi, Ghotzadeh, Bani-Sadr, and Amir-Entezam. Again according to them, Yazdi, an American citizen, was recruited by Richard Cottam, professor of political science at Pittsburgh University, with reputed CIA connections. So it is not Western governments who are behind the alleged consipiracy, but a secret "brotherhood" whose purpose is to prevent the industrialization of the Third World and to keep it in a permanent state of underdevelopment. Islamic fundamentalism is supposed to have provided the plotters with a powerful weapon for inducing such a backward step. Iran was chosen first because conditions were favorable there...These views have found a certain amount of confirmation inside Iran itself. For instance, when the Ayatollah Taleghani, the religious leader of Tehran, disappeared on May 17, 1979, after the arrest of his children by the Komiteh, some fantastic rumors broke out in the capital. When the Palestinians occupied the offices of the Israeli representatives in Iran, according to rumor they found documents which established the existence of contacts between Yazdi, Ghotzadeh, and other associates of Khomeini and foreign intelligence services. They at once called Taleghani's son and handed the papers over to him. The Komiteh, which was tapping the line, picked up Taleghani Junior as he left the building and took away the compromising documents.

These are just rumors, of course, but certain world happenings do give grounds for reflection. For example there is the sudden switch by Western economists, who are now talking about the bankruptcy of their previously held theories of development. All at once they are urging the Third World to confine itself to a predominantly agricultural economy, in order to increase food production and use more of the work force. And this comes at the very moment when the experts are maintaining that at the present rate of population growth the poor countries will never be able to supply their own needs. The famous "green revolution", launched amid such a fanfare of publicity, has been unable to solve the problems of the developing regions. As for Iran, with its lack of arable land and water it cannot hope to become agriculturally self-sufficient. Although the Shah may have made a lot of mistakes. the fact remains that his broad idea of industrialization was essentially correct. For how are sixty million Iranians to be fed and clothed as they enter the third millenium, once the oil deposits are used up, except by means of an export-oriented industrial sector?"

So based on these two statements - how can an "inarticulate and often illiterate mass" be ready for democratization? Should this mass or society not be given enough time to reach a fair level of being literate/informed/educated mass before they are given FULL rights to determine the future direction of the country? If an inarticulate, superstitious and illiterate mass are given FULL rights to determine their future, is not anarchy the only realistic result of such a ludicrous move? Iranian society had come a long way at the turn of the previous century however there was still some way to go before such noble aspirations could materialize - there is nothing wrong about Fereydoun Hoveyda's aspirations as I believe any patriotic Iranian would share them, however his timing in demanding them in this regard was not correct. Also on the issue of misappropriating funds into the country's defense capabilities I have to disagree with Fereydoun Hoveyda as where would our country be today if it wasn't thanks to what remained of our military and defense capabilities at the time of the Iraqi invasion!? Although the command structure was in tatters thanks to purges by the Islamists we were still able to keep the Arab invaders at bay. Given that this book was written before the Iraqi invasion I don't believe the late Ambassador was aware of how crucial those defense capabilities would mean for our country to maintain its territorial integrity in the volatile region it finds herself in.

Some of the positive aspects that are attributed to the Pahlavi Era in the book are described in the following passage:

"[In 1977] more than 65% of the population owned the houses they lived in (and the percentage was even higher in the capital). Per-capita income stood at $2,200 ($300 in 1965). Primary school attendance was over 10 million (270,000 in 1960). Illiteracy had fallen from 85% to 55%. Whereas oil revenues had accounted for 90% of the gross national product in the 1950's, in 1977 they came to no more than 35% (for a total of $70 billion). The present critics of the regime claim that industry was confined to assembly. They forget that in the car industry, for example, in 1977 more than 65% of components were manufactured in Iran. Agriculture, although it left a lot to be desired, was showing real and appreciable progress, as the events of 1978-79 have proved. (In fact, although almost all Iran's foodstuff imports were paralyzed, there was never any shortage of food supplies either in Tehran or in any of the other towns. And it is worth mentioning that from 1972 to 1977 domestic consumption had quadrupled.) In the fields of communications, social welfare, health, education, etc., the picture was equally impressive. If inflation, which had remained reasonable until 1975, began galloping in 1977, it is generally agreed that this was the outcome of the sudden injection of Iran's increased revenues from oil."

Fereydoun Hoveyda passed away in Virginia (USA) in 2006.

Na mollah! Na allah! Marg bar Hezbollah!

I just came across this new protest chant against the anti-Iranian Islamic Republic:

Na mollah! Na allah! Marg bar Hezbollah!
(no mullah's, no allah, death to hezbollah)

A few nice clips I wanted to share with my blog readers:

The conspirators behind the 1979 Islamic takeover in Iran...

Iran’s Royal Opposition

By Jerry Guo | NEWSWEEK
Published Feb 11, 2010

Reza Pahlavi was just 17 when his father, the shah, fled the country in 1979. Since then, the former crown prince of Iran has become a thorn in the side of the theocratic regime, particularly after the disputed presidential election last June. With new protests looming, he spoke recently with NEWSWEEK's Jerry Guo. Excerpts:

Do you have insiders who keep you in the loop on the regime's thinking?
I have lines of contact. Access to information has been very restricted by the regime, but we can affirm the discontent goes well beyond Tehran and the major cities. They didn't have enough manpower to cope with the demonstrations surrounding Ashura [in December]. They had to shuttle security forces from one town to another.

But isn't it commonly assumed that the countryside is more pro-regime?
The regime has completely disregarded its own kind. The crackdown during Ashura, one of the holiest days in Shia Islam, was an unprecedented offense to people's deepest beliefs. So they cannot appeal to their own religious base. Even conservatives realize that by now.

This sounds like we're no longer talking about reform.
The regime is not reformable. We tried it for 20 years. The central issue is to do away with the theocracy. A secular government is a prerequisite to democracy. It's in the best interest of the clerical establishment, too: the sanctity of religion has been most damaged by religious governance. The regime has been presenting everyone secular as anti-religion. The violence has been committed in the name of religion.

Will the regime go quietly when its leaders know their heads will be on the block?
Key elements within law enforcement or the military should consider themselves part of the transition. I look at South Africa as the model, a campaign based on amnesty and national reconciliation. Many elements are stuck in the regime and want out.

Do you see a role for yourself in a new secular government?
My preoccupation is not running for office. We are trying to liberate our country first. Then I am ready to serve my compatriots in whatever capacity. If they want me to play a more important role, so be it.

In the lead-up to the 1979 Islamic Revolution, thousands of protesters were killed in the streets by your father's regime. Is history repeating itself?
The extent of victims was definitely much more limited than what you indicated. My father voluntarily left the country to avoid bloodshed. He ordered the Army not to engage in skirmishes with the population. The transition happened rather peacefully. The difference now is the regime is calling on all possible coercive forces including civilian guns-for-hire. They are trying to hang on more violently as we go along. But despite the crackdown, you must admire the degree of discipline for people not to retaliate with violence. That's amazing.

What's the next move for the opposition?
People were saying the dust will settle. It hasn't. Perhaps we'll see major strikes or other civil disobedience. But the effectiveness of [the opposition] leadership may be so curtailed that we have to look outside. If you look at the velvet revolutions, a lot depends on solidarity from the international community.

Your father's regime was very friendly with the U.S. Do you feel the U.S. should play a greater role here?
The State Department canceled funding of a research center documenting human-rights abuses in Iran. This sort of thing does make a difference. People were chanting, "Obama, either you are with them or with us." They demand more than just a statement of principle.

Why did certain Iranian revolt against the late Shah of Iran...

I just wanted to share this excerpt from a compatriot on the topic of "why some Iranians revolted against the late Shah of Iran". Certainly this doesn't discuss all the factors but it has touched upon a few very important factors as to why a large portion of those who took to the streets in 1979 participated in a national mass-suicide - jelousy, greed, political naivety and sheepish mentality!

"...if the University professors [the enlightened class - in persian: "roshanfekran"] all 'saw' Khomeinis image in the moon, its because we Iranians are a bunch of sheep, we follow whats 'in vogue' I have interviewed hundreds of so called 'educated' iranians and they all say that they went out and shouted ' margh bar Shah' ['death to the shah'] not becuase they were unemployed, hungry or destitute (ingredients for a revolution) but ONLY beacuse everyone else did it!!! and why did everyone else do it?? beacuse we iranians are born 'Hasood' [jelous] we hated the Shah because he had prestige, he spoke 3 languages, he had a beautiful wife and he had Grace and style and he loved being Iranian and loved Iran!! The sad part was that we all had and felt the same thing (except the wife maybe!!) but we still opted to go out and support a Goat in place of a graceful peacock!! and now all of us have reached 'goh khori' [persian expression literally meaning "eating your own shit"]! Our women are being sold to Afghans and Arabs as sex slaves, our economy in tatters, our prestige destroyed and as a result we are all refugees in far away countries calling ourselves 'Persians' rather than Iranians because of how much the term IRanian has turned deragotory thanks to our Ayatollahs! We all ran away and ass kissed everyone to get foreign passports (me included) when the Iranian passport was one of [a] few in the world that was accepted visa free almost globally! Thanks to who?- THE SHAH, whom all of us , even the so called 'educated' one hated so much!

So pls lets all go back and continue looking at the moon, hoping to see Khomeinis ass smiling in our face, thanking us for giving the Akhunds something they never had- Power, money and no accountability to anyone!!!...."