Thursday
Apr292010
Iran Interview: The Diplomat Who Resigned Over the Election
Thursday, April 29, 2010 at 11:05 
The website insideIRAN interviews Mohammad Reza Heidari, the Iranian diplomat in Norway who resigned from his post in December and remained in Oslo:Q: Why did you leave your post at the Iranian embassy in Norway and cut off ties with the Islamic Republic?
A: This did not happen over night. My friends and I followed the events of Iran as diplomats. My colleagues and I always talked about the progress other countries have made and compared that to the situation in Iran. Then we had the June 12 election. Everyone was shocked by the level of cheating.
The Latest from Iran (29 April): New Mousavi Video
On election day, I was in charge of the ballot box at the embassy and I never thought this was going to happen. Large numbers of Iranian expats voted in the election and Moussavi won in our precinct. Then the government in Iran reacted violently to people inside the country who were asking for their votes to be counted. These horrific scenes and seeing for ourselves the government killing our youth on the streets made me resign my post in order to motivate the Iranian people to continue their fight.
Q: Are there people in Iran benefiting from the government but are now against the system out of moral objections to the actions of the government? How large is this group? Are they growing in number?
A. Even the founders of the Islamic Republic, people like [Mir Hossein] Mousavi and [Mehdi] Karroubi who worked in the highest echelons of the system for many years, admit that this is a government that tries to make people dependent on its existence.
Almost all my colleagues reached the same conclusion. They see no future in the path the government has chosen. The vast majority of experts who work for Iran’s foreign policy apparatus have objections to what has been happening. Many of them have fled the country. Some have resigned quietly and some are resigning their posts as we speak. I think more complicated issues will challenge the regime and hopefully, this year will be their final year and the Iranian people will taste freedom.
Q. Is there widespread dissatisfaction only in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or is there widespread dissatisfaction in the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps or the Ministry of Intelligence?
A. This is true about every institution in the government. When they send diplomats on foreign missions, they send us through multiple layers of security screenings. We were among those who served during the Iran—Iraq war. I have friends in the IRGC, the Basij, the Ministry of Intelligence, Iran’s radio and television, and other places who are against the government. They have to cooperate with the government because if they do otherwise, they will face many severe challenges. This issue requires a national will. Strikes are on the way. Teachers, who went on strike, have started the right thing. Iranian labourers are on the same path.
Q: How fearful is the Iranian government?
They have gathered a bunch of commoners around them to protect themselves. They try to associate the Green Movement with the rich and then tie them to Western countries. They are terrified. I am from the lower classes and I worked for the government for many years. All my friends are the same. The government has to spend large sums of money to feed people and bus them into cities in order to generate crowds for pro-government demonstrations. But they are still unable to address the basic causes of widespread dissatisfaction.
Q: The dissatisfaction you are talking about is just simply dissatisfaction with the government or are these friends of yours in the government questioning the very legitimacy of the regime?
The legitimacy of the regime was gradually destroyed by the actions of the regime since the June 12 election. The current government does not have legitimacy and it is only a body to carry out the responsibilities of the executive branch. With the crimes they committed, torture and rape, the regime has lost its legitimacy. They have been able to remain in power only through terrorizing the masses and using their coercive apparatus. New challenges such as sanctions are going to make matters much worse.
Q: The rhetoric of the EU [European Union] has gotten much harsher towards Iran. What is the reason behind that?
A: European countries have always been interested in their national interests. They did not care about what happened in Iran. But now, they realize a stable Iran is more suitable for investments and it would also prevent the flight of so many Iranians seeking asylum in Europe. The Europeans are tired of a regime that supports terrorism and is a major obstacle to peace in the Middle East. This Iranian government does not serve their long-term interests.
Q: What do you think about possible sanctions against Iran?
A: Sanctions must be smart and targeted and only go after the ruling elite. These sanctions should not affect the Iranian people. Countries should not issue visas for the leaders of Iran and their families. Companies should be banned from dealing with the IRGC. The last issue I would like to mention is human rights. Western countries must make human rights the priority. Iran has made such a big deal of the nuclear program to divert attention from its human rights abuse.
Reader Comments (69)
Megan, my dear fundi, if the election results are legit, as some of us claim to me, then that clearly means that out of the 85% of the people that voted, a clear majority wanted Ahmadi. Therefore, already your claim of people wanting to do away with the regime is proven false. And to add to that, I'm sure majority of people who voted for Mousavi also don't want to do away with the regime, so take that percentage add it to Ahmadi's percentage, and you already have 85% turnout, and it very clearly shows that majority of Iranian people are not desiring a government collapse.
Therefore, someone like you is then clearly in the minority and is very anti-democracy and do not respect the will of the majority of the Iranians.
See why the claim of the election is important?
And the M stands for Mohammad.
Or if you like, Magnificent, Marvelous, or Mesmirizing, but Mohammad will do.
Scott, while you do challenge a lot of MSM, you still depend a lot of your posts based on rumours, unnamed sources, claims from Green sites, and so on.
Eric,
You have heard this numerous times but I am hoping the "comprehension through repetition" theory proves correct. You keep pointing to:
1) "My only focus is on the election. One can analyze that very thoroughly without being in Iran. That’s harder to do with respect to the post-election matters."
2) "Evidence" and "put up or shut up"
In a Western society this would be a very sound basis for an objective analysis of election results. It is so because it correctly assumes an open society, freedom to puruse evidence, and most importatnly the freedom to air your point free from reprisal. Alas all those conditions are not the reality in Iran. As I have stated many times it is a bit of a spurious exercise of evaluating Iran's election results without the context. This is why I think, while your document was well researched, its too narrow focus discredits any conclusion it may come to. It discredits it simply because it falsely assumes Western norms for an election.
The context in properly evaluating the Iranian election needs to include the following:
1) Recongnizing the election was a selection that was in the planning far before the election. I can point back to the 2005 election and how and unknown, Ahmadinejad, all of sudden rose to power backed by the regime. He got elected because the regime selected him. This simply points out the fact this whole affair was always an orchestrated event from the begining
2) Realizing obtaining evidence in Iran about the election is actually a life threatning endeavor. In fact the regime numerous times has closed down reform offices and taken anything not nailed to the floor. The whole affair over the rapes provides a clear example of this. I know of people outside Iran that have even gotten calls threatning their relatives if they persist trying to expose the regime
3) Iran is a closed society and more akin to a police state today. The regime's intimidation and censorship make it very unlikely any objective fair evaluation of the election can ever occur. This again makes it highly unlikely any search for evidence disproving the regimes claim of victory can be done
This is like investingating a case yet the side in power won't let you even investigate the crime scene. Like your document, when presented with only one side of the story, you cannot help but come to the conclusion the side in power wants you to. I am sorry if I am being a bit pedantic but the cardinal mistake your making is not viewing this in the context of the all the events prior, during, and after the election. Instead you are incorrectly trying to evaluate election results largely based on Western norms. If you broaden your horizon and consider the regimes actions and the fact they have not arrested the Green leaders you will see these are tacit admissions they did in fact steal the election. It is so because a regime that wins with such a huge portion should not need to oppress to stay in power nor would they be afraid to stir up the people if they arrested the Green leaders.
Thx
Bill
Regarding 1) Why do people keep bringing up the fact that Ahmedinijad was "unknown" in 2005? He was the freaking MAYOR of Tehran!!!
M. Ali,
Regarding filtering: Maybe its thanks to people like me, Eric, and Samuel that challenge your reports!"
May I thank you profusely for that bonus beyond your contribution to our discussions?
S.
Mullah Ali,
Re: your post of 10:30
Lie, lie, and more lies. Are you guys paid by the number of lies per day?
Go on and keep the cotton balls in your ears but do not say I did not warn you about hell breaking lose soon.
I am no friend of yours or any other GD mullah. I am allergic to your kinds.
Bill, the argument about "well, because of the crackdown, they must be guilty" is not true. These two are not related.
Its like you calling someone a motherfucker and a theif. The guy gets angry and beats you. You then claim that since he hit you he MUST be a motherfucker and a thief, because why else would he put you up? He could just calmly claim he wasn't!
But that tells more about the character of the person rather than the validity of the claim. The governments post election actions can be challeneged, whethere it was appropriate or not, but the action itself does not in anyway alter the elections.
If anything, if you want, I could offer a counterargument that the actions of the government actually "PROVE" the validity of the government. Think of it, these gov the majority of the votes, but suddenly, the opposition uses alleges that there was widespread fraud and they want a re-election, they incite the mob, and refuse to follow the law claiming the law is biased. If the election was valid and the gov was faced which such action, they would believe that by cracking down, they are defending the rights of the majority and refusing to bow down to unfair pressure.
I'm only using the above as a counter-argument, but I don't believe either actually "proves" anything. But I used it to show that post-election actions does not directly corrolate to the actual election's validity.
Great counterargument, Megan. In case you ever visit Iran on American tanks, I'm sure my Iranian brothers and sisters will profusly thank you for caring.
Scott,
I wanted to mention this before, but now is the ideal time and place: re the switch to disqus,I don't think the weekend is the slowest time of the week in terms of comments and other use of the blog :-)
M. Ali,
The only reason you keep harping on the election is because it is the only thing the regime can cling onto to validate its hold on power. Now ask yourself the following:
1) Why would a regime that won 62% of the vote have to imprison thousands, purge universities, and turn Iran into a police state? One would think these victorious 62% would crush the opposition and come out and show their support for the regime. Yet when the regime tried to gather supporters they failed quite spectacularly twice. The third time they did pull off a large rally. However, this was only accomplished because it was a massive undertaking including close to a thousand busses(satellite photos have verified this) along with orders for all businesses and schools to attend the rally(note I know this from first hand sources from Tehran.) Least of all lets not forget the regime still felt the need to inflate the numbers from around 200,000 to "millions." The problem with this assertion was the fact aerial photos showed the people only in the square and that the square could hold no more than 200,000
2) Why won't the regime arrest the Green leaders? They know doing this will incite the people. Now again why would the winner be fearful if 62% of the people voted for them? Logic seems to indicate if they were firmly in power they would have snatched them long ago. Yet they cannot because they realize the majority of the people are with the Green Movement thus the stalemate
Both of the aforementioned points are tacit admission by the regime they stole the election. If they truly won they should be able to do anything they want yet they cannot simply because they fear the people--that being the majority!!!
Thx
Bill
RE Bills' post 4:
"This is like investingating a case yet the side in power won’t let you even investigate the crime scene."
That's the bottom line, isn't it. If the documentary evidence is located in Iran - assuming it hasn't been destroyed! - and there is no way for Eric to examine it, where's the proof? All you can do is make an intelligent guess. And then you are forced to accept the entire range of intelligent guesses that can be made, including those that contradict yours.
Bill, you've ingnored my argument. Why WOULDN'T a legitimate winning government defend itself against the opposition's claim of fraud and riots?!?
"Why would a regime that won 62% of the vote have to imprison thousands, purge universities, and turn Iran into a police state?"
In a country of 74 million, "thousands" is not a majority. "Thousands" can be the loud and dangerous minority (I'm not saying they are, and I personally hope a lot of the ones that are not a threat to the stability of the country are released). The "purging" universities has nothing to do with the validity of the elections, it is based on the idealogy of the government, and you can argue that they shouldn't do it, but it doesn't invalidate the elections. There was a communist purge in USA during the McCarthy (I'm sorry if I'm using the wrong name...) period, but does that mean American elections was a fraud. ANd university purge has been done in Iran since after and before the elections, after and before the revolution.
And finally the police state argument. This again doesn't invalidate the elections, the government is trying to defend the country against the loud minority and frankly, I'm in Tehran, the only major police presence I have seen since late Jan (I wasn't here before that) was on major events such as Charshanbeh Suri, there really isn't any major police presence.
"One would think these victorious 62% would crush the opposition and come out and show their support for the regime."
Why would you think that? Why would you think most people who voted for Ahmedinijad suddenly want to come out and get into clashes? They have voted and they would expect the government to do the admin job, not having them come out and fight for it.
"Yet when the regime tried to gather supporters they failed quite spectacularly twice. The third time they did pull off a large rally. However, this was only accomplished because it was a massive undertaking including close to a thousand busses(satellite photos have verified this) along with orders for all businesses and schools to attend the rally(note I know this from first hand sources from Tehran.)"
Whenever the government DOES bring out people, you guys disrespect the people by claiming 1) they were afraid of losing their jobs 2) they were given cakes (as if Iranians would whore themselves out for CAKES)
And so what if they were bussed in? Ahmadi has a strong rural support, so to help people attend rallies, they provide transporation to people. What exactly is so bad about that?
And in such cases, the losing side is always louder than the winning side. The winner has voted, won, and doesn't need to be out to challenge anything. How many large protests are held in the world by people holding signs saying, "I'm happy with the way things are!"
"Least of all lets not forget the regime still felt the need to inflate the numbers from around 200,000 to “millions.” The problem with this assertion was the fact aerial photos showed the people only in the square and that the square could hold no more than 200,000"
And if there are any photos that show more, you people just argue that it was photoshopped...
"Why won’t the regime arrest the Green leaders? They know doing this will incite the people. "
Maybe the government doesn't want to incite the loud minority and encourage instability...is that suddenly bad?
" Now again why would the winner be fearful if 62% of the people voted for them? "
You seem to think that a minority in a country can not bring about instability and a be challenge.
"Logic seems to indicate if they were firmly in power they would have snatched them long ago. Yet they cannot because they realize the majority of the people are with the Green Movement thus the stalemate"
You say "logic seems to indicate" but these are anything but logical. Again, I claim, that in a country of 74million, even a minority can signifciently impact a country's stability.
" If they truly won they should be able to do anything they want yet they cannot simply because they fear the people–that being the majority!!!"
I like the illogical end to your argument. If the government does arrest people, the elections are fraud, if the government doesnt arrest people, the elections are fraud.
Eric's post 28 says:
"All I’m saying is that “Who cares about Heidari’s “story”? We have plenty of stories, and every single one of them might be true. But they all might be false too. ..... Bottom line: We have enough “stories.” Time for some evidence".
In the absence of documentary evidence, all you've got are stories. So you end up spending your time investigating and evaluating the trustworthiness of the sources and the stories they tell until you *do* find indisputable evidence.
While we wait, here's another story:
Neda Agha-Soltan’s Mother, Hajar Rostami-Motlagh, in an Interview with Rooz Online, 30 April 2010:
Rooz: Why didn’t Neda vote? Had she boycotted the election like some claim?
Rostami-Motlagh: No. Neda wanted freedom and change. I was away from Tehran when I voted and returned the day after the election. Neda was upset that day. She called and said that she had gone to several polling stations to vote but hadn’t been able to. She explained that Mr. Mousavi’s representatives weren’t present at any of the stations. When Neda investigates and asks to see Mr. Mousavi’s representative, they tell her, Mr. Ahmadinejad’s representative is here, come and vote. She got upset and asked how is it possible for a polling station not to have representatives from any candidates other than Ahmadinejad. Because of that she didn’t vote.
The whole interview is worth reading, btw:
http://www.roozonline.com/english/news/newsitem/article/2010/april/30//nedas-open-eyes-drove-me-mad.html
M Ali,
Being the mayor does not make you a well know candidate for President overnight. Yes it does provide exposure but the question is does it explain his rapid accent to power? If you remember early on Ahmadinejad gained exposure only after the SL's very own son switched sides coming out in support of Ahmadinejad. That action alone clearly shows the most plausible reason of how Ahmadinejad rose to power. It also further supports the "selection" process endemic in Iranian election process.
Thx
Bill
Catherine,
Great find!!! Scott better be paying you now for doing his dirty work!!! :)
Thx
Bill
So, Ahmadi being a mayor doesn't count for much, but Obama not even being that is enough?