Some Iran Updates

-

~ Mir Hossein Mousavi calls on his followers to not allow the government to steal the election and calls for more action. Juan Cole has posted a translation of Mousavi’s letter.
~ Grand Ayatollah Montazeri has condemned the attacks on civilians and called for three days of mourning for them.
~ Arrests continue. No one has reported seeing either Mousavi or Rafsanjani out publicly today.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

29 comments on “Some Iran Updates

  1. chi hair straightener says:

    I have a story.one mother says she’s aware something is very wrong, but she doesn’t want to hear about it because she just wants to “be with her children and see them grow up happy.” I tell her ,“But, if we don’t stop this, your children may not get to grow up at all.” so basically, she’s using her kids as an excuse for her own inability to face reality.

    Reply

  2. Dan Kervick says:

    Yes, interesting supposition Paul. The beef seems to be with the BBC and VOA, since these are state run operations. But they seem to have been harsher on the BBC than the VOA.

    Reply

  3. Paul Norheim says:

    “Do you know why the Iranians have been so determined to single out the UK as the chief
    source of foreign intervention?” (Dan Kervick)
    I haven´t yet seen any attempt to answer that question anywhere. You may also ask: why
    didn`t they single out the Americans? Perhaps they want to blame the foreigners to divert
    from the internal power struggle, but want to keep the doors open for Obama, to see, when
    all this is over, what his invitation to dialog really implies?
    So they blamed the UK instead.

    Reply

  4. questions says:

    Kind of depends on general strikes maybe. If regular workers of all stripes get in on work stoppage, then my guess is that the gov’t falls at some level. It won’t just be street rebellion, some death and the occasional burning of a car; it’ll be the whole economy.
    It’s hard to get EVERYone out into the streets, but not so hard to convince people to stay home from work, especially if the streets are either full of demonstrators and fires, or full of “security” agents.
    Keep in mind that even if there were “agents provacateurs,” the people who respond have agency as well. Individuals make decisions and aren’t merely victims of some naive version of false consciousness or whatever.
    Also, don’t omit mention of the fact that a LOT more votes were cast than there were actual voters. There really was pretty massive fraud.

    Reply

  5. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “But unless something really big happens, the crisis will now peter out. Unfortunately the damage done to Iran’s image will only be repaired over a longer time frame. That was certainly not the intend of the people on the streets in Tehran, but likely the intend of the people who planed and started this”
    Bingo.

    Reply

  6. erichwwk says:

    From b at moonofalabama.org:
    Is It Over?
    Juan Cole headlines: Downtown Tehran Burning. That is wishful thinking and certainly not the only thing he got wrong.
    Is the ‘revolution’ in Tehran that was none over as Arnold Evans assumes? [ arnold writes the blog mideastreality.blogspot.com ]
    While not certain I think mostly yes.
    With only 3,000 fighting in the streets yesterday there are too few willing to seriously challenge the government’s authority. It seems that expressing discontent and frustration is one thing and risking ones health for a change in government something else. The police and other government forces have not turned on the government and as long as do not do so there is little chance that the few will have any effect but to disgruntle their compatriots by disturbing their daily business.
    I doubt that a general strike Mousavi asks for will happen. He does not have the charisma, the numbers and cause to do lead one.
    There will be a few more rowdy nights in Tehran, lots of faked or not faked violence videos for the ‘western’ voyeurs and the usual ‘western’ officials who will feign outrage.
    But unless something really big happens, the crisis will now peter out. Unfortunately the damage done to Iran’s image will only be repaired over a longer time frame. That was certainly not the intend of the people on the streets in Tehran, but likely the intend of the people who planed and started this.
    Posted by b on June 21, 2009 at 11:44 AM

    Reply

  7. questions says:

    Another twist, via HuffPo, still needing some amount of confirmation…..
    Moreover, the letter (the authenticity of which has, again, not been verified) charges that the arrest of Rafsanjani’s daughter Faezeh on Sunday was a way to exert pressure on him, and that she was followed and identified by the intelligence services during the rally.
    More translation via a reader:
    It says Khamenai has lung cancer and wanted to have his son as Supreme Leader (the position that Rafsanjani wants), and that the attempt to alter the election results was done in an attempt by Khamenei to eventually allow his son Mojtaba to replace him. It says that at the core the argument is not just about Mousavi but the overall system of government, as it’s becoming a like Monarchy rather than a republic. So far, it says, most of the clerics have not accepted Ahmadinejad presidency, and quotes Ayatollah Javadi Amoly saying of the attack on Tehran University students, ‘no Muslim will destroy another’s property, they must be foreigners.’
    ********
    Who knows….

    Reply

  8. Paul Norheim says:

    BBC today:
    “Speaking at a news conference on Monday, foreign ministry spokesman Hassan Qashqavi accused Western
    governments of explicitly backing violent protests aimed at undermining the stability of Iran’s Islamic Republic.
    “Spreading anarchy and vandalism by Western powers and also Western media… these are not at all accepted,” he said.
    (…)
    “They [the BBC and the VOA] are the mouthpiece of their government’s public diplomacy,” Mr Qashqavi said.
    “They have two guidelines regarding Iran. One is to intensify ethnical and racial rifts within Iran and secondly to
    disintegrate the Iranian territories.”
    “Any contact with these channels, under any pretext or in any form, means contacting the enemy of the Iranian
    nation.”
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8112176.stm
    ————————————————–
    I see this as a tactical attempt to divert the attention from the domestic rift within the population and the Iranian elite.
    As a strategy, it may backfire. As I said in a thread below:
    The regime is expelling traditional journalists from more or less well respected international newspapers and
    TV-stations. This leaves the field wide open for any person or organization from any country with access to
    a PC or a mobile phone. Some of these operators may actually have far more sinister motives than the
    mainstream media – sinister also in the eyes of the oppressive regime.
    The way Iran is dealing with this may backfire. Just like the Iranian leadership in the 1970`s, the Iranian
    leadership in 2009 does not like the BBC. But one may ask whether completely uncontrolled twittering,
    propaganda and false rumors intentionally spread from Israel, USA, Arab and European countries does serve
    the interests of Ahmedinejad and the supreme leader any better then the BBC and CNN?
    The mainstream media have agendas that are often opposed to those of the regimes under threat. But even
    authoritarian regimes may soon regret expelling traditional media, when they realize that the alternative may
    be worse also for them.
    Twenty years ago, if you shut down domestic oppositional papers and radio stations, and expelled foreign
    media, you more or less controlled the information. If you do the same now, you actually end up having less
    control.
    The only country I know of that have solved this paradox – from a machiavellian point of view – is not China,
    but Ethiopia. The Ethiopian regime doesn`t bother to censor much on the internet. They don`t need to do
    so, as long as they maintain the slowest broadband connection in the world.

    Reply

  9. James says:

    Juan Cole’s excerpt and link to a Chatham House report on the Iran election appears to leave no doubt that the election was stolen. Very convincing. Comments?

    Reply

  10. Paul Norheim says:

    Juan Cole today:
    “Reformist presidential aspirant Mir Hosain Mousavi called Monday morning for another round of big street protests by
    his supporters against the attempt of the regime to steal the election for hard liner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
    FT points out that given Mousavi’s continued challenge to Khamenei’s decisions, the regime may well arrest him, feeling
    the step is necessary to remove his freedom of action. Of course, Iranian Shiites all know the pitfalls of creating martyrs,
    since the religion is all about resisting the tyrants in history who made the martyrs. An arrest of Mousavi would either
    push Iran over the brink or would indeed consolidate power for the time being in the hands of the hard liners.
    There were no large rallies on Sunday, which the BBC attributes to the security forces fanning through the streets. But
    the security forces had fanned through the streets on Saturday, too. More likely, the reformists were regrouping after
    the violence and clamp down on Saturday (…)”
    http://www.juancole.com/

    Reply

  11. Paul Norheim says:

    On Tuesday Mossad chief Meir Dagan said to the Jerusalem Post that “the Islamic Republic will have a nuclear bomb
    ready for use by 2014. Speaking to the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee several days after the
    disputed Iranian elections, Dagan said that “what matters is the position of the [supreme] leader and this has not
    changed.””
    One may ask why Mossad now suddenly is saying that Iran will not get the bomb until Ahmadinejad`s (and Obama`s
    first) presidential term is over?

    Reply

  12. Paul Norheim says:

    I agree with Carroll here. As Steve (and Roger Cohen in NYT) said, the “mystique” or the “aura” of the supreme
    leader is gone. Any rival from the elite, any new supreme leader or (plural) leadership installed by Rafsanjani will
    be far more vulnerable from now off. And if the people think that Rafsanjani is corrupt, the suspicion will also fall
    upon the “spiritual” leadership supporting him.

    Reply

  13. Carroll says:

    Posted by samuelburke, Jun 21 2009, 9:16PM – Link
    “tough crowd in here…what makes some americans so skeptical of the iranian green revolution?”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Rafsanjani. The wannbe power behind the power.
    Why would Rafsanjani who aligned himself with the very violent MEK terrorist, who thought nothing of blowing up innocent civilians, including Americans, for their “cause” be any different than the current Mullahs who are assaulting the students to hang onto their power?
    The students may be green but the wannabe power behind the power isn’t green.

    Reply

  14. Carroll says:

    I’am with Col.Lang.
    http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2009/06/game-changer-in-iran.html
    Game changer” in Iran
    The paradigm that I have been thinking within regarding the future of Iranian-US-Israeli relations is no longer valid.
    You could see that today in the appearance of Bibi Natanyahu on “Meet the Press.” When pressed by David Gregory concerning Iran, he displayed hesitation and uncertainty in his responses. That is a good thing.
    A fuse has been lit in Iran. The mullahcracy has shown itself to not be the expression of God’s will in the vilayet al-faqih. No, they are shown now to be just another bunch of sleezy politicians intent on keeping all power and willig to kill to accomplixh that goal. Khamenei may win this round with the IRGC and Baseejis behind him but there will be other rounds in this contest. The higher ranks of the Shia scholars have already begun to split. How many among them will want to be associated with the suppression of popular will?
    A brutal repression of a popular uprising is rarely decisive. The British put down the Easter, 1916 revolt in Dublin with great ferocity, but six years later they no longer thought it was worthwhile to try to hold Ireland. There are many such examples.
    This IS a game changer. The process may take a while but nothing will be the same after this.” pl >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I don’t think the student revolt will win this round. This is still a power play between elites with Iranian populace doing the heavy lifting on a hope and a wish. The good that may come is the “movement” may mature and eventually overtake both the mullahcracy elites and the Rafsanjani elite.
    However if the students are successful there will be no excuse for everyone not signing up for my BWTGASO.

    Reply

  15. erichwwk says:

    The way news is being handled becomes curiouser and curiouser. I have been a fan of MK Bhadrakumar for years and have a google alert set for him. I have linked to his take on the Iranian upheaval recently on other posts at TWN.
    So… as I come home just now, I notice several new alerts for MK Bhadrakumar, one of which is at dailykos.com
    However, when I attempt to activate the link:
    Google News Alert for: M K Bhadrakumar
    Iranian Protests: Read Between The Lines And Remember History
    Daily Kos – Berkeley,CA,USA
    Today, one such Asian voice is retired Indian diplomat, MK Bhadrakumar, as he comments on China’s reaction to Iran. Bhadrakumar skillfully weaves the …
    I get:
    “Sorry. I can’t seem to find that story. j 1 k 1 l
    Tags: Iran, illiberal democracy, authoritarian regime, foreign policy, Asia Times, protests, 2009 (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions
    View Comments | 89 comments”
    So I google MK Bhadrakumar, domain = dailykos.com and again get a dead link that is cached. The cache reveals a very interesting post on Saturday, June 20 by a Nulwee, who has a Sunday June 21, 2008 post and many older ones, but all traces of this post expect for google cache has seemingly been expunged, and w/o having the alert, no one would know of its existence????
    Any explanation from readers here?
    I don’t usually copy entire posts, but because of the purge, as well as the content, I will repost much of this one:
    Reading Between The Lines On The “Reformers” And Mullahs by Nulwee Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 03:05:06 PM PDT
    There’s still so much analysis of Iran that is wrong, wrong, wrong. We’re caught in a whirlwind of tweets and reports and what we’re forgetting is that information comes with a bias or two. We’re casting our emotional archetypes onto leaders as if they were actors on a tv show.
    Now I’m bringing other voices. From Iran’s history, from China, from India. And they caution us to step back for a moment while they share their insight:
    * Nulwee’s diary :: ::
    *
    A week ago I warned about this crackdown, while people cheered the death of the Islamic Republic of Iran prematurely:
    The Foreign Media Are Witnesses! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lynwaz, kyril, Olon
    Ahmadinejad is getting them OUT so he can begin the repression! They know what they’re doing. Notice how the violence is not [yet] the kind of level many Americans/Westerners would expect from the repressive government? Because they’re holding back.
    They are going to try to repress the people, and if Khamenei does redo the vote, no doubt he’ll stand by as voters are intimidated into not voting or going for Ahmadinejad…
    by Nulwee on Sun Jun 14, 2009 at 11:57:41 PM PDT
    How did I know this was going to happen a week ago? Much of my information comes in real time: tweets and Sullivan and the rec list. But more flows from scholar Reza Aslan, Director Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council, Iranian history itself and other topical Asian voices. Today, one such Asian voice is retired Indian diplomat, MK Bhadrakumar, as he comments on China’s reaction to Iran. Bhadrakumar skillfully weaves the history of these 30-year politicians back into the dialogue. For starters? How about the popular but-wrong CW that reformers are battling the theocracy?
    Imam Khomeini was wary of the Iranian mullahs and he created the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps as an independent force to ensure the mullahs didn’t hijack the revolution. Equally, his preference was that the government should be headed by non-clerics. In the early years of the revolution, the conspiracies hatched by the triumvirate of Beheshti-Rafsanjani-Rajai who engineered the ouster of the secularist leftist president Bani Sadr (who was Khomeini’s protege), had the agenda to establish a one-party theocratic state. These are vignettes of Iran’s revolutionary history that might have eluded the intellectual grasp of George W Bush, but Obama must be au fait with the deviousness of Rafsanjani’s politics.
    The same Ayatollah Rafsanjani later became the reformist president of Iran, who lost a 2005 bid to Ahmadinejad and set the stage for today. That the “economically liberal, politically authoritarian, [emphasis mine] and philosophically traditional” former president is corrupt as a Roman senator and tied himself to Mousavi was a constant source of attack for Ahmadinejad’s side in the run-up to this moment. Why would the “reformist” lose to Ahmadinejad? An article from 2005:
    In retrospect, Ahmadinejad’s popularity—he outpolled Rafsanjani by 7 million votes—reflects public anger at corruption and broken promises of more jobs and prosperity. “We underestimated the degree to which they [Iranians] were angered by Rafsanjani’s corruption,” says Takeyh. He says there has been “a shift in Iranian public attitudes” from lofty, revolutionary goals to pragmatically getting things done—a quality that worked to Ahmadinejad’s advantage. “It’s a vote for efficiency as opposed to idealism.”
    In 2005, working class people rebelled against the theocracy by voting for Ahmadinejad. Yet at the same time, Ahmadinejad is a former military-intelligence man (Pasdaran) and this was a strike by the Pasdaran against the mullahs. Now that Pasdaran people occupy one third of the Majles (parliament) and much of Iran’s economy, they are quite hostile to the clerics chipping away at their power. Of course, they’re a branch of the same Revolutionary Guard that Khomeini created and used to stem the mullahs’ power-grab.
    Mousavi is the affable front man for the mullahs, who fear that another four years of Ahmadinejad would hurt their vested interests. Ahmadinejad has already begun marginalizing the clergy from the sinecures of power and the honey pots of the Iranian economy, especially the oil industry.
    This is not as sexy as good guy, bad guy. Bellicose nationalism is the option for Iran’s working poor. If those now chanting “Death to the Dictator” oust Supreme Leader Khamenei somehow (doubtful) the slew of secondary mullahs would be free to hoard influence.
    And the US might get caught off-guard over what to do when the dominoes fall:
    If Rafsanjani’s putsch succeeds, Iran would at best bear resemblance to a decadent outpost of the “pro-West” Persian Gulf. Would a dubious regime be durable? More important, is it what Obama wishes to see as the destiny of the Iranian people? The Arab street is also watching. Iran is an exception in the Muslim world where people have been empowered. Iran’s multitudes of poor, who form Ahmadinejad’s support base, detest the corrupt, venal clerical establishment. They don’t even hide their visceral hatred of the Rafsanjani family.
    Alas, the political class in Washington is clueless about the Byzantine world of Iranian clergy. Egged on by the Israeli lobby, it is obsessed with “regime change”. The temptation will be to engineer a “color revolution”. But the consequence will be far worse than what obtains in Ukraine. Iran is a regional power and the debris will fall all over. The US today has neither the clout nor the stamina to stem the lava flow of a volcanic eruption triggered by a color revolution that may spill over Iran’s borders.
    Remember that Bhadrakumar is commenting on Chinese attitude, which is concerned with security and stability foremost. But he is right, this is why Saudi Arabia and the US supported the Iraqi invasion of Iran in the 1980s. Preventing the fledgling practice of Islamic democracy from spreading to the Arab world and undermining authoritarian power and changing the status quo in the oil business, respectively. As the French revolution and Haitian political history show us in the West, democratic movements do not always travel on a linear course. They are often interrupted, subverted and turned in on themselves, becoming nightmares not only for their people but also their regions. Meddle in a fight between militant nationalists and money-loving clerics and a military dictatorship could prevail.
    Beware the neo-cons and their sugary promises of freedom.
    Tags: Iran, illiberal democracy, authoritarian regime, foreign policy, Asia Times, protests, 2009 (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions
    Permalink | 84 comments
    The google cache is here:
    http://tiny.cc/RPnt4

    Reply

  16. JamesL says:

    Now it’s really escalating! Excerpt:
    “Iran’s Guardian Council has suggested that the number of votes collected in 50 cities surpass the number of people eligible to cast ballot in those areas.”
    ”The council’s Spokesman Abbas-Ali Kadkhodaei, who was speaking on the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) Channel 2 on Sunday, made the remarks in response to complaints filed by Mohsen Rezaei — a defeated candidate in the June 12 Presidential election. “
    “Statistics provided by the candidates, who claim more than 100% of those eligible have cast their ballot in 80-170 cities are not accurate — the incident has happened in only 50 cities,” Kadkhodaei said.”
    http://www.presstv.ir/detail/98711.htm?sectionid=351020101

    Reply

  17. karenk says:

    Montezari is a guy we could work with…more open…

    Reply

  18. easy e says:

    Dan Kervick, Jun 21 2009, 8:06PM – Link
    Steve,
    Do you know why the Iranians have been so determined to single out the UK as the chief source of foreign intervention?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Great point Dan.
    Perhaps it’s the Brit’s colonialist history in that part of the world.
    IRAN AND BRITISH COLONIALISM
    http://www.ir-psri.com/Show.php?Page=ViewHighlight&HighlightID=126&SP=Farsi
    British Colonialism and Repression in Iraq
    http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/169/36418.html
    British Empire Blamed For Modern Conflicts By UK Foreign Secretary
    http://www.africahistory.net/Britishcolonialism.htm
    not to mention Balfour………
    http://www.mideastweb.org/Middle-East-Encyclopedia/balfour_declaration.htm
    Sure appears that the ole Brits have morphed into……….the U.S. Empire.

    Reply

  19. samuelburke says:

    here is wesley clarke telling the tale….
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXS3vW47mOE

    Reply

  20. easy e says:

    Dan Kervick, Jun 21 2009, 8:06PM – Link
    Steve,
    Do you know why the Iranians have been so determined to single out the UK as the chief source of foreign intervention?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Great point Dan.
    Perhaps it’s the Brit’s colonialist history in that part of the world.
    IRAN AND BRITISH COLONIALISM
    http://www.ir-psri.com/Show.php?Page=ViewHighlight&HighlightID=126&SP=Farsi
    British Colonialism and Repression in Iraq
    http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/169/36418.html
    British Empire Blamed For Modern Conflicts By UK Foreign Secretary
    http://www.africahistory.net/Britishcolonialism.htm
    not to mention Balfour………
    http://www.mideastweb.org/Middle-East-Encyclopedia/balfour_declaration.htm
    Sure appears that the ole Brits have morphed into……….the U.S. Empire.

    Reply

  21. samuelburke says:

    tough crowd in here…what makes some americans so skeptical of the iranian green revolution?
    personally i hope that even if mousavi is swept into the presidency, that iran continnues to insist in their inalienable right to nuclear power for peaceful purposes. otherwise their great nation wil be ramade over to suit the hegemons…usa and its faithful dog israel.
    and if iran does manage to get to enrich uranium to weapons grade…that the opportunity (stale mate) be used as a catalyst to enlist the world elites and their thinktanks and institutions to initiate the elimination of nuclear arms in the middle east and around the world. only a stale mate will cause them to play another hand other than the nation makeover hand that is being played out before our eyes these last few years.
    terrorism schmemorism….guys with razor blades do not a danger to america represent…and the armies and navies of all the muslim nations combined surely do not threaten america in the least.
    without the protection of nuclear weapons all of the muslim nations of the middle east will be made over, one by one.
    the rumsfeld plan…as told by gen wesley clark says that the plan was for seven countries, and lo and behold the numbers grow.

    Reply

  22. ... says:

    “The foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottatki, told foreign diplomats in Tehran today that Iran had faced “an in-flooding of British intelligence officials ahead of the election”. Britain’s foreign secretary, David Miliband, replied: “I reject categorically the idea that the protesters are manipulated by foreign countries.”
    he doesn’t appear to be disputing the point irans foreign minister makes, but it is from the link you left, so it may be missing more britians foreign secretaries remarks….
    perhaps britian was funneling a bit more loot then the americans towards secret op’s inside iran? anything is possible… the usa and britian are like a couple of thugs in cahoots together when it comes to the recent past..apparently criminals like to work together..

    Reply

  23. Dan Kervick says:

    Steve,
    Do you know why the Iranians have been so determined to single out the UK as the chief source of foreign intervention?
    What do your UK friends think.

    Reply

  24. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Leave Iran Alone!
    by Ron Paul
    Statement before the US House of Representatives opposing resolution on Iran, June 19, 2009
    I rise in reluctant opposition to H Res 560, which condemns the Iranian government for its recent actions during the unrest in that country. While I never condone violence, much less the violence that governments are only too willing to mete out to their own citizens, I am always very cautious about “condemning” the actions of governments overseas. As an elected member of the United States House of Representatives, I have always questioned our constitutional authority to sit in judgment of the actions of foreign governments of which we are not representatives. I have always hesitated when my colleagues rush to pronounce final judgment on events thousands of miles away about which we know very little. And we know very little beyond limited press reports about what is happening in Iran.
    Of course I do not support attempts by foreign governments to suppress the democratic aspirations of their people, but when is the last time we condemned Saudi Arabia or Egypt or the many other countries where unlike in Iran there is no opportunity to exercise any substantial vote on political leadership? It seems our criticism is selective and applied when there are political points to be made. I have admired President Obama’s cautious approach to the situation in Iran and I would have preferred that we in the House had acted similarly.
    I adhere to the foreign policy of our Founders, who advised that we not interfere in the internal affairs of countries overseas. I believe that is the best policy for the United States, for our national security and for our prosperity. I urge my colleagues to reject this and all similar meddling resolutions.
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul541.html
    This guy, Ron Paul, is the real deal. A pity the American citizenry once again voted in a posturing fraud, who has proven himself dishonest and opportunistic, breaking a whole slew of the promises that were the foundation of his campaign platform.

    Reply

  25. Dan Kervick says:

    Another interesting report from the Guardian:
    “A deadly crackdown on opposition demonstrators appeared tonight to have punctured the most serious protest movement in Iran since the 1979 revolution, as an eerie quiet settled on Tehran and the regime turned its attention to more familiar enemies overseas.”
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/21/tehran-iran-protest-crackdown

    Reply

  26. ... says:

    rfjk, true… doesn’t change the fact this rafsanjani has a history of working with the usa from a ways back according to this info…

    Reply

  27. rfjk says:

    Over 30 years ago at the dawn and early years of the Iranian republic everyone in Iran had “interesting story lines,” including Mousavi himself. However, this is 2009 and a lot of water has flowed under the bridge transforming not only the times but the personalities who lived through those times too.

    Reply

  28. ... says:

    more from rafsanjani’s wiki page “Rafsanjani has also been involved in the Iran-Contra affair and reportedly received gifts and weapons from the United States in exchange for favors from within the Iranian establishment.”
    interesting connections if i do say so…

    Reply

  29. ... says:

    interesting learning about iranian history off the wiki pages… “As designated heir to Khomeini, Montazeri’s troubles began with his association with Mehdi Hashemi who ran an organization out of Montazeri’s office to export the Islamic revolution. Hashemi is thought to have embarrassed Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani by leaking information of his connection with the Iran-Contra affair. Subsequently Hashemi was arrested, convicted and executed in 1987 on charges of counterrevolutionary activities.[9]”
    this rafsanjani fellow shows up in interesting story lines..

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *