Archive: All
Judiciary Slams Ahmadinejad
October 26, 2012 | 10:17am
On October 21, Iran’s judiciary denied President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad permission to visit his press advisor in Evin prison. Ali Akbar Javanfekr had been arrested and jailed for six months in September while Ahmadinejad was in New York for the U.N. General Assembly. The court convicted him of “insulting the Supreme Leader” and “publishing material contrary to Islamic codes and public morality.”
On October 22, the president wrote judiciary chief Ayatollah Sadegh Larijani that he had a constitutional right to visit the prison without the “permission or agreement of the judiciary.”
Two days later, Larijani countered that the president had an “incorrect understanding of the responsibilities of the three branches of power and the limits of duties.” He told Iran’s student news agency that “on no account will a visit to Evin prison be allowed without coordination.” On the same day, Larijani sent an open letter challenging Ahmadinejad to respect the constitution if he is truly “concerned about the protection of the people’s fundamental rights.”
The confrontation between the president and judiciary chief reflects growing domestic tensions as Ahmadinejad and his inner circle come under fire. The president now has few allies left in the government. His position began to weaken in April 2011, during a public dispute with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei over Ahmadinejad’s dismissal of Intelligence Minister Heidar Moslehi. The president’s supporters also did poorly in both rounds of parliamentary elections in March and May 2012. And on October 23, 102 members of parliament signed a petition summoning Ahmadinejad for questioning on Iran’s growing economic crisis.
The following are excerpts from President Ahmadinejad’s letter, with responses from key Iranian leaders.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Ayatollah Sadegh Larijani
“You have twice insisted that inspecting Evin prison is not in the best interests of the country and you have said that you disapprove of it. But the constitution does not require any permission or approval from the judiciary for the president in administering his legal duties…
“How come administering the constitution is not in the best interests of the country? If that is the view that prevails in the judiciary, can't we assume that some constitutional laws and basic human rights are being violated or neglected – or sacrificed for the best interests of individuals in the judiciary?...
“In a situation where the president…is being so easily accused by you, how can [regular] people of this country, who have no supporter except God, ensure they have judicial security?...
“Based on what article of the constitution, can you [the judiciary] make a political interpretation of an issue and prevent the constitution’s implementation? Can you, as head of the judiciary, issue a verdict based on your political discretion?”
Ayatollah Sadegh Larijani
"This assumption that the president has supervision over other branches of power is totally wrong…It is unconstitutional to claim that the president has the right to visit prisons without permission from the judiciary." October 24 to the Iranian Students News Agency
Prosecutor General Gholam Hossein Mohseni Ejei
“As we are faced with special circumstances and the country's priorities are the economy and people's living conditions... visiting a prison is extraneous... and politically questionable.” October 21 to the Iranian Students New Agency and Mehr News
Hojatoleslam Ali Saeedi, Supreme Leader Khamenei’s representative in the IRGC
“The problem is that presidents confuse their roles and authority with the powers of the Supreme Leader... and they want act outside of their legal authority.” October 22 to Etemad newspaper
Obama, Romney Debate Iran Policy
October 23, 2012 | 10:09am
On October 22, President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney clashed over U.S. policy toward Iran’s nuclear program. During the final presidential debate, Obama claimed U.S.-led sanctions have brought Iran to its "weakest point economically, strategically, [and] militarily.” But Governor Romney asserted that the President’s policies portrayed Washington as “weak” to Tehran. He also said the last four years were “wasted,” since Tehran’s nuclear centrifuges are still spinning. The following are excerpts from the candidates’ comments on Iran.
President Barack Obama
“As long as I'm president of the United States, Iran will not get a nuclear weapon. I've made that clear when I came into office. We then organized the strongest coalition and the strongest sanctions against Iran in history, and it is crippling their economy. Their currency has dropped 80 percent. Their oil production has plunged to the lowest level since they were fighting a war with Iraq 20 years ago. So their economy is in a shambles.
“And the reason we did this is because a nuclear Iran is a threat to our national security and it's threat to Israel's national security. We cannot afford to have a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region of the world.
“Iran's a state sponsor of terrorism, and for them to be able to provide nuclear technology to nonstate actors -- that's unacceptable. And they have said that they want to see Israel wiped off the map.
“So the work that we've done with respect to sanctions now offers Iran a choice. They can take the diplomatic route and end their nuclear program or they will have to face a united world and a United States president, me, who said we're not going to take any options off the table…
“Our goal is to get Iran to recognize it needs to give up its nuclear program and abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place, because they have the opportunity to re-enter the community of nations, and we would welcome that. There are people in Iran who have the same aspirations as people all around the world, for a better life. And we hope that their leadership takes the right decision. But the deal we'll accept is, they end their nuclear program. It's very straightforward…
“The clock is ticking. We're not going to allow Iran to perpetually engage in negotiations that lead nowhere. And I've been very clear to them, you know, because of the intelligence coordination that we do with a range of countries, including Israel, we have a sense of when they would get breakout capacity, which means that we would not be able to intervene in time to stop their nuclear program, and that clock is ticking.
“And we're going to make sure that if they do not meet the demands of the international community, then we are going to take all options necessary to make sure they don't have a nuclear weapon.
“The strength that we have shown in Iran is shown by the fact that we've been able to mobilize the world. When I came into office, the world was divided. Iran was resurgent. Iran is at its weakest point economically, strategically, [and] militarily.”
Governor Mitt Romney
“Iran is the greatest national security threat we face…It's also essential for us to understand what our mission is in Iran, and that is to dissuade Iran from having a nuclear weapon through peaceful and diplomatic means…
“Crippling sanctions were number one. And they do work. You're seeing it right now in the economy. It's absolutely the right thing to do to have crippling sanctions…Number two, something I would add today is I would tighten those sanctions. I would say that ships that carry Iranian oil can't come into our ports. I imagine the EU would agree with us as well…
“I'd take on diplomatic isolation efforts. I'd make sure that Ahmadinejad is indicted under the Genocide Convention. His words amount to genocide incitation. I would indict him for it. I would also make sure that their diplomats are treated like the pariah they are around the world, the same way we treated the apartheid diplomats of South Africa…
“When there were dissidents in the streets of Tehran, the Green Revolution, holding signs saying, is America with us, the president was silent. I think they noticed that as well. And I think that when the president said he was going to create daylight between ourselves and Israel that they noticed that as well.
“All of these things suggested, I think, to the Iranian mullahs that, hey, you know, we can keep on pushing along here; we can keep talks going on, but we're just going to keep on spinning centrifuges. Now there are some 10,000 centrifuges spinning uranium, preparing to create a nuclear threat to the United States and to the world.
“That's unacceptable for us, and it's essential for a president to show strength from the very beginning to make it very clear what is acceptable and not acceptable. And an Iranian nuclear program is not acceptable to us. They must not develop nuclear capability.
“And the way to make sure they understand that is by having from the very beginning the tightest sanctions possible. They need to be tightened. Our diplomatic isolation needs to be tougher. We need to indict Ahmadinejad. We need to put the pressure on them as hard as we possibly can, because if we do that, we won't have to take the military action.”
Click here to watch a portion of the debate on Iran.
Click here for a full transcript of the debate.
Iran, U.S. Deny Report on Bilateral Talks
October 22, 2012 | 12:10pm
On October 20, the New York Times published an article claiming that the United States and Iran had agreed to hold bilateral talks after the U.S. presidential election. The article was allegedly based on comments by anonymous White House officials. Later that night, National Security Council Spokesman Tommy Vietor denied the article’s claim. On October 21, Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi told Fars news agency, “We do not have anything such as talks with the United States.” But he mentioned that Iran plans to negotiate with the P5+1 in late November. The following is Tommy Vietor's October 20 press statement.
Statement by National Security Council Spokesman Tommy Vietor on Iran
It’s not true that the United States and Iran have agreed to one-on-one talks or any meeting after the American elections. We continue to work with the P5+1 on a diplomatic solution and have said from the outset that we would be prepared to meet bilaterally. The President has made clear that he will prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and we will do what we must to achieve that. It has always been our goal for sanctions to pressure Iran to come in line with its obligations. The onus is on the Iranians to do so, otherwise they will continue to face crippling sanctions and increased pressure.
###
Pew: More Americans Favor Firm Stand on Iran
October 22, 2012 | 11:28am
The Pew Research Center conducted a poll on the U.S. public‘s views on the Middle East in early October. Around 56 percent of respondents favored taking a firm stand against Iran, while 35 percent preferred avoiding war. The results were released on October 18, ahead of the final presidential debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. The poll found that 78 percent of Romney’s supporters favor taking a “firm stand,” compared to 43 percent of Obama’s supporters. The following are excerpts from the poll.
Consistent Support for Firm Stance Against Iran
Since 2009, the public has maintained that it is more important to take a strong stand against Iran’s nuclear program than to avoid a military conflict with Iran. In the current survey, 56% say it is more important to take a firm stand against Iranian actions, while just 35% say it is more important to avoid a military conflict with Iran.
There are wide partisan and ideological differences in priorities for dealing with Iran. Fully 84% of conservative Republicans favor taking a firm stand against Iran’s nuclear program. Fewer than half as many liberal Democrats (38%) agree. There also is a sizable age gap in these opinions. Just 44% of those younger than 30 favor taking a strong stand against Iran; clear majorities in older age categories support a firm stance.
Among registered voters, 78% of those who support Romney say it is more important to take a firm stand against Iran; just 17% say it is more important to avoid a military conflict with Iran. Obama supporters are divided – 48% say it is more important to avoid a military conflict, while 43% say it is more important to take a firm stand against Iran.
Click here for the poll.
U.S. Targets Iran-based al Qaeda Branch
October 19, 2012 | 9:37am
On October 18, the U.S. Treasury sanctioned the deputy of an al Qaeda branch operating in Iran. Abdel Radi Saqr al Wahabi al Harbi is responsible for transferring operatives to Afghanistan or Iraq via Iran. Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence David S. Cohen said the United States will “continue targeting this crucial source of al-Qa’ida’s funding and support, as well as highlight Iran’s ongoing complicity in this network’s operation.” The following are excerpts from the U.S. Treasury press release.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury today announced the designation of Adel Radi Saqr al-Wahabi al-Harbi (al-Harbi), a key member of an al-Qa’ida network operating in Iran and led by Iran-based al-Qa’ida facilitator Muhsin al-Fadhli (al-Fadhli). Today's action, taken pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13224, follows Treasury’s designation in July 2011 of Ezedin Abdel Aziz Khalil (AKA Yasin al-Suri) and five other al-Qa’ida members, and underscores that Iran continues to allow al-Qa’ida to operate a core pipeline that moves al-Qa’ida money and fighters through Iran to support al-Qa’ida activities in South Asia. This network also sends funding and fighters to Syria.
“Today’s action, which builds on our action from July 2011, further exposes al-Qa’ida’s critically important Iran-based funding and facilitation network,” said Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence David S. Cohen. “We will continue targeting this crucial source of al-Qa’ida’s funding and support, as well as highlight Iran’s ongoing complicity in this network’s operation.”
Today’s designation freezes any assets Al-Harbi holds under U.S. jurisdiction and prohibits U.S. persons from engaging in transactions with this individual. E.O. 13224 targets terrorists, terrorist organizations, individuals and entities owned or controlled by or acting for or on behalf of designated terrorists or terrorist organizations, and those providing financial, material, or technological support or financial or other services to designated terrorists or terrorist organizations, or for acts of terrorism.
Al-Harbi is an Iran-based al-Qa’ida facilitator who serves as the deputy to al-Fadhli. Al-Fadhli took over the Iran-based facilitation network from Yasin al-Suri in late 2011. In his capacity as the deputy to al-Fadhli in Iran, al-Harbi facilitates the travel of extremists to Afghanistan or Iraq via Iran on behalf of al-Qa’ida, and is believed to have sought funds to support al-Qa’ida attacks. Before joining the Iran-based al-Qa’ida network in early 2011, al-Harbi appeared on the Saudi Arabian Ministry of Interior's Most Wanted List and was charged with traveling to Afghanistan to join al-Qa’ida and providing technical support on the Internet to the terrorist group.
In addition to providing funding for al-Qa’ida activities in Afghanistan and Pakistan, this network is working to move fighters and money through Turkey to support al-Qa’ida-affiliated elements in Syria. Al-Fadhli also is leveraging his extensive network of Kuwaiti jihadist donors to send money to Syria via Turkey.
Click here for the full text.
The Islamists Are Coming
The Islamists Are Coming, edited by Robin Wright, surveys the rise of Islamist groups in the wake of the Arab Spring. Often lumped together, the more than 50 Islamist parties with millions of followers now constitute a whole new spectrum—separate from either militants or secular parties. They will shape the new order in the world’s most volatile region more than any other political bloc. Yet they have diverse goals and different constituencies. Sometimes they are even rivals.
New Articles Archive
Articles By Author
Recent New Articles Posts
-
05/21/2013 - 14:57
-
05/21/2013 - 14:50
-
05/20/2013 - 06:48
-
05/20/2013 - 06:47
-
05/20/2013 - 06:37
-
05/20/2013 - 06:35
-
05/16/2013 - 17:35
-
05/16/2013 - 17:32
-
05/15/2013 - 11:12
-
05/15/2013 - 10:59
-
05/15/2013 - 10:31
-
05/13/2013 - 14:10
-
05/13/2013 - 12:58
-
05/13/2013 - 12:00
-
05/13/2013 - 11:19
