The Latest from Iran (29 March): Questionable Authority

1755 GMT: "Expert" Speculation of the Day. Meir Javedanfar gets himself into The Huffington Post with this assertion:

Until recently, both Tehran and Jerusalem saw the health care debate as an item that could significantly weaken Obama's standing at home, which in turn would reduce his leverage abroad. They were hoping that a defeat would force Obama to focus on his troubles at home.

I'll check with Ali Yenidunya on the Israeli angle, but I have seen nothing to indicate that the Iranian Government was counting on the health care issue to limit and even damage the US President.

1525 GMT: Jailing Persian Cats. On the same day that we noted the drama-posing-as-documentary No Time for Persian Cats, its storyline of Iranians trying to evade the authorities to play music comes true: underground rap artist Sasi Mankan has been arrested.

Just trying to learn more about Mankan, but here's a sample of his music:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suqzMyBEZ8k[/youtube]

NEW Iran: A View from the Labour Front (Rahnema)
NEW Iran’s Nukes: False Alarm Journalism (Sick)
Iran’s Nukes: The Dangerous News of The New York Times
The Latest from Iran (28 March): Dealing with Exaggerations

1300 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. RAHANA claims that children's rights activist Maryam Zia Movahed, detained since 31 December, has been moved to a clinic in Evin Prison after starting a hunger strike on 17 March.


Peyke Iran writes that Azeri journalist and human rights activist Shahnaz Gholami has been given a prison sentence of eight years in absentia by a Tabriz court. Gholami is currently in Turkey and seeking asylum. The site also claims that Abdolreza Qanbari, a teacher from Pakdasht, has been sentenced to death for "mohareb" (war against God).

Rah-e-Sabz has published the names of 41 detained human rights activists.

1230 GMT: Parliament v. President. There's a sharp analysis by Hamid Takapu in Rah-e-Sabz of the debate over subsidy cuts since 2008. Takapu argues that the sword of a referendum, demanded by the President on his current proposals, could cut two ways: a successful challenge could reduce Parliament to a symbolic body (Takapu uses the analogy of the Russian Duma) but it could also strike Ahmadinejad if people ask for referendums on bigger issues.

0950 GMT: Labour Watch. We've posted a lengthy extract from an interview with Saeed Rahnema, a labour activist in the 1979 Islamic Revolution, analysing the state of the labour movement and, more broadly, of activism in the post-election conflict.

0655 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Professor Seyed Ahmad Miri of the Islamic Iran Participation Front has been arrested in Babol, while journalist Sasan Aghaei and women's rights activist Somaiyeh Farid have been released on bail.

0615 GMT: We begin this morning with a series of dubious attempts to claim authority in and about Iran. The New York Times' claimed reporting on the Iranian nuclear programme, which we criticised yesterday, is taken apart further by Gary Sick.

Inside Iran, President Ahmadinejad continued his campaign to overturn the Parliament's decision on his subsidy reforms and spending plan, using a marker and whiteboard to provide the truth to journalists. He thus proved beyond doubt that this will be another year of prosperity and "huge victories" for Iran.

The problem for the President is that not everyone believes him. While his supporter Mohammad Karim Shahrzad has challenged one of Ahmadinejad's leading Parliamentary critics, Ahmad Tavakoli, to a televised debate, legislator Seyed Reza Akrami says the President has taken an oath to implement the law and thus the decision of the Parliament.

Health Care: A Beginner's Guide to the (Non)-Sense of the US System

For us Brits who are used to debates and votes in both Houses of Parliament, followed by a Bill signed into law by a Royal Assent, the passage of the American Healthcare Reform Act was tortuous and confusing. We expect all the politicking to come before the event.

So could we assume that Obama signing the Bill into law on 22 March was the conclusion? Evidently not --- the Bill was required to go back to the Senate to reconcile it with the provisions passed by the House of Representatives, and even then it had to return to the House for a second vote to cover the minor technical differences. I think the process is now concluded, but the reporting in Britain of the Congressional procedures has been so poor that it is difficult to follow exactly what has happened.


Let us assume that the Bill has finally passed. Cutting through the confusion of what has been retained from the original proposals and what has been removed, the immediate changes for the American public are: 1) insurers can no longer deny coverage to insured persons because of pre-existing medical conditions; 2) the elderly will receive a $250 rebate to help them buy prescription drugs; 3) small businesses will receive a tax credit to insure employees; and 4) young people will be permitted to stay on their parents’ policies.

In 2014, the big changes arrive. A majority of Americans currently without insurance will be required to buy cover or pay a fine. Insurers will not be permitted to refuse policies because of pre-existing conditions which, in theory, should ensure that those Americans will be able to acquire cover. Most of the arrangements, under the bill's provisions, will occur in an "exchange" where insurers bid to provide the policies for groups of the newly-insured.

In 2018, a new tax will be imposed on high-cost insurance plans, as part of the effort to limit expenses, and the government expects that by 2019, 94% of Americans will have health insurance cover. The struggle between the executive and legislative branches on the legislation now ends, at least for the time being.

That, in theory, should be the process, but there could be a further complication if the Supreme Court enters the arena. There could be strong grounds to defeat the legislation, based on the 10th and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution. The former entitles the individual US states to object to federal legislation on issues that properly belong to the states.

The Federal Government can point to Medicare and Medicaid, both federally-based programs, to support its right to pass the legislation. However, the States can point to the requirement on individuals to buy insurance, a provision thought to be a matter for the States alone as there is nothing implicit in Article I of the Constitution to the contrary.

The 14th Amendment argument arises because Americans are entitled to equal protection under the law but, even after the legislation takes effect in 2014, there will be 15 million American who will not be entitled to the benefits of the legislation, as they will not be covered by the dealings of the insurance "exchange". Legally, the new law could fail as a result.

The Supreme Court is a political as well as a legal body, and eventually, possibly as early as 2011, cases will come before the Court. No doubt, the messages passed to Republican-appointed Justices by the party's rank and file, not to mention leading politicians, will be clear: “Hear the several appeals that will come before you. Strike the healthcare laws down.”

Does all of this still make little sense, given the fundamental that at least 35 million Americans are uninsured and many more "under-insured", vulnerable to a combination of illness, disease, or accidents and the economic circumstances that leave them unable to protect their health?

Well, if that is the case, it is because the debate in America over healthcare seems to have lost all sense of reality at the same time it has been mired in politics. Under George W. Bush, more than half the expenditure in his last three budgets was covering the cost of federal healthcare and Social Security, yet vast numbers of still Americans were unable to afford to pay medical bills. If “freedom” and “liberty” are basics of the American system, isn’t the right to proper medical treatment at an affordable price just as important?

Obama Health Care Follow-Up: Scott Lucas on BBC World Service

Since the House of Representatives passage of the health care bill earlier this week, there has been a technical hitch. Because of minor differences from the Senate version of the bill, there will have to be changes and another House vote. Some in the US media are playing this up as a dramatic development; I see little in the story beyond a short delay in final adoption of the legislation.

I discuss the issues with the BBC World Service's World Update (clip starts just before the 27:00 mark).

US Politics Music Video Special: The "Yes We Can/Hell No We Can't" Mash-Up

While John Boehner, the Republican leader in the House of Representatives, couldn't defeat President Obama on the health care bill, he made sure that he left behind a killer line. Here it is, mixed with the music video that helped put Obama in the White House:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpOUctySD68[/youtube]