The state of civil unrest in Iran and how many of us have been responding to it has got me rather bothered. On several occasions, I’ve been accused of “polarising the issue” or making hot-headed judgments about the situation when I don’t have a real understanding of the political climate in Iran.
This note is something of a response to those accusations, but more importantly, a call for us to acknowledge that the rights of Iranian people are being unreasonably and grossly limited and actually speak out against it.

First of all, I will concede that I do not have an integral understanding of what the two prominent camps represent and the extent of the impact it has on the day-to-day lives of Iranians, but I do understand that scores of Iranians are dissatisfied by corruption and deceit to the extent that they are willing to risk their liberty and lives to see that change.

I think it would be arrogant for me or anyone to pick a side and advocate for why theirs should be the government because that is for the people of Iran to decide. South Africans picked Zuma, for god’s sake, so I think I already have enough to deal with there. What upsets me about the situation is not so much who won but, rather, they appear to have won and the treatment of thousands of civilians speaking out against what they believe to have been an unfair and corrupted election that was fixed by biased authorities.

While no government should be expected to announce a re-election every time a group voices its unhappiness about the results not being in their favour, when so massive a wave of dissatisfaction sweeps across the country, carrying with it evidence of ballot-rigging amounting to an excess of 3million votes than there were registered voters – not to mention a Guardian Council that clearly favours Ahmadinejad as the preferred candidate, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for anyone to demand that the government take notice and make concerted efforts to allay the people’s fears and prove its legitimacy.

What we have been seeing instead, is a consistently hard-lined and disproportional response to the series of peaceful protests undertaken by concerned Iranians. International communications about the extent of civil unrest and how it’s being dealt with by government has been censored. Political dissidents including online bloggers are being traced and detained. Over 400 people have been arrested, and the death toll is at 19 – Neda Soltan’s being most illustrative of just how unnecessary the means used by the Basiji have been to disperse the protesters. All of this under Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Khomeini’s watch.

How can such a gross violation of the constitutional and civil-political rights of the Iranian people be allowed to continue? What can this mean for their other fundamental human rights which, under highly conservative theocratic rule, have been already been severely restricted? What kind of real engagement can Iranians have with their domestic political affairs when criticism against the government results in detention for sedition? Was it precisely not this kind of oppression that catalysed the 1979 revolution? What Iranians want is a legitimate democratic government that respects protects and promotes its people’s civil liberties of all and that’s precisely what the green revolution has come to represent!

I take a moment to remind us all that what’s happening in Iran is not at all new or unusual to us at all. When it happened in Zimbabwe, we weren’t ‘polarising issues’. We called it gross human rights violations and we all of us demanded re-elections in order to free Zimbabwe. When it happened in Sharpeville, we weren’t ‘polarising issues’ there either. Instead, we called it a massacre and demanded the international community to assist the liberation movement in freeing South Africa. Why is it then that, when the same course of events is running in Iran, we are not demanding that we free Iran?

Jake is reminded every day how banal the gays are.

They’ve mobilized their facilities, packed their luggage and set off their missions to distort, spread out, “separate and rule”, “divide and conquer”. Everything began on the eve of June 13’s gloaming, grumbling and whining Saturday of late spring, when the astounding outcomes of the tenth presidential elections in Iran were chanted by the mass media and electoral commissions. That was the very beginning of a communal bewilderment and perplexity all over the country, and around the world as well. The friends and enemies, supporters and dissidents, compatriots and strangers, internals and externals: everybody was amazed by the results of the most dynamic presidential elections in the contemporary history of Iran; the incumbent president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was reelected by a vast majority of 63%, thumping the reformist rival Mir-Hossein Mousavi by a discrepancy of 11 million votes.

Even the most optimistic fans of Mr. Ahmadinejad could not foretell a 24.5m victory will be achieved by their beloved candidate whom in the most realistic situation, would have been beating the reformist contender in a run-off round after coming to a close standoff in the first round; however, everything was over and the congratulatory message of the Supreme Leader had arrived: “The elections of Khordad 22 (June 12) with the creative performance of the Iranian nation, set a new record in the long sequence of national elections. The 80% turnout on the ballots and the 24m votes of people to the president-elect is a pure festivity which can guarantee the country’s improvement and progression, national security and sustainable contentment with the divine patronages and assistances.”

That was when protests by the foremost failed candidate, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, who could never imagine losing with such a soaring discrepancy, commenced. He accused the electoral commission of fraud and manipulation in the elections, and expressed that he would not recognize the results, calling for the annulment of the whole elections.
This was the allegation which the electoral commission denied from very early on and declared its readiness to publicize all of the detailed documentations and evidences to prove the healthiness and purity of the elections. They told the public media that we will publish the details of each ballot, an unprecedented elaboration of details which has never been done over the past 30 years.

Mousavi, however, began to issue statements and fervent declarations, calling his supporters to pour into the streets and mount demonstrations. Hundreds of thousands of his fans paid homage to the call of their popular 67-year old former prime minister, and stormed out into the streets of Tehran, creating scenes which the foreign correspondents described as “unprecedented” after the Islamic revolution.

How the complexity pulls in

The rallies were going on peacefully at the beginning, and people would just chant slogans such as “Where are my votes?”, “I want my votes back” or “I’ve voted green – why’s it vanished?”

The rallies lasted for some three days, and the tensions gradually began to arouse. The western media outlets, especially those of UK and US, who would never give up such precious and invaluable opportunity to put an extravagant and “exclusive” coverage on Iran, seized the most infinitesimal chances, and turned them into the most spacious grounds for airing propaganda.

CNN established its special “Iran desk”, and BBC Persian TV added some 3 hours to its regular daily coverage. Encouragements for the continuation of rallies, strikes and protests progressively began to turn up from the foreign radio and TV stations, particularly the Persian section of Radio Israel whose “experts” would fervently advocate the expansion of unrest to the large cities all around the country, instead of “concentrating” them in Tehran.

Riots and rebels, the former fighters of the paramilitary group MKO which the U.S. Department of State recognizes as a terrorist organization, the Israel-linked suicidal bombers being partially systematized by the foreign forces to carry out destructive actions, and the unorganized flocks of hooligans were soon scattered all over the country, starting to revolt and rise amidst the peaceful and political demonstrations, performing mischievous actions and divesting longstanding peace and stability from the country.

Plainclothes and anti-rebel police came to action, and a number of supporters of Mir-Hossein Mousavi, as well as some religious students were arrested, shot or killed along with the mutineers and insurgents. The death toll rose to 19 – the official stats – and according to the state-run Press TV, the members of Hashemi Rafsanjani family were arrested, and then released immediately.

Deteriorating foreign interventions

Iran’s Intelligence Ministry announced that it has arrested a number of “main agents”, who masterminded the recent post-election violence in Tehran, and also announced that the fingertips of the US-backed MKO fighters who were among the main intensifiers of street unrest in Tehran were detected among the riots.

The moderate conservative Speaker of Parliament, Ali Larijani, recommended the “relevant authorities” to issue proper certifications for the rallies of protestors and those who want an electoral recount, so that the account of political protest could be cleared from the anti-security rebellion and terrorist insurgence. He also criticized some of the members of the Guardian Council for taking the side of a certain candidate in the elections, adding that “a majority of people are of the opinion that the actual election results are different than what was officially announced.”

From the overseas stage, however, in unprecedented statement, French President Nicolas Sarkozy branded the Iran’s elections as thoroughly fraud and deplored the “violence” which is erupting all over the country: “the extent of the fraud is proportional to the violent reaction… if Ahmadinejad has really made progress since the last election and if he really represents two thirds of the electorate… why has this violence erupted?”

A few days later, however, after the remarks of Iran’s Supreme Leader at the Friday prayer’s sermon, attacking “certain western leaders” for “intervening in Iran’s internal affairs” appeared on the front page of newspapers and made the global headlines, Sarkozy made another statement, alleviating his tone: “We don’t want to give the impression that foreigners … are getting involved in the elections in Iran…but when you have to condemn, you condemn.”

In a similar remark, German Chancellor Angela Merkel expressed “deep concerns” over the elections’ result and the aftermaths in Iran. In a joint statement, the EU leaders also expressed their concerns and called for a precise investigation and probe into the electoral results.  Despite having been making frequent comments on the Iranian elections of 2009, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband rejected the allegations of interference of foreign countries in the post-election unrest in Iran, while he insisted again that “It’s … for the Iranian authorities to ensure the fairness of the result and the protection of their own people.”

The obscured realities

The peaceful demonstrations of the pro-reform supporters of Mir-Hossein Mousavi who were urging an official “respect” to their votes and the clear probe of authorities in the results is now blended with the un-political and terrorist insurgence, forced by the external hands who have been waiting for long to see the collective destabilization of Iran’s political situation to advocate their ill-wills freely and sow the seeds of disagreement and insecurity in on of the most secure countries of the region.

Those ignorant experts who are now portraying Mir-Hossein Mousavi as the “opposition leader” have forgotten simplistically that Mousavi was for 10 years one of the most cordial allies of the Late Imam Khomeini, the founder of Islamic Revolution, and his popular prime minister. In order to persuade Ayatollah Khamenei who was reluctant to endorse Mousavi as the prime minister for a second term during his presidency, Imam Khomeini declared this historic sentence that perpetuated Mir-Hossein Mousavi as one of the fundamental hallmarks of the Islamic Revolution: “As a citizen, I announce that selecting anyone except this gentleman (Mir-Hossein Mousavi) is a treachery to Islam.”

Also, those foreign pundits, media outlets, leaders and think thanks that are fueling the flames of inconsistency and incongruity inside Iran by propagating the idea of fraud and vote-tampering in the recent elections have forgotten the results of the pre-election polls by the non-Iranian institutions. Based on a nationwide survey conducted by the Terror Free Tomorrow between May 11 and May 20 in Iran with a claimed margin of error of 3.1%, 34% of the respondents said that they would vote for incumbent President Ahmadinejad, 14% said that they would vote for Mir-Hossein Mousavi, 2% said that they would vote for Mehdi Karroubi, and 1% said that they would vote for Mohsen Rezai. This opinion poll was conducted with the participation of 1001 interviewees, proportionally distributed in all of the 30 provinces of Iran. The survey was funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and is considered to be the first of its type in Iran since 2002.

Notwithstanding the protests and demonstrations which are underway in Iran, the unbiased political analysts believe that the recent incidents are a sign of political maturity in Iran; people are learning to display their protest and dissatisfaction through peaceful and civic ways, and the government is trying to mitigate the past pressures and let more societal freedoms flow throughout the country.  If we remove the abusive conduct of the rebels, foreign-linked terrorists and unorganized hooligans from the political protests, and if the police forces would behaved more harmoniously and less autonomously, the post-election protests in Iran could have been a pure incarnation of the popular democracy in the oil-rich Persian Gulf country which is striding toward the installation of people’s will in all stages.

It’s a proved fact that the external forces, in line with their traditions of the Imperial age, have mobilized their facilities, packed their luggage and set off their missions to distort, spread out, “separate and rule”, “divide and conquer”.  However, it’s not too late, and if the foreign leaders, mainstream media and the evil terrorist organizations leave the internal security and domestic politics of Iran to its people, everything will be brought back to tranquility and normality. Iran does not need “moderators” as the influential political figureheads inside the country, especially the reformist leaders who have invested their long-time energy, resources and efforts to improve the people’s lives and Islamic republic’s dignity, are prone to find different “domestic” shortcuts and solutions to investigate and resolve their problems and predicaments.

Kourosh Ziabari is a correspondent for the Foreign Policy Journal based in Tehran.

By hostilely insisting that the name of “Persian Gulf” should be dropped from the medals and promotional materials of the 2009 Islamic Solidarity Games which was slated to be held in Iran, Arab states demonstrated again that their artificial friendship and so-called brotherhood with Iran, the largest littoral state of the historic waterway Persian Gulf, originates from things other than cultural or religious affinity.

The history of Islamic Solidarity Games returns to 1993 when Iran initiated the games by holding it exclusively for women athletes for the first time. The event was minimally attended by only 8 Islamic nations of whom Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaijan and Tajikistan were the most vibrant contestants.

Iran tried its chance to host the event in 1997 again and attracted 24 nations this time. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sudan, Jordan, Fiji and Indonesia were among the new-comers; however, the games did not host men athletes once more.

The fourth series in 2005 was interestingly welcomed by 44 nations and even some non-Islamic countries opted to dispatch delegations to Tehran: UK, Georgia, Russia, Japan, Germany, South Korea, India and USA.

Following the successful experience of Iran’s initiative to hold the games for Muslim women athletes, Saudi Arabia set to emulate its long-standing econo-political rival by holding a mini-Olympic for Islamic athletes based on the model of Iran’s 1993 games in 2005.

They held the games for both men and women and succeeded to exert a pull on 57 participating nations. The Islamic Solidarity Sports Federation (ISSF) consequently decided to hand the second set of games over to Iran and gave a 4-year mission to the country to warm up and get prepared for hosting more than 60 nations.

Iran reportedly spent some £6.7m to build a number of new stadiums, construct transportation terminals and new roads, train volunteers and design promotional materials etc. Everything was going on delicately and Mohammad Aliabadi, the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Vice President and the head of Sports Organization could victoriously flaunt the construction of magnificent stadiums, hotels and recreational facilities to the mass media and reporters in his press appearances.

The sweet dream of Iranians that would consider the successful inauguration of games as a political triumph, however, was suddenly turned into a horrific nightmare when the Islamic Solidarity Sports Federation (ISSF) Secretary General Saleh Gazdar and Technical Committee Chairman Mohammad Bashir Al-Trabosli headed to Tehran last week as the representatives of 22 Arab countries, spreading their tablecloth of complaint and grumbling over again, demanding Iran to wipe the name of Persian Gulf off the games, otherwise they “will not participate” and the games “will be canceled automatically”.

They were right: the numerousness of Arabs and their exaggerated ultra-nationalistic sentiments is so unique and incredible that they can rescind any event and agreement all of a sudden. The officials of National Sports Organization were shocked dreadfully, being deluged in a deafening silence over the first days, having to precise response to the startled reporters and correspondents. They knew well that if 22 Arab countries lobby to boycott the competition, it would be called off as a result.

The first strict reaction was showed by an influential cleric, Akbar Nateq Nouri, the former Parliament Speaker and an influential advisor to the Supreme Leader whose last month remarks on Bahrain’s sovereignty had stirred up international controversy. Nateq Nouri told the media that “Persian Gulf’s name would be intact and unchanged forever.” Hamshahri newspaper quoted him as saying: “all of the historical documents are indicative of the historicity and legitimacy of Persian Gulf’s name and we will never retreat from our stance about this unquestionable fact” even “at the expense of game’s suspension.”

Al-Akbar Velayati was the second one to respond. The former Foreign Minister and the political advisor of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei blamed the “Arab swindlers” in a fervent speech on the National Conference of Preserving Persian Gulf’s Heritage and stated: “Persian Gulf is the third largest gulf of the world which was first referred to as Persian in the Inscription of Dariush the Great some 5000 years ago.”

He also alluded to the “astuteness of Iranian nation in tracing and watching the deceptions and treacheries of enemies” who want to counterfeit the name of Persian Gulf.

Although the governmental officials in the body of Iranian ministries and embassies, especially the officials of foreign ministry, have surprisingly preferred a passive silence in the face of continuous naughtiness and mischievousness on the side of Arab neighbors, the categorical remarks of high-ranking officials who consider the Persian Gulf’s dispute a battleground with the “fraudulent Arabs” eventually emboldened the executives of Islamic Solidarity Games and Hassan Mirza Aqa-Beik emphasized on the eternity of “Persian Gulf” and Iran’s vigorous determination to safeguard this cultural heritage in an interview with IRNA.

He announced that “Iran will not bow down to the illegal demands of Arab states and will respond to those who challenge its territorial integrity.” He went on to say that “Iran will even brace canceling the games, but will never retreat from its clear-cut stance on Persian Gulf and its belongingness to Iran.”

With Arabs tricking and teasing Iran again, the $10 million project seems to be out of agenda and Iran’s longstanding plans to mount a glorious and superlative opening and closing ceremony now floats in vain.

UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman and some other tiny states of Persian Gulf whose aggregate population and area would not exceed that of Iran have long set off an anti-Iranism project, fueled up by Israel, aiming at degrading the increasing influence of Iran and its geopolitical authority in the region. Casting doubts against Iran’s territorial integrity, questioning the name of Persian Gulf, mistreating the Iranian passengers in Arabian airports and fingerprinting them are the integral parts of this hostile project, being practiced widely in the Arab countries.

Iranian officials and foreign ministry people have not so far displayed any definite reaction or a simple threat to retribution; however, the political analysts believe that a possible victory of reformist Mirhossein Mousavi in the upcoming Presidential Elections of June would be decisive blow to the “Arab brothers” as he has announced in his recent speeches that he will bring back “Iran’s international dignity” if he is elected.

The idea of counterfeiting the name of Persian Gulf and replacing it with a name that manifests an Arabian identity and reconstructs the lost personality of Arab youths was first proposed by the pan-Arabist Jamal Abdel Nasser in 1950s, and this simply came after Iran’s growing power and pride began to fade out the influence of Egypt and Saudi Arabia in the global stage.

After UAE and Bahrain took independence from Iran in the late 1960s, they joined the campaign and cited the same allegations since then. UAE’s claims on the triple Iranian Islands of Persian Gulf (Abu Mousa, Lesser and Greater Tunb) comes regularly as a catchphrase of Emirati officials, regardless of the fact that they were separated from Iran some 37 years ago and they can not be mathematically, logically and historically the owners of the lands which they belonged to less than 4 decades before.

Kourosh Ziabari is a freelance journalist based in Teheran.