Meanwhile the Baseej are defecting in numbers as shown in this video:

And in this picture:

Baseej Defector

The Green Movement is approaching a critical mass which presents a greater counter force than the government can possibly bear. Nor did the regime help itself by making a martyr of the nephew of the leading opposition leader. Juan Cole sees this adding insult to injury and more trouble ahead for the administration:

For the regime to create a member of the Mousavi family as a martyr on Ashura was most unwise. Shiite Islam even more than traditional Catholicism thrives on the blood of martyrs. [...] Junior or middle-ranking Ayatollahs favorable to the ideas of Montazeri show up in a number of these reports about protests in provincial cities, suggesting a generational split in the clerical corps and trouble for Khamenei ahead.

The term “Yazid” is now applied to the government and its security forces, in reference to the corrupt tyrannical caliph; a term loaded with historical, religious and revolutionary connotations. Potkin discusses moment in which government riot guard, cornered by the people, begs for forgiveness:

People have cornered these security forces. People ask them ‘why do you do this to your people?’ and the riot guards ask for forgiveness, ‘Bebakhshid’ they can be heard to say.

‘You are Yazid’s – the Khalif against whom the Ashura uprising took place -forces’, the woman shouts at them. One of the protesters then reassures them that they will not be beaten up, all they have to do is say Khameneii is a bastard. The woman can then be heard saying ‘All you can do is kill your people is it?’ and again they plead saying ‘Please We are not killers’.

The sooner they join the people, the sooner they will redeem themselves with the people of Iran.

It is time to start wondering out aloud when the Iranian people will topple this “Yazdi” regime because it can’t be long now.

We are all Majid Tavakoli now

An email from an Iranian friend from IGHLRC:

Earlier this week, The Iranian authorities arrested Majid Tavakoli, a student leader, who spoke at an anti-government rally in Tehran University, marking the Student Day in Iran. To humiliate him, the authorities published a picture of him wearing women’s headscarf, an old practice by the government to prove to the public that the opposition leaders are “less than men”, lacking courage and bravery.

This time around though, The anti-government movement responded quickly by posting pictures of hundreds of men wearing headscarf.

The protesters have found a new way to show their solidarity with Mr. Tavakoli — by changing their profile pictures to show them wearing similar clothes. Take a look at the video that they have released, it is remarkable:

Peter Tatchell says:

“It is ironic how headscarf, which was traditionally seen as a symbol of women’s oppression (who are forced to wear it in public in Iran), is now being used by men to show membership in a liberation movement. It is worth noting that it is a violation of law to cross-dress in Iran.”

The ongoing, spirited anti-government protests in Iran has been fearless, witty, creative and nothing short of inspiring. And when you see images like this, you know that the Iranian regime don’t have a snowball’s chance against the courage of the Iranian people.

Another friend puts it brilliantly:

“A band of close-minded, desperate, brittle thugs are facing intelligent, resourceful, flexible opposition. They’ll struggle increasingly to get their message across as each tactic they use is subverted, adopted or discounted by their foes. Every attempt to shame will become a badge of honour and respect. They’ve lost, it’s just that they haven’t realised it yet cos they still have all the oil & guns. They’re too stupid to realise that in an educated country, money & guns aren’t enough.”

For me, that comment says it all.

****

The merits of Columbia University hosting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2007 have always been somewhat dubious. So it is interesting that it has now emerged that the university was paid $100,000 by the Alavi Foundation, an alleged Iranian front group, two months before agreeing to host the dictator.

The Alavi Foundation – an organisation based in the United States which declares itself ‘devoted to the promotion and support of Islamic culture and Persian language, literature and civilization’ – is accused by the US government of funnelling money to Iranian spies based in Europe and Islamic schools backed by the Iranian government. Federal prosecutors are currently attempting to seize up to $650m in assets from the foundation, with Adam Kaufmann, investigations chief at the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, saying that they have ‘found evidence that the government of Iran really controlled everything about the foundation’. Alavi also regularly donated to Harvard, Portland State and Rutgers. The latter received $351,600 from the foundation between 2005-2007 to fund its Persian Studies Program.

The concept that top US universities are being funded by an Iranian front is troubling enough. However the possibility that Iranian money is influencing academia is not only restricted to America, but is a problem in the UK as well.

The Iranian government announced last year that it was in talks with ‘several British universities’ in order to fund Islamic studies programmes which would ‘train and educate experts on Islam’. It barely needs pointing out that the Iranian government’s understandings of Islam have not been working out too well for those being forced to live under it.

Furthermore, the Institute for Iranian Studies at the University of St Andrews was founded after a 2006 donation of over £100,000 by the former Iranian deputy foreign minister. Its opening lecture was delivered by former leader Mohammed Khatami, the supposed ‘moderate’ whose government still managed to rack up over 200 executions and the torture of thousands of Iranians.

Another university to receive money from Iran is the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) who, within weeks of receiving a donation from the Iranian Government, ran a conference celebrating the life of Ayatollah Khomeini. The event featured a keynote speech by the Iranian Supreme Leader’s representative to the UK.

The issue of huge cash donations from foreign tyrannies to UK universities, and the pernicious impact this can have, is one that I covered in a report earlier this year. I am somewhat skeptical of the impact that these donations have on the way students are actually taught – many academics don’t need the incentive of a huge donation to proselytise on how, for example, western foreign policy is the source of all the world’s evils – but the trend of top universities relying on dictatorships’ foreign aid programmes in order to sustain their running contains obvious problems.

Neither the Government or the Conservatives have offered much on how such problems can be rectified. The legalities of the matter are admittedly complex. However an acknowledgement that universities should be setting their standards a little higher than donations from Iran is a simple enough start.

****

Duplicity and deviousness are almost bywords of Islamist organisations. The violent, bigoted and now frighteningly influential Hojjatiyeh Society in Iran is no exception. Gripped by a bloodthirsty and truly bizarre millenarianist theology, the Hojjatiyeh have now achieved influence over the most powerful organs of state power in Iran. In doing so, they have illustrated that Islamism’s commitment to democracy is entirely a matter of convenience. Democracy will be jettisoned when it has served its purposes, to be replaced by all-out and all-out clerical-fascist dictatorship.

The Hojjatiyeh Society was founded in 1954 by Sheikh Mahmoud Halabi, as an Islamist organization hell-bent on persecuting Bahai, Sunni, indeed any and all minority faiths and dissident beliefs in Iran. In the ‘60s and ‘70s, the Hojjatiyeh worked hand-in-mailed-fist with SAVAK, the Shah’s terrifying secret police, a weapon in the Shah’s struggle with the then very powerful Iranian Left.

The Hojjatiyeh did not take part in the 1979 Revolution in Iran. In fact, it actively worked against it. Like all Shi’a, Hojjatiyeh believe in the return of the 12^th Imam, who – it is believed – will usher in a time of justice, saving the world from evil. However, Hojjatiyeh members are also radical millenarianists, believing that they must actively prepare the world to open the gate for the Mahdi’s return. In order to force the reappearance of the Mahdi (who comes to save the world from oppression and wrong), Hojjatiyeh actively sought to make the world as unjust, chaotic and violent as possible so as to bring about the unbearable conditions that would trigger the re-appearance of the 12^th Imam from out of his Occultation. As a result, the Hojjatiyeh were firmly addicted to violence and disorder at all costs. This explains both their willingness to co-operate with the Shah’s regime (knowing full well that this regime bought pain and suffering upon the people of Iran) and their latter policy of prolonging the bloodshed, agony and the anarchy of the early days of the Revolution as the framework, so they believed, under which the Mahdi would return.

Simultaneously, like most Shi’a of a non-Khomeinist stripe then and now, the Hojjatiyeh rejected Khomeini’s innovatory and radical Islamist theory of Valaayat-e Faghih (governance of the Islamic jurist), which remains the cornerstone of Iran’s Constitution and bestows upon the Supreme Leader almost dictatorial powers. However, this rejection was down, in the main, to the Hojjatiyeh consistent belief in causing and sustaining as great a social, economic and political dislocation as possible, thus engendering mass suffering and thus, according to their lethal theology, triggering the return of the 12^th Imam.

Tellingly, Khomeini was not minded to move against the Hojjatiyeh because of their aberrant theology, nor yet their pure addiction to violence and mayhem, nor yet their opposition to the Revolution, nor yet even their collaboration with the hated ancien regime of the Shah. Rather, the uber-Islamist Khomeini banned the Hojjatiyeh because they refused to support his elevation of himself as Supreme Leader via the entirely innovatory device of the theory of Valaayat-e Faghih.

As with other Islamists who have found themselves on the back-foot, Hojjatiyeh quietly went underground and carefully began a re-invention of themselves in order to better operate in the new conditions. Islamists everywhere have adopted the strategy of identifying themselves with the main trajectory of political change in the countries in which they are at struggle. Hojjatiyeh proved no different.

In the conditions of the post-revolutionary period in the Islamic Republic, Hojjatiyeh repositioned themselves. Gone was the advocacy of a bloodthirsty millenarianist theology of violence to bring about the coming of the Mahdi. Out even went the opposition to Khomeini’s Valaayat-e Faghih that had seen them banned by Khomeini. They even stopped calling themselves the Hojjatiyeh.

With the death of Khomeini in 1989, the new-look Hojjatiyeh re-emerged from the shadows. Adopting the now familiar Islamist strategy of creeping coup, via infiltration of the bases of state power and led by arch-reactionary clerics such as Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah Yazdi, Hojjatiyeh now advocated an anti-democratic agenda, demanding an unelected Supreme Leader of an authoritarian Islamic Government as opposed to the already highly limited democratic institutions of the Islamic Republican Constitution. Muhammad Sahimi observes:

In order to create a political cover for himself and his followers and counter the accusations that he had opposed the Revolution and Ayatollah Khomeini, Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi… founded the Imam Khomeini Educational Institute in Qom – even though he opposed the Ayatollah and had turned down the invitation of his students to join the Revolution.

The re-invented Hojjatiyeh, along with all Islamists, believe that sovereignty does not reside with the people – it resides with God. In the conditions of post-revolutionary Iran, it developed the line that the Supreme Leader is selected by God and is the Mahdi’s deputy in his absence. Consequently, according to Muhammad Sahimi, Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah Yazdi, present leader of the Hojjatiyeh advocates that:

The task of the ayatollahs in the Assembly of Experts… a constitutional body that appoints the Supreme Leader and monitors his performance (and can even dismiss him), is to discover who the selected Leader is. He believes people must never question the Supreme Leader and obey him absolutely.

The same Ayatollah Yazdi infamously once asserted:

It does not matter what people think. They are ignorant sheep.

He underscored this in the recent and entirely fraudulent Presidential elections in Iran, issuing a fatwa suggesting that fraud and cheating were acceptable tactics in order to get Ahmadinejad re-elected, given the sterling work Ahmadinejad had done in advocating Islamism on the world stage and defending clerical fascism at home.

Despite ex-President Khatami’s withering depiction of Ayatollah Yazdi and his Hojjatiyeh goons as “shallow-thinking traditionalists with a Stone-Age backwardness”, Yazdi presently sits on the Assembly of Experts – the very group that Yazdi suggests should discover and appoint the Supreme Leader of his projected clerical-fascist dictatorial Iranian Islamic Government.

Muhammad Sahimi comments:

Ayatollah Mesbah Yard’s base of power is the Haghani seminary in Qom… His disciples include the Intelligence Minister Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejehei (a graduate of the Haghani), Mojtaba Hashemi Samareh (a senior aid to Mr. Ahmadinejad), and Mr. Ahmadinejad himself. In fact, all of Iran’s Intelligence Ministers since the 1979 Revolution are graduates of the Haghani. […]

[Yazdi] is the spiritual leader of many of the top commanders of the IRGC. The Basij militia, a paramilitary group controlled by the IRGC, has also been deeply penetrated by his disciples as well, as has been the Judiciary. Ayatollah Khomeini’s chief of staff, Ayatollah Ahmad Tavassoli, said after the election of Mr. Ahmadinejad in 2005 that, “the executive branch of the Iranian government, as well as the troops of the IRGC, have been hijacked by the Hojjatiyeh.”

Yazdi’s Hojjatiyeh make up an important fraction of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s support. Equally, since he was elected the President in 2005, Mr. Ahmadinejad has repeatedly spoken about the “Islamic Government of Iran,” rather than the “Islamic Republic of Iran,” as well as the return of Mahdi, suggesting that Ahmadinejad is supportive of Yazdi’s and the Hojjatiyeh’s line, as one would expect of a graduate of the Hojiatatiyeh’s seminary in Qom. Under Ahmadinejad, the Hojjatiyeh-infiltrated Revolutionary Guards have penetrated important sectors of Iran’s economy, and are rapidly developing a monopoly on a majority of a wide range of government projects as well as the private sector.

The Hojjatiyeh’s gradual assumption of power was made all the easier by the fundamental flaws and limitations of democracy in the Islamic Republic. Sahimi notes that:

In Iran the elections are supervised by the Interior Ministry. There is no independent organization for the elections. The Interior Minister, Mr. Sadegh Mahsouli, and his principal deputy for the elections, Mr. Kamran Daneshjou, are both close aids and friends of Mr. Ahmadinejad and former commanders in the IRGC. Many of the provincial governors who also play important roles in the elections are former military men. Mr. Mahsouli had actually come out in support of his old friend.

The goal of the Islamist Hojjatiyeh is to move the country towards to an “Islamic Government” – an openly clerical-fascist dictatorship dominated by like-minded theocrats. This has been achieved, in Sahimi’s words, by making elections a meaningless process by resorting to any means available, including rigging and manipulation. Islamist watchers everywhere will see a familiar pattern in all this.

The creeping coup of the Hojjatiyeh Society in Iran, led by Yazdi and fronted by a sinister, parochial clown like Ahmadinejad is but an example of the strategy of Islamism, whether Sunni or Shi’a. Infiltrating and entering the centres of state-power is, of course, the known strategy of other Islamist groups, for example Hizb ut-Tahrir and the Muslim Brotherhood. Cynically using democratic institutions in order to achieve the eventual ends of a clerical-fascist dictatorship, Islamism of any stripe, proves itself time and again to serve only its own interests and not the interests of the people so subjugated to its medievalist, totalitarian ideology..

****

Iran is a brutal theocratic dictatorship that executes minors, stones adulterous women to death, persecutes religious and ethnic minorities and murders and imprisons non-violent protestors for calling for free and fair elections.

Fareena Alam presenting on Press TV

It is also not exactly supportive of the UK’s struggle against Islamist extremism. The Iranian government is widely believed to have supplied Iraqi insurgents with many of the roadside bombs that killed British soldiers in Iraq, Iran’s leaders have also called for the extrajudicial murder of a British novelist and funded London-based radical Islamist outfits such as the comically misnamed Islamic Human Rights Commission.

One would think, therefore, that the British government would regard employees of the Iranian government as being less than ideal partners for the UK domestic ‘Preventing Violent Extremism’ programme.

Unfortunately, this is not the case.

One of the UK government’s flagship counter-extremism programmes is the Radical Middle Way (RMW) which was established with £460,000 of government money in 2005 by former members of Q-News magazine, namely Fuad Nahdi, Abdul Rehman Malik and Malik’s wife Fareena Alam.

Fareena Alam first shot to fame two days after the 9-11 when she told a former US ambassador in a now-notorious edition of BBC Question Time that the US had deserved for the attacks because of its support for Israel, which she described as a ‘terrorist’ state.

Of the resulting media furore, she later said that ‘I think I got picked on in the papers because I had tanned skin, I’m a Muslim, a woman and I was wearing a headscarf’ and that ‘If it was untimely, it was the BBC’s fault for running it two days after the attack’.

Despite this, Alam became one of the RMW’s most main public faces. She also chaired a number of the group’s public events, including one event in April 2008 that included Fuad Nahdi’s wife, Humera Khan, and Catherine Heseltine from MPACUK, an organisation which has been widely described as Anti-Semitic.

In around mid-2008, however, Alam joined Press TV, the Iranian government-run and –funded propaganda station, as a reporter. She immediately began producing a stream of blatantly one-sided TV pieces that parroted the Iranian government’s line.

For instance, in one story nominally about the Iraqi president’s visit to London, Alam concluded that “Maliki’s visit to London occurred on the day that British troops started to finally withdraw from Iraq after six years. Most Iraqis will be glad to see the back of them and if they return in business suits instead of jackboots, their welcome will be far from certain.”

Leaving aside her sweeping assumption that ‘most Iraqis will be glad to see the back of them’, it is striking that Alam used the word ‘jackboots’ in reference to British troops. As far as I am used ‘jackboots’ references are used almost solely to make Nazi comparisons. Does Fareena Alam really think that British troops are comparable with the Nazis? And if she does, what does she make of the totalitarian and undemocratic Iranian government that pays her wages?

Despite producing such anti-British propaganda on behalf of the Iranian government, Alam has remained one of the RMW’s public faces. For instance, in May 2009, she chaired an RMW event called ‘Wired Warriors for the soul of Islam’ featuring Muslim bloggers. This event was presumably funded through the £350,000 that the Department for Communities and Local Government gave to RMW during 6-month period from October 2008 to April 2009.

Alam, while working for the Iranian government, also remained closely involved in the RMW’s day-to-day administration. In April this year, for instance, she posted on the RMW’s facebook page to thank the group’s followers for RSVP-ing to the group’s upcoming events and telling them about RMW’s future plans:

Since starting work for Press TV, she has also written she written on the group’s facebook page that RMW had joined twitter, telling readers to “follow us” – by which she presumably means the RMW rather than Press TV:

Of course, the RMW could argue that Alam was not making these statements on behalf of the group and has been doing so without its knowledge. I don’t believe that this is the case however – RMW employees could hardly fail to notice that she is regularly posting in the group’s name on their popular facebook page.

And even if this is the case, then why is Alam also one of only 7 administrators in the group’s facebook page – one of its main points of contact with its youthful audience – if she is no longer seen as being part of RMW?

Now, I’m sure that Fareena is a lovely person in many ways. And I also appreciate that because her husband, Abdul Rehman Malik, is heavily involved in RMW, it is difficult for her to sever contact with the group.

At the same time, however, it is manifestly insane that an Iranian government employee, especially one who works for Tehran’s main English language propaganda outlet and who compares British soldiers to fascist storm-troopers, should be involved in running the UK’s most lavishly-funded counter-extremism programme.

I work at Press TV because it broadcasts the truth about what is happening in the world.

Says Roshan Muhammed Salih, Press TV’s head of news in London. A regular writer for the Iranian propaganda channel, he wrote in today’s Guardian’s Comment is Free defending what many of us would not even begin to comprehend defending: why he actually enjoys working for his Islamist – totalitarian – human rights abusing – homosexual executing – employer. Really.

He says:

The channel is willing to give a platform to legitimate actors whom the western media will not touch, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, while at the same time reporting what the authorities are saying.

So terrorist organisations that condone and encourage suicide bombings, the killing of innocent civilians (Jewish children are legitimate targets according to Hamas), propagate anti-Semitic filth, kill and maim political opponents, and are constructed and run by Islamist fascists are legitimate?

He does not stop there:

It is simply not fair to characterise Press TV as a mouthpiece for the Iranian government. It is true that we are state-funded (like the BBC World Service) but that does not mean we slavishly follow the Tehran line.

Salih’s right – he does not forcibly have to follow Tehran’s line. Otherwise why would he work there, right? Instead, he willingly and lovingly follows the Tehran line:

I believe it [the Islamic Republic of Iran] is a fundamentally decent government run by a fundamentally decent man [Ahmadinejad is a homophobe, holocaust ‘fact correcting’, Israel wiping - genocidist wanabe]. The Iranian government supports Islam [Islamism] and resistance movements [Hezbollah and Hamas] in the Islamic world and opposes western interference in the region [he would rather Saddam remain his neighbor?]. It also doesn’t go around invading sovereign nations, killing their people and occupying their countries [they get their puppet terrorist groups to do the dirty work]…

Moreover, many feel that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a corruption-free man of the people who speaks truth to power [he supposedly had more than 100% of votes in some provinces - he is accused of rigging the recent elections]. They like the fact that he looks un-presidential and that he spends most of his time with the poor and powerless…

I do not agree, however, with everything the Iranian government does. For example, I support the right to peaceful protest and the right of journalists to report freely.

So why does Salih not criticise in this article the Ahmadinejad government and the regime when they imprison journalists and aid workers, and kill protesters?

But wait! The Iranian government has reasons for doing what it does:

What everyone must understand is that Iran is a country under threat and countries under threat restrict freedoms. Western-sponsored wars, economic sanctions and destabilisation programmes have taken their toll. Iran’s institutions have not been allowed to develop in the same way that Britain’s have, so it is unfair to judge it by the same yardstick when we talk about freedom. That said, Iran remains a stable, peaceful country in a region of chaos and turmoil. Its people have more liberties than perhaps any other country in the Middle East and it has a government that rules with the consent of the majority. It is heading in the right direction.

Iran may be more democratic than other Middle Eastern countries in terms of elections. But can someone who completely opposes the Islamic Republic of Iran and what that means, stand for election? Of course not! We will judge and compare the Iranian regime by the same yardstick when we talk about freedom because we live in the 21st century, where every country and its rulers are subject to international human rights standards. And no – Iran does not have more liberties than any other Middle Eastern country – governments in that region have varying degrees of providing certain liberties for its citizens whilst denying others.

Salih also adds:

We are also regulated by Ofcom, which means we must stick to strict broadcasting regulations regarding balance, due impartiality and objectivity.

Does Salih honestly think Press TV is any where near the standards of other broadcasters like the BBC? Press TV is light years away. Impartial, objective and true? Have a look at Press TV’s website and its coverage of Iran’s post election unrest. Press TV conveniently chose to ‘objectively’ portray the post-election protests and violent deaths as a conspiracy by Western powers in interfering in the internal affairs of Iran – the Tehran line.

Salih ends with:

And Press TV is a young channel with a minuscule budget… So if the anti-Iran brigade really want the country and its institutions (such as Press TV) to reform, they should call for an end to economic sanctions, military threats and destabilisation programs. Above all, they need to engage with us.

Press TV is not a mouthpiece for the Iranian government. Oh wait it is – it is one of the country’s ‘institutions’, of which all are controlled by this nasty so-called ‘Islamic’ regime.

The only ‘engaging’ we will do with Press TV is to prove what a joke it is. At least Salih is honest enough to admit where his sympathies and admiration truly lies. I guess Salih’s position is not so surprising after all.

When Press TV was launched two years ago, Yvonne Ridley, one of the station’s presenters, was effusive in her praise of her paymasters: “I see it as an antidote to Fox TV that will give a different perspective to the coverage that you get from the mainstream media. It’s not shock TV, tabloid TV or propaganda promoting reactionaryism.”

While Press TV is clearly light years away from Fox in political terms, the channels could be described as simply two sides of the same coin when it comes to the way they manipulate their viewers. Ridley’s line of defence, that Press TV is neither a propaganda machine nor a proponent of shock or tabloid broadcasting, hasn’t really held up since the station’s launch – all the more so in the wake of its coverage of the Iranian elections.

He also destroys Press TV’s credibility argument by argument.

Of course, there are those defenders of Press TV who believe that only those free from sin ought to cast the first stone – including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who claims there is “scarcely … a media that does its duty correctly”, and that “our media should be a standard bearer of peace and stability”, as well as a counterweight to the “propaganda” of western news outlets.

I’ve seen for myself the major discrepancies between reporting on western stations and some of their counterparts in the Middle East. While I don’t have a problem with the markedly different terminology employed by, for example, al-Aqsa TV and the BBC, it is the underlying editorial line that can make a channel unpalatable and untrusted by viewers.

And

Press TV surrounds itself with controversial presenters and guests, to the discredit of both the individuals and the station as a whole. George Galloway’s pathetic performance against Dispatches’ David Henshaw was laughable in itself, but more disturbingly characterised Press TV’s worrying trait of obfuscation surrounding Muslims accused of wrongdoing, a habit its presenters can team with shifting blame on to Israel and supporters of Zionism.

Freedman also discusses his own experiences of appearing on Press TV.

I have had several dealings with Press TV, agreeing to be interviewed by various reporters in the belief that dialogue with interlocutors of any persuasion could only be a positive move: that as long as I was not coerced or censored in what I said, my input could prove useful to those watching the channel or reading the site. However, when I appeared on Lauren Booth’s weekly show, the blinkers came off and I realised quite how counterproductive playing any part in the Press TV pantomime actually was.

I had written an op-ed piece for the Jewish Chronicle, and Booth relayed her admiration of my article by telling me she was “surprised to read something that was true” in the Jewish Chronicle. The implication was clear: the Jewish Chronicle is full of lies.

She then proceeded to ask me, along with two other panellists, about our opinions on the viral email comparing photos of children in Gaza to Nazi-era photos of children in the Warsaw Ghetto. While we three guests roundly condemned the employment of such disingenuous analogies, she stuck to her guns, defending the email author’s right to draw such parallels – again, leaving the viewer in no doubt that to compare the situation in Gaza to the Holocaust is a perfectly acceptable way to view events in Israel and the occupied territories.

And his conclusion should be read by anybody vaguely considering having dealings with Press TV.

Booth is as entitled to her views as I am to mine. But for Press TV to claim impartiality and independence on one hand, yet toe the Iranian government party line and employ biased presenters and reporters on the other, gives the lie to any of their supporters’ statements that they are in any way reputable or to be taken seriously.

For all that there are clearly occasions when unacceptable bias pervades western media outlets and news organisations, such occurrences pale in comparison to the unabashed partisanship pumped out by Press TV round the clock. It can only be hoped that the actions of Kamm, Ferrari and others will be emulated by the station’s army of viewers around the world.

Amen.

As London drives by confused and in a hurry, British based Iranians are protesting because their family and friends in Iran cannot. But the malignant influence of the regime extends this far, where many of the protesters are forced to cover their faces so as to avoid endangering family in Iran.

UPDATE:

As the evening went on the crowd became larger (and noisier) in an incredibly well natured but poignant demonstration of the rights people in Iran are dying for. The only police involvement was from officers trying to keep the swelling crowd within the designated protest area.

We then retired to an excellent Iranian restaurant for post-protest grub.

Not going quietly (photo: LA Times)

Here in London, for anyone wishing to show solidarity with the Iranian people, there will be a demonstration today (9 June) to mark the anniversary of the 1999 Iranian student protests which were also brutally suppressed by the regime. It starts at 6 PM and the organisers request that attendees wear green if possible and meet at 16 Prince’s Gate, SW7. The nearest Tube station is South Kensington.

Alexander Hitchens writes on the new Hitchens-Maher blog on Standpoint about the tactics of the Iranian police state:

A Farsi language website affiliated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard,http://www.gerdab.ir/, has published pictures of Iranian protesters, asking viewers to identify the ‘criminals’.

On one of these web pages, the pictures numbered 1 and 19 are stamped with the word ‘identified’.  There is also a second page of circled faces, which have yet to be identified.

These tactics should serve as yet another reminder (as if we needed one) as to the type of state we are dealing with: a totalitarian, theocratic gangster regime, marshalled by a ruthless and invasive secret police.

The Iranian state has also threatened further crackdowns on student protests:

The warning was issued after the G8 world powers expressed “serious concern” over the violence unleashed after the hotly-disputed re-election of hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad which left at least 20 people dead.
Iranian authorities have banned all gatherings amid a fierce crackdown on protestors, reformists, journalists and political activists after the election crisis which rattled the pillars of the 30-year-old Islamic republic.
Witnesses said leaflets were being distributed in several Tehran squares urging people to join a march on Thursday to mark the 10th anniversary of student protests which were violently suppressed by the authorities.
“No permission for a gathering or march has been requested or issued,” Tehran governor Morteza Tamadon said in a strongly worded statement to the official news agency IRNA.
“But if some people make moves that are contrary to security initiatives under the influence of anti-revolutionary networks, they will be trampled under the feet of our alert people.”

Thousands of people are planning to silently march through more than 200 cities and towns in unauthorised demonstrations. The demonstrators intend to show their discontent over the reelection last month of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and commemorate the 10th anniversary of a violent confrontation between students and security forces.

Iranian Police Chief Gen. Ismail Ahmadi Moghaddam vowed Wednesday in a statement broadcast on state television that his forces would confront any demonstration, and some officials warned that the Revolutionary Guard would be deployed to back anti-riot police and pro-government Basiji militiamen.

Tehran’s governor-general Morteza Tamaddon said any protesters would receive a “crushing” response. “No request was made for any permit for rallies on Thursday and no permit has been issued,” he said, according to the Islamic Republic News Agency.

“The enemies of the Iranian nation are angry with the post-election calm in Iran and try to damage it through their TV channels,” he said.

The statement by the Association of Researchers and Teachers of Qom is an act of defiance against the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has made clear he will tolerate no further challenges to Mr Ahmadinejad’s “victory” over Mir Hossein Mousavi.

“It’s a clerical mutiny,” said one Iranian analyst. “This is the first time ever you have all these big clerics openly challenging the leader’s decision.” Another, in Tehran, said: “We are seeing the birth of a new political front.”

Professor Ali Ansari, head of Iranian Studies at St Andrews University, said: “It’s highly significant. It shows this is nowhere near resolved.”

Those who like to make the self-consciously “unpopular” and “contrarian” point of suggesting that only the urban bazari classes of the metropolises have disputed the re-election of Ahmadinejad, this development should give them something to think about.

Today a new round of repression is underway in Iran.

Here is something you can do about it. An anniversary demonstration at the Iranian embassy in London is scheduled for this Thursday, starting at 6 PM. Please wear green and come along to 16 Prince’s Gate, SW7. The nearest Tube station is South Kensington.

The only point – and I hope this leads other British bloggers to echo this call – is to show solidarity with the Iranian people.

In fact, as one Iranian exile tells me, people who “come selling newspapers and lecturing the people on what they should do” are not wanted. “Just join and express solidarity”, the exile says.

Please come.

****

Post by habibi

Neda Agha-Soltan, the 27 year old shot in the chest by the Islamic regime of Iran’s Baseeji security forces on June 20 died before our very eyes.

We witnessed her last breaths; and felt the rage of the millions on the streets of Iran.

In an interview with Persian media, her fiancé, Caspian Makan, said that some news sites had erroneously reported that she was a supporter of Mousavi. ‘This is not the case’ he said, ‘She was never supportive of either of these two groups. She wanted freedom; freedom for everyone.’

There are times in history when individuals or tragic events become symbols and, today, Neda has become ours.

She symbolises all the beloved we have lost to this indiscriminate killing machine. But she also represents the refusal to kneel and the desire for a life worthy of 21st century humanity.

On Friday, June 26, come out to remember Neda and the over 200 killed during these past few days and to show your solidarity with the people’s revolutionary movement in Iran. June 26 is significant because four global union organisations representing over 170 million workers have called a worldwide action day to demand justice for Iranian workers.

We can and must turn this day into a day of condemnation of the Islamic regime.

To see Maryam Namazie’s interview with Fariborz Pooya and Bahram Soroush on the June 26 day of action and things you can do, click here:

And an interview on the situation in Iran.

To see Fariborz Pooya’s interview with Hamid Taqvaee on the demand to isolate the Islamic regime and shut down its embassies, click here.

To see received messages of solidarity, click here.

Send your messages of solidarity with the people of Iran

to be read over our 24 hour New Channel TV station to wpibriefing@gmail.com.

To listen to Maryam Namazie’s interview on BBC radio today on the situation in Iran, click here (begins at 7:00 minutes).

To read Maryam’s letter to the editor published in the Evening Standard, click here.

To read an indepth interview with Hamid Taqvaee on the election farce in Iran, click here.

For details on the various demonstrations on June 26, click here.

Some of the demonstrations are listed below. They will be held at consulates and embassies of the Islamic Republic of Iran:

Ottawa, Canada, 12-3pm
Copenhagen, Denmark, 12pm
Helsinki, Finland, 11am
Frankfurt, Germany, 11am
Bern, Switzerland, 12pm
Canberra, Australia, 12pm
Stockholm, Sweden, 12pm
London, UK, 12:30, 16 Princes Gate, London SW7 IPT

There is also a march organised on Saturday 27 June beginning at 2pm at the former Bank Melli building (High Street Kensington station) and moving towards the Islamic regime’s embassy from 2:30pm with a demonstration at the embassy from 3-6pm.

You can also get up to date information on the situation in Iran here.

Map of election results and return data *IranTracker

This via IranTracker: Official results certainly seem to show an Ahmadinejad victory. The vote rigging accusation seems incidental despite the pleas of Ayatollah Khamenie. It is just one of a catalogue of recriminations and anger binding hundreds of thousands of Iranians into a mass passive insurgency against a brutal totalitarian theocratic government led by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

And this is the shape of that insurgency:

[Very disturbing - view with caution]

7:20 مورخه 20 ژوئن، سی خرداد، Basij shots to death a young woman in Tehran’s Saturday June 20th protests At 19:05 June 20th Place: Karekar Ave., at the corner crossing Khosravi St. and Salehi st. A young woman who was standing aside with her father watching the protests was shot by a basij member hiding on the rooftop of a civilian house. He had clear shot at the girl and could not miss her. However, he aimed straight her heart. I am a doctor, so I rushed to try to save her. But the impact of the gunshot was so fierce that the bullet had blasted inside the victim’s chest, and she died in less than 2 minutes. The protests were going on about 1 kilometers away in the main street and some of the protesting crowd were running from tear gass used among them, towards Salehi St. The film is shot by my friend who was standing beside me. Please let the world know.

Protests in Tehran:

There are demonstrations in front of the Iranian Embassy every day.

Protest this Thursday 18 June, 6-8pm – or any day – outside the Iranian Embassy in London,

16 Princes Gate, SW7 1PT

Spread the word via twitter, facebook, myspace and your email address book.

Show the Iranian people that they are not alone.

Show the Tehran regime that the humane world is against its vote-rigging and tyranny.

We don’t want to  post pictures of the murder and brutality that is being meted out to ordinary Iranians right now.  The photos and footage coming out of Iran are extremely bloody and very disturbing.

If you would like to see what is happening in Iran, here is one picture and one piece of footage.  The picture is from the protest clashes in Shiraz, the film footage is an Isfahan university student.

These are ordinary people who have been calling for democratic rights, from their own government, in their own country. This is what the Islamic Republic has done to them.

For the last 30 years, Hossein Montazeri has been a vocal critic of the Iran’s domestic and foreign policy and an advocate of civil and women’s rights in the Islamic Republic.

Montazeri has published an open letter which has been translated into English and posted here.

In the name of God

People of Iran

These last days, we have witnessed the lively efforts of you brothers and sisters, old and young alike, from any social category, for the 10th presidential elections.

Our youth, hoping to see their rightful will fulfilled, came on the scene and waited patiently. This was the greatest occasion for the government’s officials to bond with their people.

But unfortunately, they used it in the worst way possible. Declaring results that no one in their right mind can believe, and despite all the evidence of crafted results, and to counter people protestations, in front of the eyes of the same nation who carried the weight of a revolution and 8 years of war, in front of the eyes of local and foreign reporters, attacked the children of the people with astonishing violence. And now they are attempting a purge, arresting intellectuals, political opponents and Scientifics.

Now, based on my religious duties, I will remind you :

1- A legitimate state must respect all points of view. It may not oppress all critical views. I fear that this lead to the lost of people’s faith in Islam.

2- Given the current circumstances, I expect the government to take all measures to restore people’s confidence. Otherwise, as I have already said, a government not respecting people’s vote has no religious or political legitimacy.

3- I invite everyone, specially the youth, to continue reclaiming their dues in calm, and not let those who want to associate this movement with chaos succeed.

4- I ask the police and army personals not to “sell their religion”, and beware that receiving orders will not excuse them before god. Recognize the protesting youth as your children. Today censor and cutting telecommunication lines can not hide the truth.

I pray for the greatness of the Iranian people.

Is there anyone out there who still thinks that it’s all “Western agents”, “US imperialism” and “the West’s double standards”?

Yes unfortunately, there still is.

The second day of protests have flared up in Iran in retaliation against the re-election of incumbent president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It is now an accepted fact that the Iranian election results have been rigged against the opposition candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi.

“When the leader did not respond to Rafsanjani’s protest letter,” said another man standing by, “I knew the game was over. We should have never voted in the first place.” He was referring to Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the head of Iran’s Expediency Council, who had written a letter to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei last week, sharply criticizing Ahmadinejad’s accusations against him and his family in a TV debate, and asking that the leader ensure fair elections.

“This is a mammoth battle between the two Islamic Republic dinosaurs,” said Reza, a 28-year old accountant, watching the protests from inside a flower shop.

Ahmadinejad’s supposed “landslide victory” is being called a hoax by simple extrapolation of the election data by Tehran Bureau:

Statistically and mathematically, it is impossible to maintain such perfect linear relations between the votes of any two candidates in any election — and at all stages of vote counting. This is particularly true about Iran, a large country with a variety of ethnic groups who usually vote for a candidate who is ethnically one of their own. For example, in the present elections, Mr. Mousavi is an Azeri and speaks Turkish. The Azeries make up 1/4 of all the eligible voters in Iran and in his trips to Azerbaijan province, where most of the Azeri population lives, Mr. Mousavi had been greeted by huge rallies in support of his campaign. Likewise, Mr. Karroubi, the other reformist candidate, is a Lor. But according to the data released by Iran’s Interior Ministry, in both cases, Mr. Ahmadinejad has far outdone both candidates in their own provinces of birth and among their own ethnic populations.

Juan Cole’s comment points out logical irregularities and political manoeuvring.

But just as a first reaction, this post-election situation looks to me like a crime scene. And here is how I would reconstruct the crime.

As the real numbers started coming into the Interior Ministry late on Friday, it became clear that Mousavi was winning. Mousavi’s spokesman abroad, filmmaker Mohsen Makhbalbaf, alleges that the ministry even contacted Mousavi’s camp and said it would begin preparing the population for this victory.

The ministry must have informed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who has had a feud with Mousavi for over 30 years, who found this outcome unsupportable. And, apparently, he and other top leaders had been so confident of an Ahmadinejad win that they had made no contingency plans for what to do if he looked as though he would lose.

Henry Newman has a superb article in the Guardian on the crisis. His conclusion is particularly pertinent.

Out on the streets, Iranians have bravely defended their rights to participate in their politics, demanding back their “stolen” votes. While I have deep concerns for their safety and fear the violence of the revolutionary state, I applaud their courage and determination to stand up for their democratic rights and to command their own destiny.

Predictably Press TV, the Iranian regime’s English language propaganda mouthpiece has zero-coverage on the popular protests and the crisis unfolding in Iran.

The Syrian Foreign Minister urges certain Arab countries not to be deceived by Israeli media hype which tries to spread Iranophobia in the Middle East.

Too right, there are absolutely no rational reasons why Arab countries might be worried by Iran. None at all. It must be Iranophobia.

Taheri’s recent article in the WSJ on Iran’s designs of expansionism in the face of Obama’s “perceived” retreat from the Middle East is insightful. Covering the dynamics of Iran’s engagement and real-politik with six of its immediate neighbours, Egypt, Lebanon, Bahrain, Morocco, Kuwait and Jordan.

Information published by Egyptian and other Arab intelligence services, and reported in the Egyptian and other Arab media, reveal a sophisticated Iranian strategy operating at various levels. The outer circle consists of a number of commercial companies, banks and businesses active in various fields and employing thousands of locals in each targeted country. In Egypt, for example, police have uncovered more than 30 such Iranian “front” companies, according to the pan-Arab daily newspaper Asharq Alawsat. In Syria and Lebanon, the numbers reportedly run into hundreds.

In the next circle, Iranian-financed charities offer a range of social and medical services and scholarships that governments often fail to provide. Another circle consists of “cultural” centers often called Ahl e Beit (People of the House) supervised by the offices of the supreme leader. These centers offer language classes in Persian, English and Arabic, Islamic theology, Koranic commentaries, and traditional philosophy — alongside courses in information technology, media studies, photography and filmmaking.

Wherever possible, the fourth circle is represented by branches of Hezbollah operating openly. Where that’s not possible, clandestine organizations do the job, either alone or in conjunction with Sunni radical groups.

The Khomeinist public diplomacy network includes a half-dozen satellite television and radio networks in several languages, more than 100 newspapers and magazines, a dozen publishing houses, and thousands of Web sites and blogs controlled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The network controls thousands of mosques throughout the region where preachers from Iran, or trained by Iranians, disseminate the Khomeinist revolutionary message.

Tehran has also created a vast network of non-Shiite fellow travelers within the region’s political and cultural elites. These politicians and intellectuals may be hostile to Khomeinism on ideological grounds — but they regard it as a powerful ally in a common struggle against the American “Great Satan.”

Don’t you just love it when Sunni and Shi’a Islamists cast their differences aside and decide to just get along?

Brought to you by the Islamic Thinkers Society

In Britain, freedom of consciousness and liberalism thrive. Women can choose to wear the hijab (headscarf) or not, and so Katharine Quarmby can ponder at will its aesthetic and fashion implications. In Iran, however, such a luxury is unimaginable. A woman’s worth and modesty is dictated by misogynist Islamist clerics who force women to wear the hijab and throw feminists in jail for daring to protest for equal human rights.

Unfortunately, some do not appreciate the freedoms held in Britain. In a recent talk I attended, Alastair Crooke, a former MI6 agent, labels what we see in Iran as ‘Muslim values’, praising Iran’s leaders for using their ‘creative imaginative faculties’ to construct a society based on collective ‘Islamic’ norms. Most Iranian women recognise this as Khomeini’s politicisation of religion. Crooke rejected the idea that the Iranian regime abuses a woman’s human rights, as these are a ‘Western’ construct – Christian, capitalist and rooted in individualism.

Worryingly, a female member of the audience drew an analogy between the state imposing the hijab on women and society allowing breast enlargement adverts in London’s tube. Such an analogy is false: the British state is not forcing her to get bigger breasts. She will not be lashed 80 times and thrown into jail for refusing. Iran’s former prosecutor general, Abolfazl Musavi-Tabrizi, said “anyone who rejects the principle of hijab in Iran is an apostate, and the punishment for an apostate under Islamic law is death.” No government official in Britain says this about not adopting, in principle, ‘Western values’. State-enforced moral prescriptions can only remind us of the last century’s totalitarian experiments.

Of course, in some social circles, there are pressures to wear the hijab. In Qatar, where I grew up, the law does not require the hijab for women. Instead, society expects it: for local women to not wear it in public is social suicide. My Qatari friends wore it, and though I am not Qatari, I felt pressurised to wear it too, thinking this was required for Muslim women to be more pious. I moved to London for university and took it off; I felt guilty doing so, thinking I would be punished. I even pretended to some friends that I still wore it; they would have thought that I was immodest and my faith in Islam was weak!

Meeting diverse Muslims in this country—some of whom like me removed their hijab—made me realise that there are other Islamic interpretations that say the hijab is not required. This interpretation is not less valid, even though it may not be mainstream opinion. Modesty and virtue, a justification often cited, comes from within – if I can achieve this aim without the hijab then I am no worse for believing that it is not required by God. In fact, I get annoyed when Muslims – and non-Muslim – define or measure my ‘Muslimness’ on a metre of cloth.

However, when women are not afforded this choice, and are forced to abide by only one religious interpretation of female modesty, of course they will express their individuality by wearing Bengali or Indian fabrics as hijab. Women expressing themselves thus in Iran is a microcosm of political protest against the very clerics who demand a uniformed appearance on their version of morals. To say one does not like wearing it out of vanity is belittling the hijab to those who choose or are forced to wear it.

Religion is a personal matter; there is a difference in choosing how to express religiosity as opposed to being forced to by a state that defines morality through narrow and rigid religious interpretations. Accepting that human behaviours differ even within one society or religion is a basic tenet of human rights. Britain’s liberal society protects my right to practice my faith however I see fit. Such rights are not, as Crooke thinks, solely Western; but are the rights of all.