Earlier this week, ForeignPolicy.com published a remarkable story, “Neda Lives”, by its associate editor, Cameron Abadi. While, from the title, it seems evident what the article is about, in fact, it is about an extraordinary case of mistaken identity. Abadi’s article is apparently not the first time this story has been reported. Some journalists picked it up last summer—but it is still a remarkable (and cautionary) tale. We append a few excerpts from Abadi’s article below:
“Neda Soltani is the ordinary Iranian woman whose image spread last summer in an instant around the world. She’s a symbol of the brutality of the Iranian regime and the resilience of Iran’s movement for democracy.
She’s also still alive.
A woman named Neda did indeed die last summer on the streets of Tehran, gunned down by members of an Iranian militia. Her full name was Neda Agha-Soltan. But mixed in with the tragic footage of that Neda’s death, broadcast around the world in a viral video that galvanized world opinion against the Iranian regime, was a compelling Facebook snapshot of a smiling young beauty in a flowered headscarf.
Her name was Neda, too—Neda Soltani…
Until last year, Neda Soltani was a teaching assistant for English literature at Tehran’s Islamic Azad University, where she was doing graduate work on feminine symbolism in the work of Joseph Conrad. She wasn’t a supporter of the regime, but she also didn’t belong to any sort of active opposition group, even in the heady days after the disputed election. She was focused on her academic career above all else; while Iranians were marching in the streets, she was correcting her thesis. She led the prosaic life of Tehran’s silent apolitical majority. “I worked for 10 long years to get my position at the university,” she told Germany’s Sueddeutsche Zeitung in February. “I was earning my own money, I had friends, I would go out and I had fun.”
All that changed on June 20 of last year, when a choppy video appeared on YouTube depicting the gruesome and chaotic death of a young Iranian woman…The process began innocuously enough, resting on a foundation of journalism’s most basic building block: competition for a scoop. Working only with the first name heard on the YouTube video, international news organizations raced one another to unearth more information on the young women who died on camera. Forgoing fact checks, editors in New York and London allowed small details to get lost in translation as they communicated with their reporters on the ground: “Agha-Soltan” lost its hyphen, “Agha” was dropped entirely, or “Soltan” picked up an “i”…
That’s where Facebook comes in. On June 21, eager Green Movement supporters decided to dedicate a page on the social networking site to the “Angel of Iran.” Serendipitously, the martyr herself had a personal Facebook from which they could borrow her portrait. Framed as a standard passport shot, the photo showed an attractive young woman with a relaxed and innocent smile who wore a head scarf that revealed several inches of dark brown hair. It was a perfectly adequate resource for activists looking to inspire sympathy—except for the fact that the likeness, like the Facebook page from which it was taken, belonged to Neda Soltani, the quiet, unbloodied scholar of English literature.
Having relied on the major networks and newspapers for a lead, the Facebook activists themselves then served as a source for the mainstream media. The CNN and BBC started illustrating their stories with the “Angel of Iran” photo; news agencies and newspapers were not far behind. Of course, blogs and other social networking sites were also off to the races in spreading the mistaken photo. And it wasn’t long before the photo made its way back into Iran and went viral among the Green Movement.
But before the T-shirts and the posters and the ad hoc candlelit street altars, Neda Soltani awoke on June 21 of last year to discover an inbox full of countless requests to befriend her on Facebook. Then came the phone calls. A professor burst into tears when he heard her voice.
Neda didn’t begrudge the initial error. There was some resemblance between her and the slain protester, after all. Neda thought the mistake was liable to correct itself eventually, but decided to speed the process along by reaching out to Voice of America, the U.S.-backed satellite network that was among the most strident in using her photo to agitate the Iranian public. In an email, she explained that there had been a mix-up; they had been using a false photo, and she included other photos of herself as evidence.
What followed was a disheartening education in applied media ethics. Instead of issuing a correction, VOA promoted the very photos Neda had used to absolve herself as “exclusive” images of the slain protester. The momentum of the story overwhelmed attempted interventions of the truth. Neda tried repeatedly to sway different networks and news agencies, but for all intents and purposes, she had lost control over her face. On Internet forums, her requests that her photo be removed were met with the accusation that she was a stooge for the regime. “You won’t take our angel away from us, you bastard,” one Internet commenter writes in reply to her plea. On June 23, 2009, the parents of Neda Agha-Soltan released for public use a photo of their daughter—the one who, in fact, had been killed—but it had trouble competing with the existing, if false, image of Neda for primacy as the face of Iran’s freedom movement…”
According to Abadi’s article, Neda Soltani now lives outside Iran, in Germany, where she is struggling to put her life back together. We are not in a position to vouch for all of the things reported in Abadi’s story. But, if the article is accurate, it provides further confirmation for several important truths that we have sought to explore on www.TheRaceForIran.com:
First, while VOA’s behavior, as depicted in the article, is beneath contempt, there is a bigger point here—the Obama Administration, like the George W. Bush Administration before it, has decided to use media and broadcasting into Iran as a foundational pillar for a “soft” regime change strategy. In this regard, see the following passage from Doyle McManus’ well-reported column published in the Los Angeles Times over the past weekend about the “messier, more improvisational approach” that increasingly characterizes the Obama Administration’s Iran policy:
“One new track is long term: democracy-building. After initial hesitation, the administration has quietly increased its indirect support for Iran’s democracy movement—very quietly, because the U.S. wants to avoid tainting the dissidents with charges of foreign sponsorship. Most of the help has come in the form of increased hours of Persian-language radio and television broadcasting into Iran, and in export permits for U.S.-made software to help Iranians evade their government’s efforts to block or punish Internet use.”
The British government, of course, is also relying on media and broadcasting as part of a “soft” regime change strategy. This strategy rests on an assumption that, if the Iranian people could only hear the right “message”, they would hold different views about a wide range of domestic and international issues and choose “better” leaders for themselves.
Based on our personal experiences in Iran, talking with a wide range of official and unofficial Iranians, reading Iranian websites, and seeing comments posted on www.TheRaceForIran.com by readers in Iran, we do not believe that Iranians are lacking in knowledge about their own country or the outside world. Many Iranians, however, do seem to come to different conclusions about various issues than those preferred in the White House, Foggy Bottom, and Whitehall. But the U.S. and British governments should focus on figuring out how to deal constructively with Iranians (and others) who do not accept preferred Western narratives about the Middle East and the international order—not basing policy on the delusional proposition that the activities of VOA and the BBC’s Persian Service will somehow change Iranians’ minds about these issues, much less prompt them to change their country’s whole political order.
Second, it seems increasingly clear that important mainstream media outlets—including CNN and BBC, as reported by Abadi, but also august newspapers like The New York Times (see our related piece here)—are frequently willing to put aside basic practices of responsible journalism when reporting on Iran. This willingness is partially captured in Abadi’s references to editors in New York and London “forgoing fact checks” and allowing “small details” (a person’s actual identity is a “small detail”??) to “get lost” in the quest for a sexy story. But the problem goes beyond professional lapses by individual journalists and editors. (For what it’s worth, one of the comments to Abadi’s article on ForeignPolicy.com claims that the BBC eventually issued a public acknowledgement of its error regarding Neda Soltani’s identity.)
We should be asking why those lapses are so frequent—indeed, chronic—in reporting and analysis on Iran. In some cases, the personal political agendas of individual reporters and editors seem to be a critical factor. But, more broadly, doing serious, reality-based reporting on Iranian politics (including rigorous sourcing and actual fact-checking) could end up regularly putting mainstream media outlets at odds with the narrative about Iranian politics and foreign policy preferred—and paid for—by the U.S. and British governments. (See our point above on the use of media in the ongoing U.S.-UK “soft” regime change strategy.) As Michael Massing and others have chronicled (see here), mainstream media outlets—including The New York Times and the Washington Post—were strategically unwilling to do that in the run up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Unfortunately, they seem equally unwilling to do it today with regard to Iran.
The “regime change in Iran” campaign is gaining momentum in the United States. Two Republican senators—John Cornyn of Texas and Sam Brownback of Kansas—have introduced a bill which, if enacted into law, would make regime change the formal and explicit goal of America’s Iran policy and, among other things, authorize the President “to provide assistance for broadcasting and other communications directly to Iranian democratic opposition organizations”, see here. In connection with the anniversary of Iran’s June 12, 2009 presidential election, Senator (and former Republican presidential candidate) John McCain also made a public call for the United States to make regime change in Tehran the declared goal of its Iran policy, and to marshal America’s allies to make their own contributions toward that goal, see here.
If President Obama is not already aware of the relevant history, he should take note that it was not President George W. Bush who defined regime change in Baghdad as the goal of America’s Iraq policy—it was President Bill Clinton, who, in 1998, signed into law the Iraq Liberation Act. History may not repeat itself exactly, but—as an aphorism frequently attributed to Mark Twain notes—it does often rhyme. Washington needs less poetry about contemporary Iranian politics—and more non-rhyming analysis grounded in actual, on-the-ground reality.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
Fiorangela,
Thank you for your reply. I have been away for a bit dealing with my Mom’s cancer surgery and doing a nasty background check for my new job. I will respond to your response later but I would very much like to see your response to the post I sent you awhile back on the thread you mentioned. Please keep in mind it is my “view” based on what I have understood from my studies. I do not hold my “view” to be universally right and am very much open to your critique. I look forward to seeing your respone. Take care and all the best to you.
Thx
Bill
Pak,
Of course we do. Stop reading the New York Times.
Dear Kamran,
Indeed. In the words of Nikahang Kowsar:
“There is freedom of speech in Iran, but we don’t have freedom after speech.”
Arvin (Scott Lucas),
I’ve already responded to your claims so it will be a waste of time to repeat myself. Iran has a far more open society than you think.
Arvin,
I would attribute the Iranian denunciations of the US to reaction to American (and other western) actions, including the foolish demonisation of Iran that so many American leaders engage in.
I think it is a bit preposterous for the US even to describe Iran as an “enemy” – - and I see such a description as a product of the incessant manipulations of the Israel lobby/neocons and fellow travellers.
Dear Arvin,
It is ironic that regime supporters/sympathisers call their enemies hypocrites. They should look in a mirror.
Liz,
har vaght kam miari va harfi baraye goftan nadari tohmat doroogh-gooyi ro be man mizani va man ro yek shakhs digar seda mizani. Aslan shoma yek Irani vasat Tehran ke dar hadde bozorgan zabane Farsi savad khandan va nevashtan in marz o boom ro dareh. Man ham yek ajnabi bisavad ke na Farsi baladam na midoonam Meydoon vanak kojast! Vaghti dar tool chand mah akhir in hame khabarnegar ra zendani mikonand, in hame rooznameh ra tatil mikonand o in hame website ra block mikonand, shoma mibayest ke koor bashid ke begooyid dar Iran azadi bayan ast. Vaghti bish az har keshvare digar rooznamenegar o akase khabarie farari darim ke dar kharej az keshvar darkhast panahandegi kardand, mibayest ke kheyli roo dashteh bashi ke begi dar iran azadi bayan ast. Vaghti hatta be in soal ke aya dar iran mitavan ashkhasi moshabeh Leveretts dar America vojood dashteh bashad nemitavani javab bedahi, nemitavan in ro azat khast ke aghlat ra be kar begiri va age na ba man, balke ba khodet sadeghane barkhord koni. Aslan man Scott Lucas ya Roger Cohen ya Jason Jones ya har kasi ke mikhai mano seda bezani. Kam miari va mesle khar too gel gir mikoni ke chi javab bedi. Hala bedeh yeki barat tarjome kone ke chi goftam!
Dear James Canning,
“You seem to make a big deal of the fact the US government considers Iran “an enemy state”. Isn’t this utter stupidity the problem we are trying to address on this site?”
Good point. But at the same time we can’t continue to justify Iran’s hardliners actions who continue to chant “Death to America” whose Leader’s every other word is “enemy” in reference to the so-called “Great Satan.” Basically the neo-conservatives in both countries have to face a tough opposition so as to stop them from getting what they want; a full confrontation. A war will only benefit the hardliners in both countries. The very same people who call each other names, be it “Axis of Evil” or “Great Satan.”
Arvin,
You seem to make a big deal of the fact the US government considers Iran “an enemy state”. Isn’t this utter stupidity the problem we are trying to address on this site?
Arvin (Scott Lucas),
You do not live in Iran and you have know knowledge of the Persian language, so you do not have access to Persian newspapers. If you did, you would see that there is an enormous amount of openness in the media. Right now battles are raging over the Azad University, for example. Also, if you watch the PressTV documentary on Neda, you will see that Iranian suspicions that MKO terrorists were behind the killing are more than reasonable. However, as you are merely a green spin doctor there is little use in trying to reason with you.
Dear Dan Cooper,
“Your whole objective in this forum is to demonize the government of Iran by any means.”
No need for me to do that. I’m just some guy posting comments on some website a handful of us frequent. From their attacks to student dorms to their attacks on homes and offices of Grand Ayatollahs the current regime does the demonizing itself.
“I asked you two questions;
1. What would the government of Iran gain by killing an innocent girl in a side street?
2. What would a “Foreign agent or the enemies of Islamic Republic” gain by killing her?”
1. I don’t think they specifically targeted Neda Agha Soltan. She was just a victim of circumstances as I have said before. But what would the government of Iran gain from ANY of their missteps over the past year; from attacks on student dorms, to running over people with police trucks, to jailing of students, journalists, filmmakers and feminists and reformers to their heckling of Khomeini’s grandson and destruction of Sanei and Montazeri’s homes and offices? What did they have to gain from Kahrizak? From torture and death of people like Ruholamini? From mysterious death of Kahrizak’s young doctor? Neda’s death is just the tip of an iceberg. Even if you were to successfully link her murder to foreign agents — as IRI has tried many times and failed — you will not be able to deny the wrongdoings of the regime itself.
2. Nothing. Even if Neda’s death was never captured by a video camera, there’s plenty more to use against the Islamic Republic of Iran. To say that BECAUSE her death was captured she must have been murdered by foreign enemies of Iran is absurd. You’re essentially saying if she was just another faceless victim of the brutality of the Basij forces, only then she would have been a true victim of the regime, because the foreign media could not have taken advantage of her murder and exploited her death. Furthermore, if she was indeed killed (and photographed) by BBC or MEK or whoever else the government claims, shouldn’t she be considered a martyr by the regime itself? And what does it say about Iran’s security forces if in broad daylight enemies of the Islamic Republic can shoot innocent people to death and film it too?
“Shortly after Neda’s murder, CNN, Fox News, VOA and BBC were broadcasting the film and demonizing the regime.
In fact, the publicity that was given to Neda’s story by the western media was bigger than the assassination of John F Kennedy.
Every year thousands of innocent women and children have been slaughtered in similar fashion by coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and by the Israeli soldiers in Palestine and many of these deaths have been caught on camera, but you do not see their faces on CNN, Fox News, VOA or the BBC.”
If the film of Neda’s death didn’t exist it wouldn’t be hard for anyone to demonize the regime. Because like I said before, the do the demonizing themselves.
The reason Neda’s video went viral (even if the likes of CNN and Fox didn’t show the video, youtube alone would have brought the attention of the world to it) is because her death showed a different side of Iran. A side of Iran that didn’t fit the previous descriptions of what Iranians look like or act like. As far as the Western Media was concerned all Iranians were “Death To America” chanting fanatic religious people who once held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. Neda was able to break that stereotype and tell the world that there are indeed two Irans; one is the Iran of IRIB, the other the Iran of youtube videos and supporters of the Green Movement. This is a bankable story for media corporations thirsty for new storylines to increase their ratings with. Cruel and exploitative, but true nonetheless.
And the fact is if the violence continued and more Nedas died and videos of Iranians dying in the streets became a norm, the Western media would have been bored and would have moved on to their next balloon boy story. Unfortunately Iraq and Afghanistan have become repetitive news, that even the IRIB does not bother to show the deaths caused by Americans or the insurgents. Why do you even go so far. I am sure thousands more AMERICANS die in the streets of South Central LA and shady neighborhoods of New York, Chicago and Washington DC. But victims of gang violence and inner city murders often don’t even make it past the local TV stations that may or may not cover them. Because to the Western media they are no longer stories worth the international scrutiny… Who wants to hear about a Jose gunned down in the streets of LA because of gang wars? that’s to be expected. Instead the attention is shifted to likes of Neda, victims of a civil movement in the streets of Tehran…
“There is no doubt that Neda’s vivid and shocking death is tragic to witness and a terrible loss for her family. However, the repercussions of the video circulating the globe via You Tube and its propaganda-driven exploitation by the west to demonize the Iranian government could have tragic consequences for many more innocent Iranians in the years to come.”
I never said the Western media is not worthy of the criticism article on this page and others like it make of it. I just said such articles should expand to include IRIB and Press TV. For to not include them in the criticisms is to have a double standard. Yes, the western media demonizes the IRI (thanks in large part to the material the IRI provides for them), but IRIB and Press TV do their own share of demonizing. That’s politics.
==================
Let’s not ask if a Chomsky can exist in Iran. The question we should be asking on this site is whether the Leveretts can exist in Iran?!
Two American politicians always in line with an Iranian regime their own government considers an enemy state. They are constantly calling for a dialogue with the Iranian regime while downplaying the opposition. They appear on national TV shows inside the United States and have traveled to Iran and have met with Iranian politicians and policy-makers.
Now… Imagine the following:
Two Iranian politicians (read reformers) always in line with an American regime their own government considers an enemy state. They are constantly calling for a dialogue with the American regime while downplaying the opposition. They appear on national TV shows inside Iran and have traveled to America and have met with American politicians and policy-makers.
I bet that not only such people would be arrested and jailed in Iran. But most folks who comment on this blog would be first to call such people traitors, Zionists, puppets of the Americans, etc. etc. And in doing so they’re saying it would okay for Americans to have a difference of opinion, but Iranians should stick to their third-world one-party rule governance and all voices of dissent and opposition should be silenced.
@KOOSHY
Hikers are welcome but camping in the open is usually not permitted (for security reasons). Hiking and wrestling are national pasttimes in Iran.
The “hikers” broke the law by illegally entering a military zone and taking photos. As such, they cannot simply be expected to be released without some sort of trial.
Those thinking of visiting Iran should check out ricksteves.com and see his video of a visit to Iran he and his tiny crew made last year. Very positive indeed, and shown fairly often on some PBS TV stations in the US.
Fiorangela
I know for fact that hikers are very welcomed in Iran, as long as they obtain visas in advance and hike in zones that are commonly known for insurgents being covertly founded by foreign intelligence services to be hostile to the central government of Iran.
Eric, Stephen Kinzer is an animated speaker; I attended one of his presentations earlier this week.
It is my understanding that very few westerners travel to Iran between mid-May and late-August because it is so hot. While it is true that relatively few Americans travel to Iran, we met many tourists and convention-goers from Italy, Germany, Spain, Canada, Japan, China, Sweden, and Australia. In contrast to Americans, who must be accompanied by an Iranian guide, other nationals travel freely and frequently throughout Iran — in season. One of our tour guides told us that eco-tourism and camping/hiking in Iran’s mountains and deserts is very popular.
@Eric A. Brill says;
Re your post on June 18, 2010 at 8:43 pm:
I too am very much against people being thrown in jail for expressing their views, no matter how absurd or radical or anti-system those views maybe. But that is because I am not a supporter of “liberal democracy”, that is because I don’t think that “liberal democracy” is actually a democracy at all, that is because I don’t show western democracies as a model to follow for countries such as Iran (in fact I strongly believe -and can very much argue- that Iran is de facto a “liberal democracy” as it is right now!).
If you look at the historical background of those countries with a “holocaust denial” law, you will see that it is not the “love of history” which makes them enforce such laws. For were it for that reason, as you said all students who failed history courses should have ended up in jail!!
The reason for those laws is because “holocaust denial” historically signify a political view in those countries. It signifies the “neo-nazism” ideology, it means that the denying person has sympathy with Hitler and tries to advertise the fascist ideology. In effect “holocaust” denial laws mean that the fascist ideology is “banned” in those countries.
Which brings us to only ONE example of many “ideologies” which are banned in liberal democracy (to the attention of those naive “greens” who claim Iran is not a liberal democracy because it bans certain ideas and political views). Another example is “communist party” which was banned in the West Germany (if I am not mistaken) and also in USA in the 50s. I even personally know a German gentleman who was fired from his job because he was a member of the communist party.
Arvin
The more I read your posts, the more I realize that You have a deliberate desire to exploit people’s articles in this forum to discredit the Islamic republic.
Your whole objective in this forum is to demonize the government of Iran by any means.
I asked you two questions;
1. What would the government of Iran gain by killing an innocent girl in a side street?
2. What would a “Foreign agent or the enemies of Islamic Republic” gain by killing her?
In regards to the first question, your have stated that the government of Iran ordered a Basiji to kill an innocent girl (Neda) to create fear.
Well Arvin, your statement is absurd.
Neda was an innocent bystander. She was not participating in any demonstration; she was not wearing any green clothes. She was walking back to her car with her music teacher in a side street away from demonstrations;
your claim that the government deliberately killed her to create fear is outrageous.
Once again I draw your attention to Reza Esfandiari’sarticle;
http://www.iranian.com/main/2009/nov/no-rest-or-peace?page=1
Reza wrote:
“It is inconceivable that an Islamic regime which understands the power of martyrdom in its own culture would sanction the cold-blooded murder of an innocent and ordinary young woman on the streets of Tehran.
However it is every bit conceivable that those who thought the opposition movement needed a symbol and icon of resistance – recipients and supporters no doubt of a $400m CIA-backed destabilization program for Iran – would have arranged this horrible murder and try and pin it on the Iranian authorities.”
In regards to my second question, conveniently you did not reply because you know that the tragic death of Neda and its vivid capture on film was deliberately used as a propaganda tool by American, British and Israeli media outlets to harden western opinion against the Islamic republic and grease the skids for a future invasion.
Shortly after Neda’s murder, CNN, Fox News, VOA and BBC were broadcasting the film and demonizing the regime.
In fact, the publicity that was given to Neda’s story by the western media was bigger than the assassination of John F Kennedy.
Every year thousands of innocent women and children have been slaughtered in similar fashion by coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and by the Israeli soldiers in Palestine and many of these deaths have been caught on camera, but you do not see their faces on CNN, Fox News, VOA or the BBC.
Indeed, it could be claimed that the footage of Neda’s death has already been broadcast more times by the corporate media than the thousands of victims whose deaths were caught on film in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine over the last eight years.
There is no doubt that Neda’s vivid and shocking death is tragic to witness and a terrible loss for her family. However, the repercussions of the video circulating the globe via You Tube and its propaganda-driven exploitation by the west to demonize the Iranian government could have tragic consequences for many more innocent Iranians in the years to come.
Dear Eric,
Interesting insight.
Dear Reza,
Please, continue discrediting yourself.
There is an enormous difference between DENIAL and REVISION.
Scott Lucas and Bill Davit are in DENIAL about the re-election of Ahmadinejad – they choose to ignore the evidence presented rather than to take another look at it and offer their objections.
Denying the votes of 24 million Iranians is the same as denying outright the deaths of 6 million Jews during WW2.
Pak,
“I know very little about the holocaust denial law. Does it simply outlaw holocaust denial, or does it also outlaw the questioning of the extent of the holocaust? To be honest, I cannot see why anybody would deny the holocaust, but I can easily understand if somebody would question (rationally and with rigour) the narrative that is spoon-fed to us.”
I also cannot see why anyone would deny the Holocaust. What I have even more trouble seeing, however, is why someone should be sent to prison for several years for denying the Holocaust – or for denying any other historical event, for that matter, no matter how upsetting it may be for someone to hear that denial.
And these laws are being enforced – most recently and famously against the obnoxious English author, David Irving, who was convicted in Austria and sentenced to three years imprisonment (though he served only 10 months) for “trivialising, grossly playing down and denying the Holocaust.” I don’t know how the “Holocaust denial” laws are worded in the various countries that have them, or how those words are interpreted by the courts, but I suspect David Irving has said and written more than enough obnoxious things over the years to have violated all of them. And he deserves scorn for that.
But not imprisonment.
One can deny any other atrocity – the “killing fields” of Cambodia, for example, or Stalin’s purges, or the Russian pogroms. One can even deny that World War II occurred, or claim that the world began on June 13, 1959, or that the continent of Europe does not exist and never has, or that Iran was once part of the Holy Land, or that Palestine never was. To say any of those things would make the speaker look very foolish, and to say some of those things would be extremely upsetting to many people – those, for example, whose family members were killed in Cambodia or died in Stalin’s prison camps, or in the Czar’s pogroms.
But such statements would not, and should not, land the speaker in prison.
When I first heard there were such laws – and in civilized, European countries, no less – I assumed someone was kidding me. At worst, I thought these must be laws that had been adopted in an understandable excess of post-war anger at Nazis but had since been ignored – much like old laws requiring that margarine be died pink, or that all automobiles be preceded by a flagman running 100 yards ahead of the car to warn pedestrians. But those laws are alive and well, and being enforced to send people to prison. Shameful.
Pak,
Kinzer was in San Francisco today. He was featured on this website earlier this week.
By the way pirouz_2, I agree that there are many problems with media in the West. Many, many problems. But again this does not deny the fact that there are press freedoms there.
Dear Eric,
“I just returned from a talk by Stephen Kinzer (featured earlier this week on this site).”
So you travelled back in time?
“He mentioned that Iran is a great place for tourists – beautiful sites to visit, hardly any other tourists there, and Iranians love Americans. It reminded me of your glowing descriptions.”"
Indeed Iran is a beautiful country. And, contrary to what many Americans believe, Iranians absolutely love foreigners. From what I see and hear, they hate being so isolated and separated from the rest of the World. They want to be a part of the international community. This goes completely against the regime narrative.
Dear pirouz_2,
I know very little about the holocaust denial law. Does it simply outlaw holocaust denial, or does it also outlaw the questioning of the extent of the holocaust? To be honest, I cannot see why anybody would deny the holocaust, but I can easily understand if somebody would question (rationally and with rigour) the narrative that is spoon-fed to us. I also do not know about the Thatcher example you mention (I am too young to know).
Fair enough, Al-Manar is banned in the US. But naming one (Hezbollah funded, anti-Israel) channel is not enough to convince me that press freedom does not exist in the US. Also, come on – Helen Thomas was completely out of line! She did not simply question Israeli policy; she openly called for the Jews to “go home” to Europe and “everywhere else”!
You are basically mixing press freedom with market structure. In effect, you are arguing against an economics concept and not a political one, i.e. the pros and cons of monopolies (or in the case of US media, oligopolies). As I said before, I do not know much about the US, but I can assure you that press freedom does exist in the UK. So much so that Islam4UK – which wanted to convert Buckingham Palace into a mosque, and proudly celebrated at the funerals of British soldiers – was allowed to operate, propagate and protest for many years, until the British finally came to their senses.
Fiorangela,
I just returned from a talk by Stephen Kinzer (featured earlier this week on this site). He mentioned that Iran is a great place for tourists – beautiful sites to visit, hardly any other tourists there, and Iranians love Americans. It reminded me of your glowing descriptions.
Cyrus,
I should add that I always bear in mind the arrogance and stupidity of the Austrian generals who set off the First World War. They thought they had an opening to crush Serbian nationalist agitation for a generation to come, in the wake of the assassination of the Archduke Francis Ferdinand. Their gross miscalculation, was encouraged by German generals hoping to secure Austria for another generation. Result, of course, was catastrophe for both the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the German Empire.
Cyrus,
My view is that the US refuses to be clear about what it is seeking to achieve regarding Iran, because the end game is to cut off support from the Palestinians so Israel can complete its insane effort to crush Palestinian nationalism permanently.
The many US senators and congressmen allowing themselves to serve this idiotic purpose do not want to be exposed to the general public, in the US and elsewhere.
Fiorangela,
Many reasonable foreign policy positions have been developed in part by the CFR over the years. I would agree with you the organization is not lost to the neocons or Iranophobes.
Rehmat,
The dispute between Ultra-Orthodox Jews generally from Russia and Eastern Europe, with Ultra-Othodox Jews from the Mediterranean (and elswhere), regarding school arrangements in an illegal Jewish colony in the West Bank, is fascinating on a number of levels. It also illustrates an important demographic challenge faced by the Israelis, or at least by secular Jewish Israelis. They are being badly “out-birthed” by zealous religious minorities within Judaism.
Yes, Eric, they are. The Sybils in me discovered that one could play with the “name” line.
Fiorangela,
Are the other “Fiorangelas” also you?
Eric
CFR is frequently dismissed out of hand as a mouthpiece for hawkish foreign policy. But Ariel Ilan Roth broke from that mold (somewhat) with this piece:
Why is Israel afraid of Iran Nukes?
Roth did NOT go so far as to present his readers a precis of Israel’s ‘Iron Wall’ doctrine — the doctrinal origin of the compulsion to present an “image of invincibility.” ‘Iron Wall’ is the strategy spelled out by Jabotinsky in the 1920s, and sold to American zionists by Jabotinsky when he undertook an extensive speaking tour in the US in the years between WWI and WWII — WELL before Hitler, of course, and before Arabs in the Levant clashed with Jews in 1948. Netanyahu is Jabotinsky’s ideological heir.
Where is the Iranian Noam Chomsky?
Better question is where is Noam Chomsky himself; he’s not in Ramallah, that’s certain — Israel would not allow Chomsky to keep a speaking engagement in the West Bank.
Chomsky, denied entry to west bank, likens Israel to Stalinist regime
Chomsky has never impressed me all that much. He’s selectively critical of Israel — enough to keep one foot firmly planted on each side of the fence, and he does so from the safety of the US, where US legal systems protect his free speech rights.
As the Haaretz article cited above demonstrates, Israel did not respect the free speech rights of Jewish American Noam Chomsky.
Nor does Israel respect the free speech rights of Israeli journalists such as Anat Kam and Uri Blau, who felt compelled to flee to Great Britain to protect themselves from possible imprisonment by Israeli authorities because of their reporting on Israeli government activities.
These are Jewish Israelis; Arab Israelis are not treated so gently: Palestinian peace activist Makhoul was taken from his home in the dead of night by 17 armed Israelis; his house was searched, his family’s computers confiscated. Makhoul was held in detention with no contact for an extended period…..
btw Bill Davit, I prepared a lengthy response to your hasbara-laden post of several weeks ago. That thread having run out of steam, I did not post it.
However, there was a key point that I wished to address that I will respond to in a later post today. It responds to an ancient Islamic philosophical debate that you resurrected to prove some point about Iran and Islam. I’ll find the specifics and demonstrate to you that IRI does NOT hold the position that you ascribe to Iran.
Liz
Re: the author of the link below “Ismael Hossein-zadeh”
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LF16Ak01.html
He is An Iranian-born Kurd, came to the United States in 1975 to pursue his formal education in economics. After completing his graduate work at the New School for Social Research in New York City (1988), he joined Drake University faculty where he has been teaching classes in political economy, comparative economic systems, international economics, history of economic thought and development economics.
His published work covers significant topics such as financial instability, economic crises and restructuring policies, currency-trade relations, globalization and labor, international/sovereign debt, determinants of presidential economic policies, economics of war and military spending, roots of conflict between the Muslim world and the West, long waves of economic expansion and decline, and the Soviet model of non-capitalist development.
He recently completed a book project on the forces of war and militarism in the United States, which is titled The Political Economy of U.S. Militarism (Palgrave-Macmillan).
Russian TV reports:
The anger and frustration of Israeli citizens protesting their government’s blockade on Gaza were largely ignored by the country’s media.
Israeli media manipulates public opinion in flotilla conflict
Click on this link for full details:
http://rt.com/Top_News/2010-06-09/israeli-media-manipulates-opinion.html
Arvin,
My understanding is that the US government declined to grant permission to any Iranian journalist (despite many requests) to cover US presidential candidates on the campaign trail in 2008. Do you think that was wrong?
Arvin, the flaw in your argument, that VOA and BBC should be afforded the same rights as PressTV in Iran, is this: the purpose of VOA is NOT ‘news’ but propaganda. Should a source that is openly seeking to spread agitation-propaganda be granted the same free-speech rights as any other news source?
Regarding BBC (as well as VOA, but the argument for VOA has already been disposed of), compare the relationship of BBC and PressTV to US treatment of alleged terrorists who are US citizens and alleged terrorists who are NOT US citizens. The US legal system as well as US federal elected officials are at serious odds whether non-US citizens should be granted the same constitutional rights as citizens.
By what right does US expect or demand that Iran would not also seek to protect its sovereignty?
Finally, the facts are that BBC and VOA DO transmit information into Iran. That few Iranian people choose to tune in suggests that the Iranian people are doing exactly what you argue they have a right to do: they are making a decision about the information they receive. The Iranian people are rejecting the information beamed in by BBC and VOA.
Has any one heard the “Blue Revolution” being held in Israel?
Yesterday, 100,000 Orthodox Jews protested in Jerusalem against Israeli Supreme Court ruling – forcing White and non-White Jewish girls to study together in West Bank’s Jewish settlement.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/06/18/jewish-racism-against-jews-in-israel/
Castellio:
you’re welcome.
“…Dawkins (forgive the arrogance)”, ;) true. he looks angry!
will take a look at Peter Munz in a proper time.
pirouz_2:
I tend to agree with your general comment about middle eastern scholars. and probably, you are right, Soroush is a contemporary version of Shariati. I thought he could be a bit different given the difference in the intellect.
anyhow, I also found Ken Wilber’s work worth to read.
Where’s Scott Lucas the great crusader ?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100618/ap_on_re_as/as_kyrgyzstan;_ylt=AmuOXMF3NBRsjgO.ZJfVsjQDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTJncjh0ZnA4BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNjE4L2FzX2t5cmd5enN0YW4EY3BvcwMxBHBvcwMxBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDaW50ZXJpbXByZXNr
Sorry, I just couldn’t help myself. :)
I’ve read Soroush’s written exchanges with Bahmanpour and found Bahmanpour to be far superior to Soroush. Also, Sadegh Larijani’s responses to Soroush in his books titledمعرفت دینی and قبض و بسط در قبض و بسطی دیگر revealed Soroush to be lacking. In fact, soon after the Larijani Soroush exchange (where Soroush revealed himself to be very arrogant and intolerant) the philosopher Dr. Dastjerdi, who wrote an introduction to قبض و بسط switched sides and said that Larijani’s views are much stronger than those of Soroush.
Breaking news on Press TV:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=130963§ionid=351020101
Persian Gulf… I apologize for incorrectly thinking your response was Liz’s response. In any case, I sincerely thank you for your thoughts – they are most welcome – as well as Liz’s and the Humanists. I really appreciate the opportunity to learn more.
My favourite contemporary philosopher is Peter Munz. He began as a historian, was a student of both Wittgenstein and Popper, became recognized in the philosphy of history, and then pretty well charted a very independent path, leading, in 1993, to Philosophical Darwinism: On the Origin of Knowledge by Means of Natural Selection, which I highly recommend. Also, in 1999, Critique of Impure Reason: An Essay on Neurons, Somatic Markers, and Consciousness. Much better than Dawkins (forgive the arrogance).
For a list of his work take a look at http://philpapers.org/autosense.pl?searchStr=Peter%20Munz
Now, having said that, Munz is not, in any obvious way, a good political philosopher; he delves deeply, however, into the nature of thought and the representation of history (and scientific truth) in human culture. He is from the British analytic school, but I think the best of that school (in my mind, more important than either Popper or Wittgenstein, and builds upon both of them).
Neo – Marxism (without the teleology) needs a much better epistemology than Hegel or anyone else has given it … so putting Munz and the best of contemporary Marxism together, as in David Harvey, seems to me about right.
Another good piece, but on a different topic:
http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2010/06/2010616131858756851.html
Ayatollah Motaharri influenced me and a number of my friends the most and because of his works I converted to Islam. In any case, I think this article is so good that I’m putting the link here again for those who haven’t read it:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LF16Ak01.html
I’ve never heard of the author before. Does anyone know who he is?
@Persian Gulf:
I agree with you that Soroush is intellectually bankrupt. More over I would generalize that to all people who try to find a solution through Islam (or any other religion for that matter), they are all bankrupt.
I am not so sure if I agree with you that if Shariati were to live a few more decades, that he would be any different from Soroush, at least judging by where his daughter (I think Sousan Shairati is his daughter?) stands I would say that probably he would be in a similar position.
Personally, among the Iranian intellectuals I am very much fond of Dr. Nasser Zarafshan. I don’t see him as “thinker” though, and I don’t agree with some of his views regarding the current situation in Iran. But over all, I am closest to him.
And among the middle Eastern intellectuals I can say I am fond of Aziz Nesin the most.
I am more interested in the Western thinkers, I don’t think that middle east has been able to produce any great “thinker” in the modern times (I don’t know Mr. Shayegan though, so I can’t judge him). At least not as yet.
Recently I got to learn a bit about David Harvey, and I am currently reading “the Capital” with him (through internet of course!) He seems to be a very impressive gentleman.
“who do you recommend to go for?”
Try: http://babakzahraie.blogspot.com/
Liz: I wasn’t impressed by Soroush, it’s true, but thought I understood why others might be. Kind of a good feeling guy, metaphorical, not rigorous. I am more interested in Shariati for the simple reason that he seems (seemed?) to be writing about the real twentieth century, not a metaphorical one.
I have not read Daryoush, but will now. A sincere thanks.
Castellio:
sorry to interfere.
I consider Soroush intellectually bankrupt, probably he himself doesn’t know what he is for, or where is heading toward. he seems to be unable to grasp what even fundamentalists have long understood. I think, Serathaye Mostaghim was the last vain attempt. he has totally taken shelter into the daily (and a very confused) politics for quite a long time now. the nature however seems to have given him so much time, unlike Shariati, to see the deadlock of his ideas. Shariati, would have most probably thrown his simplistic and reactionary products into the trash-bin, had he been given the chance to live a few decades more. Al-Ahmad could have pretty much the same fate.
I am all for Shayegan (Daryoush) at the moment, at least. things can change by the time, you know. we (personally) have not reached the end of our history yet! in any case, he has shown a great ability to change. though, his ideas (with a clear overlap with the post-modernism in spite of all his denial to the contrary) are, as he also says, after all in a very personal level and won’t have the potential, even could be very dangerous, to be applied in a mass scale.
who do you recommend to go for?
James: the official US position is not that Iran could have a possible secret nuclear weapons program but that Iram is acquiring the knowhow which could allow it one day to make nukes though the political decision to do so has not been taken but even that is farcical. How can Iran disprove a possible secret weapons program? The very fact that it is secret means it can’t be disproven. There is no evidence for such s program. Indeed how do we know tfat Canada, Portugal, or my uncle Bob don’t have possible secret nuclear weapons progeammes? That’s all simply a game of rhetoric intended to cover up the fact that this entire conflict is not really about nuclear weapons programs. It never was.
@Liz
I also believe Abdol-Karim Soroush and Noam Chomsky belong to two different worlds.
Although, in the following, my explanation for the above claim might sound condescending I ask you to consider it with open mind the way the impartial students do. I would then trust and respect your judgment since I think the first lesson in civility is to fully respect the world-view of others.
If you study biology and fathom the concept of Darwinian Natural Selection then you might conclude in our times, the chance of successful survival of any ignorant or superstitious community is quite low. We live in the age of the gradual triumph of science over voodoo, thus it is extremely important to move away from the ancient faith based dogmas and train our minds to reject any claim not supported by indisputable facts.
I think most times Soroush, Ganji or Shariati look at the past or future from the perspective of Islam. If I am right then they haven’t walked a long way along the path of mental maturity or cultural evolution…they are stuck in ancient past and are not intelligent enough to alter their minds replacing their old unsubstantiated beliefs with modern findings.
Altering their minds?…yes….I think, in this age of information, intelligence can also be defined as an ability to change, to discard unprovable ideas that are previously planted in our vulnerable minds. Suppose when we were kids we were indoctrinated with notion of a God who resides in the seventh sky…a God who is watching us all and when we die will decide, depending on our actions to send us either to hell or heaven. If in our adult life, by chance or otherwise we read Richard Dawkins “God Delusion” and still stick to our religious beliefs then, according the above definition we do are not smart.
(If you haven’t read that book please read it, it is a profound philosophical book. You’ll find out the issues of WAR and peace are also closely linked to the subject of superstitious non-analytical ideologies)
If Osama Bin Laden, G.W. Bush and Netanyahu stick to their own religious beliefs and are convinced their god is the right god (or they are always right and their adversaries are barbaric evil people) then they can never escape out of their dark world and will advocate the use of force in order to ‘eliminate the problem’…. but if they were intelligent enough to accept logical, rational, analytical and scientific facts then they’ll surely end up as members of the same group noticing they have no political difference of any sort at all.
Think about that. I admit I am portraying an idealistic situation but don’t forget for centuries we dreamt of flying now we travel with air-planes.
Soroush never contests God, or divinity of Quran, the same book that adheres to previous monotheistic holy scriptures. Did you know according the Old Testament God came down from the sky, wrestled with Jacob……and……God lost?
So many free thinkers like Carl Sagan, Noam Chmosky and many many others blame superstitious beliefs as an important part of our troubles in the past and present…..Soroush, Ganji and Shariati are on the opposite side of that type of argument….that is why I said Soroush doesn’t live in the Chomsky’s world.
Think about it…..I repeat, in this day and age the clarification of the above subject is vitally important….since only the adaption of scientific approaches merges all of us to the same place, to the same point of view ….where we all can see ‘war is always a destructive way’ for solving the international disputes but dialogue is always constructive and is mutually beneficial to both (all) sides.
If you are talking about Soroush then you must have read his writings in Farsi. If so I urge you to go to http://www.efsha.co.uk, “ketab sara” then download free a great book titled “Tavallodi Digar”. In this absorbing book you’ll notice the author has brilliantly researched the monotheistic religions with open mind and has found amazingly mind boggling implausible, impossible and contradictory suppositions.
The Farsi translation of Richard Dawkins’ God Delusion is also freely available in that side under “Pendar e Khoda”. Also the translation of Ari Ben Menashe’s awesome book entitled ‘Profits of War’ is there .. the title in Farsi is “Pool e Khoon”.
(Ari is now an Israeli refugee)
@Humanist:
Regarding your post on June 17, 2010 at 9:08 pm
“US is not like China”
I absolutely agree with that statement. However, what I am trying to say is that “Iran is not China either!”. Iran of 1980-1989 was a dictatorship, but eversince the death of Mr. Khomeini, Iran has become “de facto” a liberal democracy.
@Pirouz_2
I still maintain in America, the issue of Press Freedom is not a case of simple black or white, free or not free, it is more complex encompassing a large array of dynamic forces in the different fields such as humanities, politics, corporate agenda, foreign influence pedalling, legal, lobby activities, business and so on.
Of course No one with the right mind can claim here such freedom is limitless. Actually I agree with all you are saying but what I was trying to say was…”US is not like China”
The fact that we are communicating in this site adn criticizing the establishment’s policies demonstrates the existence of some kind of freedom. It is true New York Times wont publish Kaveh Esfandiari’s articles but, for some reasons, it publishes Leveretts’ Op-Eds saying in essence the same things..
It is true both of us express our thoughts here in this site freely Yet as I wrote “It is interesting to watch what they would do to extinguish the fire this site has started.”. If ”they” manage to close down the likes of ‘The Race for Iran’ then I might go along with your arguments all the way.
Cyrus,
I think most Americans paying attention to events in the Middle East, would say they think the issue with Iran is a possible secret nuclear weapons programme. So, if Iran indeed does not want the bomb, the more Iran can call attention to offers it has made in good faith to satisfy concerns about a secret nuke programme, the better it is. And if the US position essentially is: We go with whatever the government of Israel wants, that fact should be made known to the American public.
Regarding Fitzpatrick’s paper (though I have not read it and am going by what’s being said here) Iran has already offered to place additional restrictions on its nuclear program that would limit the potential for making nukes, for example by keeping on-hand only enough LEU for fuel, and converting the LEU to fuel rods immediately so it can’t be used to make bombs. These and many other nuclear compromise offers by Iran have simply been ignored.
I think Fitzpatrick et al. just don’t fundamentally GET IT. This conflict is NOT about nuclear weapons proliferation, and so no amount of Iranian compromise offers intended to address that issue will ever suffice.
Finally, note that Argentina’s cancellation of nuclear deals with Iran predated the bombing. And, Iran continued to trade with Argentina quite a bit anyway — especially in beef!
About the Argentina case, let’s remember: The former Iranian Ambassador to Argentina, Hadi Soleimanpour, was arrested a while later in the UK, where he was finishing a grad degree. He was held for extradition to Argentina, pursuant to the request of the Argentinians, accused of involvment in the bombings. However, he was later released by the British legal system because the Argentinians failed — twice — to present sufficient evidence to justify extradition. Note that to support an extradition request, all the Argentinians had to do was present a “prima facie” case that Soleimanpour was responsible. That’s the lowest possible standard of evidence. They failed to do so, twice.
The Argentinians only “confirmed” Iranian involvement after they denied it and were pressured by the US and Israel. Otherwise the whole Argentinian investigation stank to high heaven — a prosecuting judge, for example, was forced to resign after he was caught giving a bribe to the main witness who had implicated Iran. Then there is the matter of Nasrin Mokhtari fiasco
Arnold,
The US seems to have been giving support, foolishly of course, to the Rigi brothers who were behind the unrest in Iranian Balochistan. And Israel too. Was there an effort to derail the negotations over sending the Iranian LEU out of Iran, by launching a terrorist attack? Michael Ledeen and other fantatical supporters of a Greater Israel have been deeply involved in supporting terrorist activity inside Iran, from what I understand.
Spiegel online today has an interesting story: “A History of Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions”. Spiegel poses this question: “Is Iran truly building a nuclear bomb as Western countries claim? Or are countries playing up the dangers to bring Iran tol its knees?”
I’ll read it if it becomes freely available.
“Exporting the LEU is key to a longer-term solution that accepts enrichment only under terms that reduce the potential for weapons production.”
This sounds to me like Fitzpatrick believes a longer-term solution that includes enrichment is acceptable to the US if Iran exports its uranium to keep its stock under one ton. I wish he had spelled that out instead of using the vague phrase “only under terms that reduce the potential”. More importantly, I wish the United States would spell that out officially, even if privately.
I think it is plausible that Iran may have agreed to hold its uranium stock under one ton, including by exporting to a fuel bank after the TRR transaction in early October. At that time, Iran had about 1600kgs of uranium. If Iran changed its mind on the one ton limit, I would say the culprit would have been the Balochistan attack which drastically removed any Iranian trust for the West.
Now that Iran has passed two tons, I doubt an agreement under one ton is still available. We’ll never know if it would have been possible if not for Balochistan, but the deal was structured so that the US could change the terms after Iran committed and demand zero enrichment again. It required a lot of trust on Iran’s part, and Balochistan showed that the US may or may not be independent enough of parties hostile to Iran, especially Israel and its supporters, that it could commit to Iranian enrichment even if it wanted to.
Nobody can force Argentina, or France to supply the fuel if they don’t want to. Argentina seems to really believe Iran was involved in the 1994 bomb attack in Buenos Aires.
Iran is going to make a real try at making its own fuel. We’ll see if it works. I have not heard about any impassable technical barriers. If not, I believe Arak can make the fuel once Iran gets that on line.
James,
“Is there an issue of Argentine resentment of Brazil’s taking such a prominent role internationally on this issue?”
I haven’t looked into why Argentina declined to refuel the TRR, though I vaguely recall there was a solid technical reason for its decision (i.e. not friction over the 1994 Buenos Aires bombing allegations). In any case, I doubt it’s “sour grapes” over Brazil’s recent high-profile diplomacy, since I believe Argentina’s decision pre-dated that considerably.
epppie,
Let’s be thankful William Hague has made clear the new government in the UK regards the foolish “support” given to the Israeli smashing of Lebanon in 2006, to have been a mistake they would not repeat.
And ditto as to the murderous Israeli rampage in Gaza in 2008-09.
Hezbollah has made clear that it will not launch a first-strike attack on Israel. This of course does not mean Israel would not try to provoke such an attack.
Eric,
I also am under the impression the 1994 bombing has not been convincingly attributed to Iran. Is there an issue of Argentine resentment of Brazil’s taking such a prominent role internationally on this issue?
Arnold and Cyrus,
Mr. Fitzpatrick writes that Argentina is unlikely to cooperate with Iran to refuel the TRR because of bad blood remaining over the 1994 Buenos Aires bombing.
Though we’ve all read many stories that “confirm” Iran’s responsibility for that attack, my understanding is that there’s no evidence at all to support the allegation. Is that your understanding?
If so, is it nevertheless true that the Argentinian government balks at cooperating for this reason? I recognize that the Argentinian government might be pressured not to cooperate, and to offer the Buenos Aires incident as a reason for not cooperating, but if the Argentinian government both (1) acknowledges there is no evidence of Iranian involvement; and (2) has at least a modicum of self-respect, one hopes it might resist that pressure.
the hell with ignorants,
You are quite right to underline the astounding hypocrisy and stupidity of the US State Dept. in not allowing Iranian journalists to accompany the Iranian president during his recent visit to New York. Was this the work of Hillary Clinton, who openly serves as a stooge of the Zionists?
Rehmat,
I think it is a mistake to lump Joe Biden into the same category as Joe Lieberman. I think Lieberman clearly will support the interests of the government of Israel even when those interests are directly contrary to the best interests of the American people and he understands this to be the case that obtains.
Biden, while sentitive to the demands of Jewish financiers and the impact those demands have on Democrats serving in the Senate and the House, seeks to promote the best interests of the US. And Biden clearly has a mind open to arguments advanced one way or another, regarding issues in the Middle East. Lieberman openly is an Aipac stooge.
Arnold,
The Iranian foreign minister, Mottaki, and the Iranian president, both have said this week, separately, that the Brazil-Turkey deal is still a workable proposition and an avenue for negotiations.
Is the US position simply, in effect, that the US opposes any enrichment by Iran, as long as Irael opposes such enrichment? Even if the NPT allows such enrichment?
The Obama administration will seek to camouflage its subservience to Israel on this issue.
Liz,
That Asia Times article was very interesting, especially this paragraph on page 2:
“After 31 years living in a continuously revolutionary atmosphere, the Iranian people have become astute observers of political affairs. They easily recognized the market-friendly, neo-liberal nature of Mousavi’s economic agenda when they learned from his presidential campaign speeches how he characterized government spending on basic social needs as “handouts”, as “squandering” resources on gedaparvari (nurturing or promoting poverty/laziness).”
The Green Party sounds a lot like the Tea Party in the US – people who are economically better off (though not wealthy) but can be riled up to see the poor as the source of all ills, rather than what they really are: the least powerful.
Arnold and Cyrus,
I can’t tell from your posts whether you’ve read Mr. Fitzpatrick’s article yet, and I haven’t yet, so it’s premature to comment. You can read the first 500 words on the Web at IISS’ site, but you have to be a subscriber, or pay separately, to get the full article. When I’ve read it, which may take a while, I’ll post some comments, but you may want to get it yourselves.
Liz: “Soroush is the intellectual version of Mahmoud Abbas!”
Seriously, do you feel that? I mean… Mahmoud Abbas? That’s pretty low. Why?
Who do you think we should be reading? Shariati? Someone else? Please help.
Reza Esfandiari,
I have to disagree with you on that one Abdolkarim Soroush is no Chomsky. Soroush is the intellectual version of Mahmoud Abbas! :)
@BILL DAVIT
1) “Just how many foreign journalists are even allowed into Iran these days?
Steven Kinzer of the NY Times just came back from Iran. Reuters, AP and AFP have their men in Iran, as do most western newspapers…eg Najmeh Bozorgmehr of the Financial Times of London.
2) “Why is it that in Iran a Iranian version of “Chomsky” simply cannot exist in Iran?”
He does. His name is Abdolkarim Soroush.
3) “Was the regimes narrative of Neda “Reality Based” when the regime either stated it was the MKO, Mossad, CIA, or staged depending on the day?”
It could have been all, any or none of them.
4) “They might also want to ask why Iran has banned 30 papers and arrested over 100 of its own journalists?”
Since when exactly? Not recently. One of the leading reformist newspapers,”Shargh”, which was shut down three years ago, got is license back a few months ago and is now publishing.
Eric,
How does the ISIS article deal with the US objective of the fuel swap deal?
My take is that the plan was for Iran to hold its uranium stock below a pre-determined level (one ton) as a confidence building measure for the duration of the transaction, and the duration was not to be specified. During this confidence building period, Iran and the West could discuss starting a formal negotiations process – that would also require an Iranian suspension of enrichment or effective suspension. The aim of this negotiations process would be to agree on a permanent cessation of enrichment.
The idea is suspend, at least effectively to get to negotiations, then suspend during negotiations, then agree on a permanent suspension and implement that after negotiations.
Fundamentally, underneath everything else, the US objective regarding Iran’s nuclear program is not acceptable to Iran.
Turkey and Brazil, producing terms that would allow Iran to get nuclear fuel without suspending exposed the US position.
I feel like the article most likely an attempt to distract readers away from the US position – because the US position is so unreasonable sympathizers to it cannot even spell it out.
Ask Mark Fitzgerald when would Iran get the TRR fuel without suspending and you’ll get hems and haws, “nobody knows the future”. Mark’s real answer is never. The article is most likely a long exercise in distracting readers’ attention away from that question.
Off topic but relevant to a prior posting on RaceForIran:
While the US prevents Iran from fueling its medical reactor, or swapping its LEU for fuel, or making its own fuel, to produce medical isotopes, the medical isotope shortage in the rest of the world continues, and the US is no “scrambling” to make its own medical isotopes:
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/182/5/427
A very good article:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LF16Ak01.html
Senator Joe Liberman, like Joe Biden, are Israeli poodles. In addition to the Islamic Republic, Senator Joe Lieberman has been propagating American wars for Israel against Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and Pakistan.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/leiberman-dual-citizens-and-pakistan/
Arvin/Scott Lucas,
Congratulations! The “legitimate” and “moral” governments of the EU have agreed upon sanctions directed at Iran’s oil and gas sector. Of course, they are “smart” sanctions that are not directed at the Iranian people! lol
{Do BBC Persian or VOA America have offices in Tehran?}
Why Iran should give her enemies more chances that they deserve? BBC had the opportunity and took advantage of it. The criminals in USA do not allow Iranian journalist to accompany the elected President of Iran, Dr. Ahmadinejad, to enter the country.
People should refer to facts not fictions that is spread around with the zionist media and their servants.
Also off topic, I want to comment on the article regarding tensions between Israel and Hezbollah/Hamas, on Israel’s contention that its attacks on Hamas and Hezbollah ‘worked’; this is obviously a self-serving claim that should not be given any credibility. Had stopping cross border action been its goal, Israel would have ceased its own cross-border action. This it has never been willing to do. Tit for tat is never a onesided game and Israel knows that.
What DID work, though, and what continues to ‘work’ is Israel’s near total ability to control the ‘narrative’ in most western media and political establishments. Both Hamas and Hezbollah now know with a certainty that they will be blamed for any military action that occurs, that the ongoing back and forth dynamic, typically pushed by Israel, will be ignored by virtually all western (non)observers. They are astute enough to realize that they have to bear with Israel’s impunity. The Flotilla attack demonstrated yet again Israel’s ability to control the narrative. Peaceful activists have been turned into terrorists,for the point of view of western media and political establishments.
So what was Israel really after with its attacks on Lebanon and Gaza, considering that it could have achieved quieter borders by means other than war, and why does it continue to seek confrontation rather than normalization?
This clearly relates to the Iran question. There again, why does Israel seek to hype a confrontation that clearly is not a signifigant threat to Israel, as Barak acknowledged (but we’d know it even if he didn’t acknowledge it)? It would be easy to suppose that Israel simply wants to distract attention from its ongoing project of ’settlement’ (which is a nice way to say ‘land theft’) in the West Bank, but I think the rising heat that Israel continues to encourage is far too dangerous for that to be the only reason. I think we need to acknowledge that what is going on is just what it looks like: a buildup to war.
@Cyrus (and also Humanist):
Cyrus, I was going to write a comment on the freedom of press in the west (and the freedom of expression in general) in reply to one part of your comment on June 17, 2010 at 12:59 am (and also one part of humanist’s comment on June 16, 2010 at 11:30 pm), when I saw your post (cyrus’s) on June 17, 2010 at 8:34 am and got the impression that we agreed on the matter. On the whole I agree with your first comment (and with what Humanist has written). However, there was this one part of your first comment which I wanted to refer to: “Indeed in the US you can say pretty much whatever you want” (from Cyrus) and “Definitely freedom of press exists here.”
Before I forget (I tend to forget some stuff when I write long messages) I would like to mention the name of “Helen Thomas” and what happened to her and also refer to the fact that in some countries in the Western Europe people (and that includes Journalists) can be arrested with the charge of “Holocaust Denial”.
Also it is worth mentioning the incident of Andrew Gilligan in BBC regarding the investigation of the death of Dr. David Kelly.
So I just want to say that even as far as what goes on the paper as the “laws” (be it meaningfully implemented or just a toothless “symbolic” law), the freedom of Press/expression is not “limitless” in the West.
Just today there was a news on CNN that Sen. Libermann is trying to get a bill ready so that when a president deems it necessary from the “National Security” point of view, he or she can switch-off the internet ENTIRELY. Also it is worth mentioning that Al-Manar TV to this day is banned in USA, and just as recently as Jan 2010 a bill passed in the Congress to ban all satellite TV stations which would be deemed “Anti-American”. It is also worth mentioning that in the recent visit of Ahmadinejad to UN (for the NPT review) Iranian reportes were denied visa, and in general (apparently from what I understand from Ms. Slavin) Iranian reporters, even when issued a Visa to US, for going to UN, their Visas are limited to a 25-mile radius of the UN building.
So in the West, the freedom of press (even in theory) is not as limitless.
Now when we talk about laws we have to consider certain issues:
1)Is there any possibility for the law to be meaningfully implemented in the society?
If you have completely destroyed any ground for the law to be implemented in the society, that law in essence becomes a completely empty “rhetoric”.
One good example of this is the 38th law in the constitution of the IR which explicitly prohibits any sort of “torture” to obtain information (from a detainee) and any forced confession. Does today anyone of us have any doubt about the common practice of forcing confessions in Iran? Does this law have any actual significance?
2)When a law guarantees a certain “right” for all citizens, one should not just look at oneself and see he or she can exercise this right or not. Once a friend of mine was telling another: “Don’t be so sure that there are no racial discriminations against the Blacks, you are NOT a black, you are caucasian. Go ask a Black, he is the one who should tell you if there is any racial discrimination or not”.
The whole idea of the Freedom of Press is to guarantee a free flow of information (and NOT DISinformation) to make it possible for the truth to be known. If journalists can face punishment for expressing their views (be it being imprisonment or being forced to resign or ending their careers) one cannot say that Journalists can say whatever they want with no fear of any punishment.
So here is the questions that we should ask ourselves:
Is there today a free flow of information in the Western societies?
Is that possible provide a free flow of information when the media is dominated (to the point of Monopoly) by the giant billion-dollar-corporations whose owners and patrons have their own political and economic agenda?
Is the journalism in the West based on seeking the TRUTH or is it driven by the agenda of the reporters patrons and the media moguls?
Is the media seeking the truth or rather “fabricating” the truth to serve the interests of the rulling elite (be it in the west or in Iran)?
A bit off-topic, but:
I just received from Mark Fitzpatrick (International Institute of Strategic Studies) a copy of his article “Iran: The Fragile Promise of the Fuel-Swap Plan,” published (to be published?) in the June-July issue of Survival, a magazine put out by IISS. I have only skimmed through it so far, but have read enough to be sure that many here will find it interesting. Copyright restrictions prevent me from posting it.
For those who assume that the Western press is “free” I suggest you google terms like “Mighty Wurlitzer” , “operation Mocking Bird” and read “The Cultural Cold War” by Francis Stoner Saunders.
Bill Davit(FOR NEDA (English))
Ha Ha Ha…..
How many American protestors have been crushed under military buldozers as in Israel?
How many Iranian secret agents have been cuaught in foreign countries as compared to Mossad agents?
How many foreign political leaders or scientists have been assassinated by Iranian as compared to Israel?
Has a Jewish MP in Majlis been hooted for believing in Holocaust as the Arab MP in Knesset received the Zionazi treatment for joining the Gaza Freedom Flotialla?
How many newspaper and Internet websites have been banned in the US, Canada, France and Germany for challenging the Zionist narration of Holocaust as compared to Iran?
YES – journalists over 60 countries were allowed to cover the International Nuclear Disarmament Conference in Tehran in April 2010.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/04/04/tehran-international-nuclear-disarmament-conference/
You can’t on one hand dedicate a budget to overthrowing a foreign government and on the other hand complain when that government takes steps to protect itself. Let’s not forget the conclusions of the Church Committee investigations of the 1970s which found that the CIA either outright owned or influenced a substantial number of media outlets. Wasn’t it Frank Donner of the CIA who boasted that he could play the media like a Grand Wurlitzer organ?
“We should be asking why those lapses are so frequent—indeed, chronic—in reporting and analysis on Iran. In some cases, the personal political agendas of individual reporters and editors seem to be a critical factor. But, more broadly, doing serious, reality-based reporting on Iranian politics (including rigorous sourcing and actual fact-checking) could end up regularly putting mainstream media outlets at odds with the narrative about Iranian politics and foreign policy preferred—and paid for—by the U.S. and British governments.”
HA HA HA!!!! Well I had quite the laugh over this statement. Yes it was shoddy journalism but it was corrected because many journalists kept digging. However, what does this say about the ability to do “Serious” and “Reality Based” reporting on Iran? It says it can only be done if you follow the regime by line otherwise its deportation or jail. The Leveretts might want to ask themselves:
1) Just how many foreign journalists are even allowed into Iran these days?
2) Why is it that in Iran a Iranian version of “Chomsky” simply cannot exist in Iran?
3) Was the regimes narrative of Neda “Reality Based” when the regime either stated it was the MKO, Mossad, CIA, or staged depending on the day?
4) They might also want to ask why Iran has banned 30 papers and arrested over 100 of its own journalists?
Doing reality based journalism in Iran is a joke! Reality fact based journalism in Iran either gets you deported, banned, imprisoned, or even worse killed. What a breath taking denial of the regimes press which is nothing more than propoganda today. Instead outside sources are labled as being political and having an agenda–well gee wiz we are being damned now for having an opionion, being political, and acting to support it.
Ironically this state of mind for Iran is not new news for in the IRIB’s mission statement authored some time ago they said “”the supranational waves and messages have trespassed the geographical and cultural borders, with domineering empire of Western Media aiming for the cultural conversion of the Independent nations specifically focusing on the Islamic Republic of Iran.” What a generalization and to boot one that quite nicely fits in with the Islamist mantra that the West is the eternal enemy! Well I think this clearly demonstrates who truly has agenda visa vie the IRIB and western media. Quite rich blaming the west for a bias and ignoring Iran’s documented biased position that no free press organzation the world over would have as its mission statement.
Thx
Bill
Mr. Dan Cooper,
“Most of your comments are based on exaggeration and manipulation of the facts.
Ideological and emotional agendas have blinded you from reality, which has resulted in you distancing yourselves from factual, and analytical information, preferring instead, information that fits with your material interests and emotional disposition.”
Regarding my first post on this section: Is Press TV operating in London or not? Do BBC Persian or VOA America have offices in Tehran? Is IRIB providing a platform for the opposition as they did before the election or not? I believe they are all fair questions to ask and issues the article should have addressed. You can’t talk about “media with an agenda” and ignore Press TV (IRIB English) or IRIB itself. The Western media may have an agenda, but they too have an agenda. So why not include them in the discussion? I refuse to believe that only Western media deserves to be considered a powerful tool to fool the masses in Iran, while claiming that Iranian media is this innocent entity with no faults. I also refuse to believe that Iranians can be considered pawns of a Zionist/US led coalition to overthrow the Iranian regime. I have more respect for Iranians than you. You continue to accuse Iranians of being fools and these ignorant people who can’t decide for themselves. American people or the British may in fact be ignorant when it comes to world politics, but Iranians are not.
Furthermore, the BBC Persian radio was fully active on the days leading up to the 1979 revolution (much to the dissapointment of the Shah). They would carry out Khomeini’s message to the Iranian people while reporting on atrocities of the Shah. Why not include the pre-1979 activities of the BBC in this discussion? Or are you one of the people who believes the BBC and MI5 are the ones behind the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and millions of people who took to the streets were just pawns of the UK?
I would have more respect for Iran and Iranians if I were you…
PressTV does not have freedom in Europe. They are constantly being threatened about having their offices closed (especially in London) for their programs on Israel. In addition, you can not get PressTV in the US on cable. Also, recently, a popular IRIB journalist was arrested and held for months in Italy and accused of smuggling light arms to Iran (as if you can’t get truckloads of them from Afghanistan and Iraq!). The media made a big thing of it when he was arrested, but when he was released they were quiet (freedom of the press!).
I think everyone should watch the PressTV program on Neda. It’s pretty clear that the only people who had an intrerest in this murder are the US and European based MEK terrorists.
Arvin/Scott Lucas,
Just another interesting footnote among many about your identity.
On this threat you wrote: I feel the love! (under Arvin)
On the other one you wrote: That’s why I always come back to Race for Iran: just to feel the love. (under Scott Lucas)
Re freedom of speech. Indeed in the US you can say pretty much whatever you want. The suppression is not through imprisonment but through the almost total control of the so-called market place if speech by mcj mire powerful voices that shut out some ideas whilst promoting others. Just look at the whole WMDs on Iraq fiasco. The government (which also has freedom of speech) so totally dominated the field and pushed out competing speech that it had everyone convinced there were WMDs there and the media acted as it’s mouthpiece. This is contrary to the way free speech is supposed to work. The ideal is nit the way things actually work. There are some limited and toothless laws restricting domestic propagana operations in the US but in general and especially when it comes to forgeign affairs matters, there is only one voice heard, that of the govt. And note that our media system is dominated by a few companies which are also defense contractors. Read Ben Bagdikian.
Also note that there is a severe imbalance the the worlds flow if information with mist news sources being Western and from Developed states. There was an attempt to address this imbalance by creating and international New World Information Order to promote voices from the South. But Reagan opposed it and pulled out of UNICEf as a result
@ Pirouz_2 and all
I think the issue of “Press Freedom” in the West especially in the US is more complex than affirming its existence or lack of it.
In 1988 Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky wrote a book titled ‘Manufacturing Consent’. Although some concepts discussed in the book are dated still it is a great read. From what I remember all techniques used in the ‘corporate mass media’ today were not discussed in that book. While other techniques such as hiding vitally important news from the public were sufficiently explained.
I believe currently, those few who are in control of the corporate media do not care about who or how many read or comment in Antiwar.com or counterpunch.com, consortiumnews.com, or other similar places. What they are after is intentionally ‘deceiving’ the sheepish MAJORITY in order to advance their own evil agenda. (In a recent Antiwar Radio program a lady was showing 71% of Americans believe Iranian nuclear bomb is a threat to USA) This does not mean they completely ignore their fierce opponents. With very high probability they keep good track of everything goes on in the rational and analytical universe but indications are in majority of the cases they show no sign of ‘being threatened’.
There are couple of small exceptions. I think the major one is this site and Leveretts’ analytical challenge to their lunatic perceptions and plans. It is interesting to watch what they would do to extinguish the fire this site has started.
What was not mentioned in ‘Manufacturing Consent’ was the serious adaptation of a trick from the Nazi Manual of Propaganda.
Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister once said “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” This is exactly the procedure adopted by corporate media today. It worked perfectly in the instances of Iraqi WMD , links between 911 and Al-Quaeda and was perfected in the case of “Widespread Fraud in the Iranian June 2009 Election”.
The story of “Press Freedom” in the West is very long. Here I’ll humbly try to briefly summerize my observation in this subject.
Definitely freedom of press exists here. No one will stop you from saying anything you have in your mind, say it in your own blog or anyplace that is willing to publicize it, but the question is how many read your opinion even if that is a very important and consequential idea? I think as long as the audience for rational thoughts are small in size the system tolerates them. Rupert Murdoch knows “you don’t cut the hand that feeds you” yet he makes sure the employees know if they cross the line they are finished. Phenomenons such as programs of Keith Olbermann are different stories. If you use Google Search you might find why they see no problem in his apparent voices of rebellion.
Publishing critical Books is also a very interesting story, some examples reveal how the reviewers can block the publication of any serious anti-establishment notion especially if it is impartially researched and properly documented.
For example when M.G.Majd tried to publish his inciting well researched book entitled “The Great Famine and Genocide in Persia 1917-1919″ his work was rejected by all publishers. Until finally after a long struggle University Press of America agreed to publish it.
I believe if we quantify the garbage fed to the public in the forms of deceptive News, evil provocations, absurd or superstitious ideas etc compared to rational analytical opinions, the ratio would be a disappointing number. It will be more distressing if we quantify the influence of vicious propaganda, lies, half-truths and ‘hiding the issue altogether’ against the effects of honest writings or broadcasts on what the real facts are
Kooshy,
I do remember operation Eagle Claw, as if it was yesterday. I also saw a Frontline program on the subject that fleshed out a lot of stuff that I didn’t already know.
One thing to emphasize is that the hostages were taken in express response of the US admitting the shah in.
Arvin,
I don’t think you are naïve, but try to get a rise out of people. Freedom of speech isn’t free. Recently we have seen an enormous obsession with freedom of speech and as it is called in the US a “right”. The right to chitchat; the right to yak; the right to complain; the right to demand more rights.
Anytime you think freedom of speech exist in the US, try this: get a soapbox and stand outside and say things about subverting the government. Heck, you don’t even need a soapbox. Try it in blog or chant it on radio or TV. Then we will see how long you last before you are rendition-ed off to corner of the world, never to be heard from.
Freedom of speech isn’t free!
Rehmat @9:26: Who killed Neda?
Are you familiar with the Dutch documentary “The Revolution will not be televised?” Just before the coup against Hugo Chavez (2002) several opposition demonstrators were killed. Only problem was that the opposition media reported their deaths before they actually happened. The victims were also killed in locations where there were lots of opposition demonstrators but no Chavez supporters.
The point of killing innocent victims was to show that the regime was losing control and had resorted to killing innocent demonstrators. This would justify a military coup.
After killing opposition demonstrators, sharpshooters perched on surrounding buildings and proceeded to pick off Chavez supporters. None of the sharpshooters was ever found.
It would not surprise me at all if outside agitators were involved in the assassination of Neda.
Sakineh Bagoom
Eric, You wrote: “I hear Iran also has a lot of sand”.
Sakineh – if anybody, American tax payers know more about Iran’s sands than anybody else, remember operation Eagle Claw, I know for fact that Iranian Navy is currently operating 5 of the copters that was left behind which was paid for by American tax payers like us, I saw their pictures on last month military maneuvers.
Hamed,
That PressTV video is amazing. Almost 10 minutes of an American lady walking, driving and talking! What is it supposed to prove? As one of the youtube commenters asks, “so did she actually investigate anything or wot?”
k-w,
I’ve tried to find something to substantiate this story, too. Cannot find anything. A death certificate, maybe? If she died in a hospital, as the story goes, there should be some official records.
This new “second Neda” angle is an odd twist indeed.
Worldwide media picked up an anonymous video and made it a huge story that even the President of the United States commented on, with no facts at his disposal – Thats the real story. His comment that the Neda story was “heartbreaking” blows my mind. How many people had he killed with his drones in the month before that, how many children? Butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth over those deaths, real deaths, but his heart is broken over a youtube video.
Pak:
YOU WROTE:”I am not questioning the quality of press, I am only talking about a free press. Yes – I will argue that the UK (and Europe) has a relatively free press (I know much less about the US). In the UK, journalists are not imprisoned for their words and they have the freedom to investigate practically anything. In the UK there is also a freedom of information act, which allows certain top-secret files to be released. Furthermore, Press TV openly operates and broadcasts in the UK.
Governments ultimately have an agenda. To say that the Iranian regime is completely innocent would be comedy. I accept that manipulation of information is a powerful tool. But do not confuse this with a free press. I welcome your opinion.”
In Western Europe Journalist or not, you can be imprisoned for denying holocaust. In USA Al-Manar is banned and recently a bill passed in USA to ban any satellite TV station which would be deemed as “anti-american”. Of course there is the case of the dispute between BBC and the Tatcher government during the falkland war. Not to mention the case of Andrew Gilligan and BBC, and of course the recent “firing” of Helen Thomas. These are ONLY a few and a VERY few…the list goes much longer.
In fact the whole subject of this thread is about “Journalism with Agenda”. If CNN, BBC, FOX, Sky News, etc. are the examples of “free press” then I can tell you that Iran too has a free press.
“Free press” is meaningless without a “de facto” freedom of flow of information and truth-based reporting. And freedom of flow of information is IMPOSSIBLE when the press and information environment is MONOPOLIZED with corporate media whose purpose is not to seek the truth but to promote the agenda of its patrons/owners.
Eric,
You wrote: “I hear Iran also has a lot of sand”.
Do I have your permission to tell them to go pound sand, then?
“Iran Gains From American Strategic Errors,” Foreign Policy Journal
Another Israeli Hasbara piece……
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/06/17/tehran-gains-from-washingtons-wars-for-israel/
Who killed Neda Agha-Soltan?
“The US and British intelligence agencies are behind the murder of Neda,” The Workers World editorial
http://www.workers.org/2009/editorials/neda_agha-soltan_0702/
Neda is everywhere, but Rachel Corrie, Tristan Anderson, and Furkan Dogan–Americans all–are nowhere to be found. (Doing a search on the NY Times website for the virtual non-existence of Furkan Dogan’s name reveals the extent of the “journal of record’s” complicity in the cover-up of Americans executed by the IDF.)
Objective reporting: RIP. Propaganda, psyops, and “public diplomacy” rule.
Dear pirouz_2,
I am not questioning the quality of press, I am only talking about a free press. Yes – I will argue that the UK (and Europe) has a relatively free press (I know much less about the US). In the UK, journalists are not imprisoned for their words and they have the freedom to investigate practically anything. In the UK there is also a freedom of information act, which allows certain top-secret files to be released. Furthermore, Press TV openly operates and broadcasts in the UK.
Governments ultimately have an agenda. To say that the Iranian regime is completely innocent would be comedy. I accept that manipulation of information is a powerful tool. But do not confuse this with a free press. I welcome your opinion.
I’ve given up entirely on Obama and his administration. He, and they, would appear to be nothing but a corporate cypher.
@Pak:
You wrote: “If there was a free press in Iran then many of these rumours would never have spread. If there was a free press then the regime would not be so exposed to propaganda campaigns. Of course, the regime is dictatorial, thus does not understand this.”
So where exactly do we have this “free press”? In USA? In UK?
I am afraid “IF” those are your examples of “free press” I will have to disagree with you. The West is the ultimate source spreading rumours and untruthful news to make cases for any action which would serve the interests of the the Western Elite.
Iraqi WMDs, Electoral frauds in Iran, this stealing of some poor womans picture and present them as N. Agha-Soltan’s for the purpose of propaganda are only “some” of the examples.
Arvin
Re Your post; June 13, 2010 at 10:02 am
In this forum, you are constantly barking louder and louder than you bite.
You have a deliberate desire to exploit people’s articles to discredit the Islamic republic.
Most of your comments are based on exaggeration and manipulation of the facts.
Ideological and emotional agendas have blinded you from reality, which has resulted in you distancing yourselves from factual, and analytical information, preferring instead, information that fits with your material interests and emotional disposition.
The primacy of emotion over fact bids ill for you.
Ahmadinejad won the election fairly, get over it, don’t be a sore loser.
You must be so stupid not to have realised that “the regime change” in Iran is the most important foreign policy of Israel, USA and Britain.
Mossad, CIA and MI6 are extremely active in Iran, “Exploitation of the Iranian election and Neda’s death and the orchestrated media campaign to discredit the Islamic republic” are part of their Psychological Operations “PSYOPS”.
Neda was an innocent bystander. She was not participating in any demonstration; she was not wearing any green clothes. She was walking with her music teacher in a side street where there was no demonstration.
Now Arvin, explain to me, what would a Basiji gain by killing her?
Now ask yourself this; what would a “Foreign agent or the enemies of Islamic Republic” gain by killing her?
Neda was “assassinated to order” for maximum publicity to tarnish the image of the Iranian government.
CIA and specially Mossad are famous for this type of operations.
They deliberately chose a “beautiful girl” in order to get maximum exposure. Have you ever asked yourself why they did not kill her music teacher who was by her side?
I advise you to read Reza Esfandiari’s article;
http://www.iranian.com/main/2009/nov/no-rest-or-peace?page=1
He wrote:
“it is every bit conceivable that those who thought the opposition movement needed a symbol and icon of resistance – recipients and supporters no doubt of a $400m CIA-backed destabilization program for Iran – would have arranged this horrible murder and try and pin it on the Iranian authorities.”
k_w and Hamed:
We have looked, with a green supporter friend of mine, at the two suspicious Basiji cases based on the movies that are being aired and also using map. we were not professional in this field, but it sounds these two cases are innocent for the crime alleged against them. the Basij guy you refereed to was in front of Neda and her teacher and the bullet seems be coming from behind. even if he was to shot, the teacher would be the target but not Neda. the other Basiji, shown in the clip from the rooftop, is passing by in more than 200 m away (from AmirAbad to the junction of Salehi and Khosravi Streets) from the death location. the street is also a bit curvy, and there were a lot of people and cars in between, it’s almost impossible to hit a target like this with this situation and with that precision. based on my assessment, the lady explained the movie is the one. nothing is for sure, of course.
eventually my friend complained, they killed more than 10 at that day (which is true), now you are sticking to this case? why not making documentaries about those guys? like Arabi, Roholamini,…. I said, it’s a very good question to ask from the gov. those cases should be investigated as well, but that doesn’t cover the fact of this case. Neda’s death was used extensively, so it’s worth to emphasis on her death and make through investigation. let’s clear something that was used against Iran all over the world first, then we go to other cases one by one. besides, we are seeking the truth, so, why should it be disturbing to see a documentary like this?
unfortunately, again the system made a lot of lies about this case that this time it’s hard for some people to believe a true story, if at all it is true I am not 100% sure. it was also too late. I am not defending Arash Hejazi, but to ask why did he go to the U.K, where he was studying, just 2 days after the incident is ridiculous. If I were him, seeing my movie in TVs all over the world in this way, I would get out probably in a matter of hours!, if I could go, because it was clear the gov. is looking for a case to introduce as the murderer. it could have been too late had it been found that I was not the one who actually killed her!
Arvin
“Regardless of what US or other countries treat their citizens, I believe us Iranians should have the freedom to choose what we watch or where we get our news from without anyone telling us what to think or what to watch. To our credit, we already do that. But with too much hassle!”
Arin – If you really want that for Iran, like I have written here before you will first need to prevent any foreign influence in Iran’s internal affairs, including accepting thier media at face value, like how they have tinted this last elections for some the Iranians with use of their media as is described in this article.
True that at end they were not successful to impose their will on the Iranian decision but at the minimum they were able to weaken Iran’s position in international affairs and create a period of destabilization as you can see that can delay internal democratization.
I have often written a Yazdi Iranian proverb that I learned from my mom that is “As Laage Gazor Tanban Najist Nabaid Kard” do you understand what that means.
Kooshy,
You’re right, no denying Western hypocrisy. And you’re right again, most of the news programs and organizations from Fox News to CNN to MSNBC are crap. Victims of sensalationism in a quest for ratings and money. If anything, they are only good at keeping the illusion of democracy alive. BUT, you then have people like Jon Stewart and the Daily Show (the most trusted man in news in America!) He is the best media critic I know. He criticizes all of them all over the political spectrum. His mere existence and success shows that there’s still some level of freedom in USA. BUT, if an Iranian Jon Stewart existed, he would be imprisoned if not hanged by now. Jafar Panahi WANTED to make a film about the post-eletion unrest and ended up serving 3 months in prison.
Regardless of what US or other countries treat their citizens, I believe us Iranians should have the freedom to choose what we watch or where we get our news from without anyone telling us what to think or what to watch. To our credit, we already do that. But with too much hassle!
Arvin
“We’re talking about more mainstream news outlets (at least as far as Iran and Iranians are concerned), not the more abstract ones like Hamas TV (or is it Hezbollah TV?!). Even then they can take US to court if their TV station is blocked and under first ammendment rights they will be able to win out. Heck, they have the right to sue US government if they wanted to… “
“Mainstream news outlets” you mean like the ones that was mentioned on this article by the Levrret’s may be you should read this article again, and like the first amendment right that Helen Thomas enjoyed after working for 60 years in the media, And sue the US government like prisoners of Gitmo did, who are you kidding here, the level of hypocrisy in this country is no longer coverable at least by what I have experienced in my 40 year here.
DWZ,
I feel the love!
مرسی از اینکه همیشه با سخنان شیرین و مهربانت ما را در این راه یاری می کنی! ای کاش هیچ هم وطنی را جنده و یا جاسوس صهیونیست صدا نمی کردی… ولی افسوس
Kooshy,
We’re talking about more mainstream news outlets (at least as far as Iran and Iranians are concerned), not the more abstract ones like Hamas TV (or is it Hezbollah TV?!). Even then they can take US to court if their TV station is blocked and under first ammendment rights they will be able to win out. Heck, they have the right to sue US government if they wanted to…
Press TV as far as I know is still operating. They threatened to take it off the air if Iran continues to jam signals. Iran still jams signals while Press TV continues to operate. But wouldn’t you agree that this article should have at least mentioned PRESS TV or performance of IRIB?! Read my first post on this again…
Arvin,
“That may very well be the case. But what I’m saying is that if Press TV, an English language news network can operate in London, why can’t BBC Persian operate in Tehran? For me its a question of freedom of speech, not what programs they are running.”
And the same question can be asked from US. Why they don’t let Iranian reporters and journalists operate in US? Why no US official talk to Iranian reporters or answer their questions even by email? They can only be present in UN and report from there.
Arvin
“That may very well be the case. But what I’m saying is that if Press TV, an English language news network can operate in London, why can’t BBC Persian operate in Tehran?”
Arvin-perhaps for the same reason that Almanar is not allowed operating here in the US, may be like US Iran has decided that VOA is a terrorist front organization, there are also bills to block Press TV and a range other opposition broadcasters from beaming to US.
James,
By Iranians I mean the general public in Iran. Obviously tech-savvy Iranians can overcome obstacles and get to the news or resources they want.
James
That may very well be the case. But what I’m saying is that if Press TV, an English language news network can operate in London, why can’t BBC Persian operate in Tehran? For me its a question of freedom of speech, not what programs they are running. Why can’t Iranians choose what they watch or read like the rest of us and not have their government (or their supporters) dictate for them what they can watch and can’t?
PressTV has a story today regarding the summoning of the British ambassador in Tehran, to the Foreign Ministry, to explain whether the UK is helping terrorists active within Iran. This story should be in US newspapers.
k_w,
PressTv recently aired a documentary named “Cross Road A closer look to the death of Neda Agha-Soltan” which you can see that basiji guy talking about neda’s death and what happened to him after that. Watch it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6DO9bo4HeI
It also talks to Neda’s music teacher who was beside her when she was shot and her best friend. It also talks about Neda wrong picture and the identity of this picture and her actual name which is “Zahra Soltani” not “Neda Soltani”.
Eric,
I am from Iran and the raceforiran.com is not blocked here. It was blocked for some hours which was a technical mistake I think. This happened before for other websites like Google!
But it’s really common to use anti-filtering tools for bypassing blocked websites in Iran. There are a range of tools and websites that provide solutions for bypassing filter in Iran mostly free of charge.
Arvin,
I see a number of stories carried by PressTV on their website that do not foster the line the government of Iran is taking. Many are essentially neutral, in the context of Iranian politics and foreign affairs.
Cyrus,
I seem to recall Hill & Knowlton were paid $10 million to influence the US public into supporting a war to evict Iraqi troops from Kuwait. Brilliant PR campaign, but at least the war was a logical course of action. War with Iran, of course, would be supremely imbecilic.
What this article is missing is the following:
1. Press TV is Iran’s English language news channel with reporters all over the West. They even have studios in London. It is also very clear where they stand – side by side with the Iranian government. Their English speaking foreign reporters never get into trouble with their countries of origin. Their programs are never jammed and in places where one cannot watch their station, their website can supply a live feed. So basically it’s accesible to those who would want to watch it…
Meanwhile, BBC Persian or VOA Persian have no studios or reporters in Iran. Their Farsi-speaking Iranian reporters cannot travel to Iran. Anyone who even calls in BBC or VOA can face a prison term as “cooperating” with them is considered illegal (as evident by charges brought up by the regime in their show trials). Their satellites are jammed and websites are blocked, making it impossible for many of those who want to watch to be able to watch.
So the question that comes to mind is this: Are we not saying that Freedom of Speech is one of the main pillars of any democracy? Then why is it that Press TV can operate freely in countries its government considers enemy states and never be accused of instigating a “soft revolution” or dictating policy? But if VOA or BBC operate from OUTSIDE of Iran and beam in their programs they are accused of everything under the sun short of war crimes! This is not to say that I don’t find the content of these stations questionable. I do. BUT, if there’s freedom of speech that you believe in, they should all be able to operate and the people should be able to choose the station that one way or another GAINS THEIR TRUST. Which brings me to my second point:
2. Before the Iranian elections some 50 million viewers would tune in to IRIB to watch the presidential debates. By providing a platform for all sides to present their case the IRIB had managed to gain the trust of the people. In those days it didn’t matter what was on BBC or VOA, because people were tuned in to IRIB to watch what they believed was a national TV dedicated to providing a platform for all candidates. Only after the elections and IRIB’s one-sided ness in reporting the news from the streets did they turn to VOA or BBC and turned away from IRIB in millions. Because for example IRIB was not showing what was happening down the street from them! They were and still are dedicated to one party. No more debates. Mousavi and Karoubi were never to be invited to speak on live TV. Perhaps many of the riots would not have taken place if IRIB continued providing a platform for all sides to present their case. And in doing so, it would not have turned people to BBC Persian or VOA Persian.
* * *
Western media deserves a good beating for their overall performance over the last few years. No question about that. But let us not want freedom of speech only for people in the West. Iranians too deserve the freedom to say what the want, watch they want and think how they like.
Eric,
Thanks for asking everyone to make this post about media and not the tragic death of a young woman who was a victim of circumstances. (btw, I left you a post in “Myth…”)
If there was a free press in Iran then many of these rumours would never have spread. If there was a free press then the regime would not be so exposed to propaganda campaigns. Of course, the regime is dictatorial, thus does not understand this.
Regardless, CNN is the biggest joke. They spend more time describing peoples’ tweets and facebook updates rather than offering their own journalism. I guess this method is far cheaper, easier and more interesting to Joe or Ali the plumber.
Sakineh,
“How would the US keep its economy afloat if it weren’t for wars?”
Shortly before the Afghanistan war began in late 2001, an in-law was working for a division of a large US conglomerate that manufactured brakes for US military fighter planes. Business was bad. Along came the Afghanistan war and business boomed. Turns out that sand is hard on aircraft brakes, and Afghanistan has a lot of sand.
Just as business was starting to level off a bit, along came the Iraq invasion, and orders spiked once again. Turns out Iraq has a lot of sand too.
I hear Iran also has a lot of sand.
Some of the same pundits and think tanks that helped peddle the “Iraqi WMD” threat are now active in promoting the idea that an Iranian nuclear-weapons programme exists…The fact that there is no actual evidence of any “Iranian bomb” appears to be as irrelevant to these pundits today as the non-existence of Iraqi WMD was in 2003.
- Rhetoric of War: First Iraq, then Iran.
Incidentally, have you noticed how the same journalists and editors who regularly refer to “Iran’s nuclear weapons program” without a shred of evidence of the existence of such a program, are meticulously careful to refer to only an “alleged” Israeli nuclear weapons?
You should check into the “Taraneh Mousavi” hoax too. This reminds me of the “nurse” who testified about the “babies torn from incubators” in Kuwait after the Iraqi invasion. Turned out the “nurse” was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador, and the whole thing was a con job by Hill & Knowlton PR firm. Classic atrocity propaganda.
…and of course, most Iranians believe that she was gunned down by members of the MEK (MKO) terrorist organization. They had the most to gain and there is no evidence to show that a baseej member did it. There was a very good documentary on this shown a few days ago on PressTV.
Also, contrary to Arvin/Scott Lucas claims no one was killed in the vigilante attack on part of the University of Tehran dorm last year.
{Many pundits and activists who might vigorously oppose a war against Iran seem to be waiting for something. Perhaps they refuse to believe that Obama would ‘pull the trigger’, even though he has demonstrated no hesitance about pulling triggers so far.}
Noam Chomsky uses expression such as ‘rotten regime’ for his reader to shape the opinion of ‘progressives’ on Iran This expression best suited for the apartheid state which Chomsky refuse to use. He always includes ‘US imperialism’ in Israel’s crimes against humanity to paint Israel as a good client state who has no choice. In the raid on flotilla where many peace activists have been killed Chomsky wrote:
{Hijacking boats in international waters and killing passengers is, of course, a serious crime. Israel assumes that it can commit such crimes with impunity because the United States tolerates them and Europe generally follows the U.S.’s lead.}
Chomsky rejects the influence of Israel lobby on the US foreign policy in the Middle East. Someone must ask him: why ‘US imperialism’ wants to enforce Ghaza blockade?
Stop it Mr. Chomsky.
Sakineh,
Sardonic humour! But of course, the US could instead build tram and trolly car systems in a thousand cities, and clean up tens of thousands of polluted sites, etc etc etc. But this would mean the pie would be cut by different interests! Much better to continue to dupe the ignorant, gullible and frankry rather stupid – - regrettably – - American public.
James,
I agree! How would the US keep its economy afloat if it weren’t for wars? No real industry. No good cars. All manufacturing moved off shore. Millions of jobless. etc.
Sakineh,
I could put my point in another way, by saying Gates cleary is a second- or third-rate strategic thinker, and he got where he is today by covering the backsides of the armaments manufacturers, and the politicians in Washington and elsewhere, who have caused trillions of dollars to be squandered on useless or unnecessary weapons.
Sakineh,
Yes, I understood your purpose absolutely, and I think your points are excellent.
I think Gates not only has virtually no understanding of Iran and the Iranian people, he does not have advisers on his staff who do have such knowledge and are not stooges of the Zionists trying to enable Israel to keep all or large parts of the West Bank – - even at a cost to the US taxpayer of trillions of dollars.
James,
I was trying to highlight US strategy (or lack thereof) vis-a-vis Iran.
I don’t think Bob has ever been to Iran, or talked to an Iranian to understand their mindset.
Why was Neda’s death so much more important than deaths suffered by protestors in Honduras, Thailand, Israel, on the Flotilla, etc., etc., etc.? As this article helps show, it was a death that some important forces in the media were apparently very, very anxious to turn into a martyrdom.
About the warning here about parallels between the ‘regime change’ buildup re. Iraq leading to war and the Iran ‘regime change’ buildup: I think it’s important to recognize that the Iraq precedent makes it easier, not harder for that process to take place. One might suppose that the example of Iraq would encourage folks in the media and the political establishment to be leery, but as we see, that’s not the case. Charges against Iran have been flying fast and furious with even less justification or substance. The example of the ‘Green Revolution’ hype is sobering to consider, in this connection. Consider the underlying irony – an election that probably would not have ocurred at all in some countries that we consider ‘allies’ and ‘moderates’ in the Middle East has been manipulated by the media and political establishments into ‘proof’ that Iran is desperately in need of a US democracy boost, ie. regime change. It seems easier than ever these days for ‘up’ to be manipulated into ‘down’, for ‘black’ to be manipulated into ‘white’, to ‘fix the facts around the policy’.
Many pundits and activists who might vigorously oppose a war against Iran seem to be waiting for something. Perhaps they refuse to believe that Obama would ‘pull the trigger’, even though he has demonstrated no hesitance about pulling triggers so far. Perhaps it is because they expect to see some long buildup of forces such as we saw in Kuwait prior to the Iraq invasion in 2003. But this expectation seems naive, almost nostalgic. Any attack on Iran will be primarily from the air. For that, the most important buildup has already taken place – the buildup of anti-missile systems in the region. These systems should, apparently, be regarded as first strike enablers, NOT really as defensive systems. If effective at all, it is against an enfeebled attempt at reprisal, not against an attacking barrage (something that no one seriously thinks Iran would undertake in any case).
If and when Iran is attacked, there will not necessarily be any warning.
Two observations:
1. Though the Leveretts make clear that this is NOT a story about the Neda who died – a very sad story, all should agree and none should exploit – it will not surprise me to see here a renewal of the obnoxious debate over that tragic event.
2. The Leveretts write:
“Based on our personal experiences in Iran, talking with a wide range of official and unofficial Iranians, reading Iranian websites, and seeing comments posted on http://www.TheRaceForIran.com by readers in Iran, we do not believe that Iranians are lacking in knowledge about their own country or the outside world.”
Mindful of the Leveretts’ wise suggestion, which they themselves followed here, of relying whenever possible only on one’s “personal experiences,” I will mention the several reports made on the “Persistent Myths…” thread on this website last weekend that the Iranian government had blocked access to the Race for Iran website. I could not help but be amused that we received no fewer than three such reports from a commenter who claimed to be inside Iran as he issued those reports. Whatever block-evading software the US government is promoting for sale to Iranians must be working pretty well.
Sakineh,
I was referrring to Afghanistan, and Gates’ grossly mistaken belief in late 1988 that the Soviet Union would double its troop commitment to the war effort in 1989, just weeks before the USSR announced it was pulling out!
Sakineh,
I have very little confidence that Bob Gates understands Iran or the Iranian people. Let’s remember that Gates, sitting virtually at the top of the CIA in late 1988, did not think the Soviet Union would withdraw! I had known for years the USSR was trying to arrange a means of getting out with reasonable dignity.
The appropriate long-term strategy for dealing with Iran is to identify the true best interests of the American people, and to pursue those interests. This means, at a minimum, reopening the embassy in Tehran, and starting direct air connection New York-Tehran.
Bravo! Sadly, it is increasingly evident that Obama has little understanding of the Middle East in general, and next to no understanding of Iran. Hillary Clinton suffers from the same shortcomings. Obama thus is vulnerable to being duped by warmongers within and without his adminstration, who hide under the protective shell of “promoting democracy”. Total rubbish.
A secret memo from Defense Secretary Robert Gates titled “a wake up call” warning top White House officials that they lack a long-term strategy for dealing with Iran. In lieu of a long-term strategy, a lot of wishful thinking and lost effort ensue.
What is really needed here is a coherent strategy that takes into account Iran’s interests and marries them with US’s, one which is not myopic and concentrated on nuclear issue alone.
I don’t want to show lack of respect, but can anyone tell me where I can find the photographs of the Basiji thug who is said to have killed her and to have been caught by demonstrators? Rumour has it that his id card was also taken. It’s puzzling me that neither can be found on the web … Anyone?