UPDATED Iran Special: Executions, Politics, and the Attack on Nazila Fathi and The New York Times

UPDATE 14 MAY, 0640 GMT: The authors of Race for Iran have posted an attempted rebuttal of this column. As it is largely a misrepresentation of my analysis and a continuing assault on Nazila Fathi, I will not post a detailed response. There is no value in continued conversation with or even recognition of those who are void of information and deaf on ethics and morality.

I will note, however, how the authors met this challenge that I set on Wednesday: "1. Make their own critique of the material surrounding this case of the 5 executed Iranians and present that critique; 2. Alternatively, acknowledge that they have no concern with human rights, justice, and fairness within the Iranian system; 3. If they do so, disclaim any ability to assess the legitimacy of the Iranian Government since they are not concerned with issues — human rights, justice, fairness — which may affect the legitimacy of that Government in the eyes of the Iranian people."

The authors make no attempt to meet the first test, but they do tacitly accwept the second and third challenges: "[Race for Iran] is not focused on human rights; it is focused on Iran and its geopolitics."

UPDATE 14 MAY, 0630 GMT: The Iranian newspaper Kayhan has portrayed Sunday’s executions of “terrorists” as a test of “leaders of recent plots”. However, it regrets that those leaders refuse to “retreat” and “repent”.” (see today's updates).

I look forward to Race for Iran's denunciation of Kayhan, given its linkage of the executions and Government pressure on opposition leaders, for its "pro-Green bias".

The Latest from Iran (14 May): The Meaning of the Strike?

---
Let us assume, as their defenders claim, that the recent attack by the authors of Race on Iran on the reporting of Nazila Fathi was motivated solely by a concern over misleading journalism, with unsubstantiated links and unsupported claims. Let us assume that there was no wider motive of wiping away objections so "official justifications" for the execution of five Iranians could remain standing or of discrediting any attempt --- by labelling any critique as "pro-Green" --- to consider the legal and political context of the executions.


Let us assume that --- in contrast to the authors' claim of The New York Times' "agenda-driven, threat-hyping approach" and Fathi's "misleading reporting driven by an inflammatory agenda" --- Race for Iran has no agenda and no wish to hype any Government or institution.

Let us consider Race for Iran's narrow allegations:

1. Fathi has no basis for the link in the following paragraph:

"The Iranian government hanged five Kurdish activists, including a woman, on Sunday morning in the Evin prison in Tehran in what appeared to be an effort to intimidate protesters from marking the anniversary of last year’s huge anti-government rallies after the June 12 election."

The background to Fathi's story is that, two weeks before anticipated demonstrations on 22 Bahman (11 February), Mohammad Reza Ali Zamani and Arash Rahmanipour were executed. Many activists at the time saw this as an effort to intimidate the opposition, for Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, the head of the Guardian Council, had stated in Friday Prayers:

God ordered the prophet Muhammad to brutally slay hypocrites and ill-intentioned people who stuck to their convictions. Koran insistently orders such deaths. May God not forgive anyone showing leniency toward the corrupt on earth.

Fathi does not cite this background. Instead, she cites Hadi Ghaemi of the International Committee for Human Rights in Iran, who no doubt is aware of this background when he stated, “The executions show that this government resorts to any kind of terror and violence to put down any challenge to its authority.”

Now Race for Iran could have done its own research. They could have considered the background, they could have checked out not only ICHRI's release on the executions but their significant collection of material on cases leading up to those executing and considering Ghaemi's claim of numerous sources amongst "Iranian civil society analysts and activists", they could have even taken a look at the case, dating back to detentions in 2006.

They do none of this. They have no sources beyond the reference to "official justifications" (without actually considering those justifications). They have no context --- political or legal --- for their case.

(Consider how this failure to provide any information beyond the attack on Fathi undermines Race for Iran's limited analysis: "The New York-based human rights activist opines that [the hangings] could lay the ground for the execution of post-election protesters'. But, Ms. Fathi herself reports that the five people executed on Sunday were sentenced in 2008—well before the June 12, 2009 presidential election."

The salient point is that, having been detained for 2-4 years, the five prisoners were suddenly rushed on Saturday night towards execution with no legal process and no notice to lawyers or families. Thus, the question, "Why Now?" The possible --- possible, not confirmed --- answer is that there was a political motive, in the context of current and forthcoming events and developments, for public executions.)

However, that is immaterial for the authors, for they have a wider aim beyond any detailed examination of the case: "Ms. Fathi seems to have been intent on using the story of Sunday’s executions to 'keep hope alive' for a revival of the moribund Green Movement".

Now the authors, who have loudly criticised Fathi's unsubstantiated claims, have no evidence for their own. They have no confirmation of Fathi's political views. They have no evidence of her connections to the Green Movement. They have no proof that the story is being disseminated amongst Iranian activists, inside and outside the country, to whip up demonstrations on 12 June.

But proof, let alone journalistic enquiry or analytic rigour, is not their aim. Instead, they wish to establish guilt by assertion: Fathi and The New York Times have a "pro-Green political agenda".

Which means, of course, that the authors can dismiss any article in The New York Times which they do not like --- without having to resort to evidence or context or analysis --- as politically biased.

(Declaration: I write this wearing the badge, when I have been named by Race for Iran, not of professor, academic, or journalist but of "Green Movement partisan".)

2. Fathi is guilty of significant omission when she calls the Kurdish separatist movement PJAK an "armed Kurdish rebel group" and does not mention that it was designated as a terrorist organisation by the US Government in 2009.

Point taken. But if we are going to talk journalism and omissions, consider this omission from Race for Iran's critique.

Here is how the authors deal with the perhaps significant point that the four defendants accused of PJAK membership (the fifth was accused of connections with a monarchist group): "Ms. Fathi...notes that all five denied the charges of which they were convicted “in public letters posted on Web sites'. (She links to the website of the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran to document this claim, but the link takes a reader to a page briefly describing such a letter from only one of the five prisoners.)"

Now the authors could have examined this. They could easily have found letters from at least three of the defendants. They could have cited the testimony of the lawyer for three of the defendants because it was in the ICHRI document that they mention. They could have considered reports on the case by Fereshteh Ghazi, Rooz Online, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Human Rights Activists News Agency, Rah-e-Sabz, Kalemeh, and other outlets.

They did not none of this because, in my opinion, the fundamental issue of whether the defendants were actually members of PJAK was at best tangential to them. Instead, they want to dismantle the (pro-Green) "preferred narrative" with the possibility that "individuals convicted of terrorist crimes in Iran are members of a group that the U.S. government has designated as a terrorist organization".

So, yes, Fathi could have mentioned that PJAK is proscribed as "terrorist" by the US Government. What Race for Iran wants, however, is much more: they want that to be the dominant statement, not just part of the context. The real question here is not of omission but of priority --- does one, in reporting and analysis, privilege the political issue raised by Race for Iran or the legal and human rights issue raised by the PJAK claim in the trials and executions?

----

Nazila Fathi is not immune from criticism. No journalist should be. On occasion EA has challenged her reporting in these post-election months.

Nor should an author, simply because he/she takes a political position, be denied the legitimacy of critiquing a report. Race for Iran has its opinions;I have mine.

However, when that criticism is made, it should be done fairly, not only through a judicious reading of the journalism but by bringing other evidence and context to the table. In this case, Fathi's original article and analysis is based on two named sources, citation of an opposition website, and background material based on a range of unnamed sources.

Race for Iran's response is based on "official justifications" and precisely 0 sources, named or unnamed.

(Race for Iran has offered no comment on Fathi's follow-up article this week, considering the treatment of the families of the executed and the refusal to release the bodies of the prisoners, and its analysis, "The government’s refusal to hand over the bodies to the families appears to stem from a fear of antigovernment demonstrations during burial ceremonies in Kurdish areas.")

And when that criticism is made, it is not enough to deride the supposed "agenda" of one's target. One's own agenda and sources should be declared. If the authors of Race for Iran wish to turn Fathi's sources into her supposed membership of the Green Movement, then let us know the sources behind Race for Iran's commentary.  If the authors want to dismiss Fathi and The New York Times as "pro-Green", then --- in the context of this attack --- let us see the declaration that the authors are "pro-Iran Government", having defended the legitimacy of that Government since the June 2009 elections. Let us see the authors' declaration that, by tearing down Fathi and The New York Times, they may be bolstering the supposed legitimacy --- which has been questioned on issues such as justice, human rights, and fairness --- of that Government.

A final point: Race for Iran's last assault is to link Fathi to The New York Times' reporting, notably by Michael Gordon and Judith Miller, in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq War. I presume that is to make the connection that, as The Times prepared a false rationale for the invasion of Iraq, so its reporters with their "pro-Green" agenda are preparing a false rationale for the attempt to topple the Iranian Government.

Nazila Fathi is not Judith Miller. She did not report from Washington or New York in 2009; she reported from Tehran. She did so, even as journalists were being monitored, pressured, and in many cases detained (coincidentally, Maziar Bahari, detained from June to October 2009, wrote a powerful comment on the executions this week; Race for Iran seems to have missed this further example of "pro-Green" journalism). Fathi, as the post-election conflict, violence, and arrests escalated, continued to put out her reports. Finally, in summer 2009, she had to leave Iran.

This week, as other major "Western" outlets ignored the executions, simply repeated the account given by the Islamic Republic News Agency, or made glaring errors ("five demonstrators were killed"), Fathi considered the story in two articles.

Nazila Fathi is not Judith Miller. Her sources are not Ahmad Chalabi. And Iran 2009-2010, contrary to Race for Iran's attempted link, is not Iraq 2001-2003.

Iran 2009-2010 is Iran 2009-2010. And, rather than attacking any journalist who reports on Iran 2009-2010, simply because they do not like the news or the interpretation, it is high time that the authors of Race for Iran pursued journalism in addition to their political mission.

The Latest from Iran (13 May): Justice, Legitimacy, and a Strike in Kurdistan

2015 GMT: Kurdistan. ADN Kronos summarises, "Many shops, markets and public offices were closed in Kurdistan's main cities of Sanandaj, Saqqez, Kamiaran and Marivan. Most school and university students stayed away from school, according to the CyrusNews opposition website.

In Kamiaran, protesters gathered outside the home of Farzad Kamangar, one of five political prisoners executed on Sunday in Tehran's Evin prison."

2000 GMT: Iran and Iraq Troops Clash. From Agence France Presse:

Iraqi border guards exchanged fire with Iranian troops along the two countries' border on Thursday....

An Iraqi officer was captured by the Islamic Republic's forces in the 90-minute gunfight on the border with Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region, which was apparently sparked when Iranian troops mistook Iraqi soldiers for a Kurdish rebel group.

"Iranian forces thought that the border guards belonged to PJAK (the Party of Free Life of Kurdistan -- an Iranian Kurdish rebel group) and started to open fire," Brigadier General Ahmed Gharib Diskara, the head of Iraq's border guards in Sulaimaniyah province, told reporters.

"The border guards shot back and one officer of the Iraqi army has been captured. Negotiations are ongoing to free him."

NEW Latest Iran Video: Strike in Kurdistan (13 May)
NEW Iran Special: Executions, Politics, and the Attack on Nazila Fathi and The New York Times
NEW Iran Transcript: Mousavi “Do Iranian Mothers Have Rights?” (12 May)
NEW Iran Document: A Letter from Majid Tavakoli About the Executed (11 May)
Iran Update: The Aftermath of the Executions
Iran Document: Maziar Bahari’s Response to His 13-Year (and 74-Lash) Sentence
Iran Special: A Renewal of Protest for 12 June?
The Latest from Iran (12 May): Defending the Indefencible

1945 GMT: Kurdistan. Report --- Ajlal Aghvami, the spokesman of the Kurdistan Human Rights Organization, has been arrested in Sanandaj.


1540 GMT: Last Words from the Executed? Peyke Iran has posted what it claims is the last statement of Mehdi Eslamian, executed on Sunday, and footage from inside Gohardahst Prison in Karaj.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rv92USld_rY&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

1535 GMT: Investigation Complete? Mohammad Hassan Abutorabi-Fard, the Deputy Speaker of Parliament, has claimed that a report has been completed on last June's attack on Tehran University dormitories. Reformist members of Parliament had claimed that the supposed enquiry into the events had been set aside.

1525 GMT: Meanwhile...Where's Mahmoud? Khabar Online has pictures of President Ahmadinejad's visit to Yasuj in southwestern Iran, including a poster, "Sir, where is the gas you promised to the village of Kalous?"

And the President's message? "Be sure, Iran's next government will be 10 times more revolutionary....People all over the world, even USA and Europe, are disappointed by their leaders:their only hope is Iran! We should prepare the world for the arrival of the Mahdi."
1515 GMT: Kurdistan (Containing the Students). In addition to the 15 Kurdish student activists reportedly arrested in Marivan (five names have been published), Peyke Iran claims seven Kurdish students have been summoned to Evin court.

1500 GMT: The Kurdistan Strike. We are now featuring videos apparently showing widespread closure of shops and empty streets in cities in Iranian Kurdistan.

The strike was called for by the Kurdish Communist Party, the Democratic Party of Kurdistan, and Komeleh, including its Socialist branch.

BBC Persian have now posted a brief item on the events.

1455 GMT: A Rights-First Approach. Writing in The Washington Post, Roxana Saberi, who was detained in Iran from late January until early April 2009, begins with this story:

I received an e-mail from a human rights campaigner in Tehran who knew one of them, asking me to spread the word about the hangings. "We are truly helpless," she wrote, "and we feel lost."

Saberi argues:

As the international community focuses on Iran's nuclear program, it should also make human rights a first-tier issue. When the U.N. Human Rights Council meets in Geneva next month, Washington and the European Union should lead calls for a resolution setting up a mechanism to investigate human rights atrocities in Iran during the past year. A bigger push should be made to send a U.N. special envoy on human rights to Iran and to aid Iranians, including the many journalists forced to flee their country out of fear of persecution.

But perhaps even more important than government efforts is the outcry of ordinary people worldwide. When everyday citizens speak out against Iran's human rights violations, Tehran has a tougher time asserting that their calls have been masterminded by foreign governments.

1045 GMT: Kurdistan. An EA correspondent writes:

The point worth noting is the discipline and strong support evidently commanded by the Democratic Party within the population. The appeal for the strike was made over Kurdish satellite TV, and in contrast to the response of Iranian counterparts to calls for national strikes, the people of Sanandaj were immediately receptive. The photos have prompted congratulatory messages from people in Tehran, who commented on the efficacy of strike action in Iranian Kurdistan, as opposed to getting anything done elsewhere in the country.

1040 GMT: The Oil Squeeze. Financial Times Deutschland reports that Iran is having problems finding buyers for its oil, with supplies sitting on tankers.

1035 GMT: Kurdistan. Peyke Iran is claiming a heavy security presence and authorities' pressure on shopkeepers to reopen their shops in Sanandaj. The website claims that
two protesters were shot and injured in Sanandaj and that there have been clashes. Most Kurdish pupils and students reportedly did not show up at classes today.

1020 GMT: Streets are reportedly deserted in Sanandaj, Iranian Kurdistan's largest city.


1000 GMT: The Strike in Kurdistan. For three days, I have been following Internet chatter that there would be a general strike in Iranian Kurdistan, protesting the executions. However, as I could not hard evidence, apart from a statement from a Kurdish Communist Party (apologies to readers if I missed information), I held back on reporting.

Now, however, photos have emerged indicating that some shops are closed today. There are also claimed photos of clashes; we are trying to confirm.





0945 GMT: Apologies for limited updates. I have been occupied with writing an analysis, "Executions, Politics, and the Attack on Nazila Fathi and The New York Times".


0700 GMT: The Executions --- The Official Account. Yesterday we posted, without comment or criticism, Fars News' "further update" on Sunday's execution of five Iranians. This was based on the official statement of the public relations office of Tehran’s General and Revolutionary Public Prosecutor’s Office.

Having allowed time for readers to consider that account, we now have the queries of an EA correspondent over the failure to establish a justification for the executions, offer a credible defense that due process was indeed followed, or explain the timing:

1. Only four of the five are identified as members of the Kurdish separatist movement PJAK. One defendant was executed for a bombing in Shiraz although no claim is made that he was involved in the bombing and no evidence is offered that he knew about the intent to bomb before the operation. It is stated, based on the accused's confession, that he learned about the bombing after he became suspicious of a friend and persuaded that friend to admit that he was involved in the bombing. He then helped the friend flee.

2. The cases of two of the executed were never sent to the Supreme Court for final decision. The executions were performed with mere confirmation of the Appeals Court.

3. The Supreme Court decision to confirm the execution order of the other three was apparently rendered on 1 March 2009 after an Appeals Court decision that was rendered in February 2008. The delay in executions until May 2010 is not explained.

4. The evidence given in the statement regarding the PJAK membership of four accused is at best circumstantial.

The evidence given for Farzad Kamangar's membership in PJAK is that his brother was active in "party activities" in Sulaymanieh and has a "conviction record" for involvement with the PKK, the Kurdish movement active across Iran, Iran, and Iraq. The statement does not say if the record is in Iran, Iraq, or Turkey and does not explain why this blood relationship is significant in relation to alleged crimes.

The other evidence given for Kamangar's membership are the words of the other two executed men --- one of whom himself is alleged to be PJAK because of a coded note and PJAK booklet found in his house --- that they knew Kamangar, lived in the same neighborhood, and forged documents for him. They do not accuse Kamangar of being a member of PJAK and the statement does not say that they themselves admitted being members of PJAK.

If the Prosecutor's statement is accepted at face value, Kamangar was never involved in the actual bombing. Allegedly an explosive timer was found in his house and he was also accused of fabricating documents for two people, who intended to put together material for explosives found by police in a car.

0620 GMT: The Oil Squeeze. Kalemeh reports on the significant number of foreign companies who have suspended development of the South Pars and Assalouyieh oil and gas fields.

In recent weeks Iranian officials have issued "ultimata" to Royal Dutch Shell and Spain's Repsol to resume development or face eviction from Iran.

0615 GMT: The Executions. The Iranian Writers' Association has condemned the hanging of five Iranians on Sunday: "There are no words which could describe this bloodshed and bloodthirst"

0520 GMT: We begin this morning with two features. We have posted a letter from student activist Majid Tavakoli, detained in Evin Prison since 7 December, about three of the Iranians executed on Sunday. And we have put up the English translation of Mir Hossein Mousavi's wide-ranging comments on Tuesday about the Green Movement and the legitimacy of an unjust Government, "Do Iranian Mothers Have Rights?"

Iran Transcript: Mousavi "Do Iranian Mothers Have Rights?" (12 May)

Mir Hossein Mousavi, speaking with families of political prisoners on Wednesday. Translation from the Facebook page supporting Mousavi:

Issuing visas and letting the mothers of these three individuals [US hikers detained in Iran since summer 2009] is very good and this is the right of these mothers and we agree with this, but the problem is whether this right is also considered for the Iranian mothers as well....

If this issue is analyzed, we would be able to enlighten ourselves on the reason for our lack of development in the economy and domestic and foreign politics, for these cases are all following each other and are related.....

In the past year the role of women and mothers in analyzing and considering the main issues of the country has been very high....

Our movement is a peaceful movement. It is not after violence. A year since it was born, one can judge how important it has been for the movement to denounce violence. This movement has been against terrorism and killing from the very beginning because this movement is a deep and comprehensive movement....


We neither have weapons; nor do we want to have any. We condemn terrorists, regardless or the group, nationality, ethnicity, or culture they belong to. We came to the scene with dialogue, with the slogan of “Where Is My Vote?”. We came with logic, and the more we stay logical, we turn the course for the benefit of the movement. Our asset is to strongly persevere with our demands....

Our goals were the outcome of the issue that occurred at that time [the Presidential election], and people came to the scene to get their votes back. When they were repressed, and people analyzed and studied the issue, people’s demands, not accidentally or out of anger but because of the analysis and considerations that happened in the society, were extended....

People have realized that there have been some problems in the society, and one of these problems caused them to take to the streets and unite. To help unify these massive number of people, we demanded the full implementation of the Constitution....

People voted for the Constitution so that it would be implemented fully, not that some parts of it such as the freedom of press and freedom of assembly would be ignored entirely. One cannot only consider part of the Constitution and ignore the rest of it. This makes the whole Constitution meaningless.

When the Constitution is implemented in the country, one administration cannot dismiss all the managers of the country in a short period of time and replace them with its own friends and relatives. A financial corruption case cannot be opened and discussed in the parliament, with even the head of the judiciary talking about it, but then after a while we witness that the case is closed in an unusual way and then there would be no discussions and talks about it again....

Does the judiciary move toward independence today? Did the judiciary regarding the recent accused [five Iranians executed on Sunday] move in this path? Is the judiciary controlling the security forces, or it is the security forces that are controlling the judiciary? Are the sentences which judge an issue based on justice or they are based on some other considerations? In that case, why is one person is sentenced to several years in prison only because of participating in a peaceful protest, while in that peaceful protest millions participated? All these [matters] question the justice of the judiciary system.....

Any form of freedom in the country depends on the existence of free media, the reform in even the smallest organizations, and the moral matters of the society....

How is it that an Islamic country that claims to have had Cultural Revolution and in which we talk about spirituality and purity has the highest number of executions? The problem in not with individuals. The problem is that we governed the country in such a way that we reached to these numbers....

Even the guiltiest of people have human dignity and must be punished comparable to the offense they have committed. Their families and their dignities should not be attacked because otherwise their rights will be violated.....

This is what unfortunately is happening today in our country. Now your brothers and loved ones are in prisons without any guilt because they didn’t have unreasonable demands but were arrested. This is not the end of it....There are tortures; there are forced confessions, and outside [prisons] there are attacks on the families. It is the right of the families to know where their children, their loved ones, are imprisoned and how they are doing, but this right of theirs has been violated.....

These events show how violent they have become in the society; all to satisfy their special interests....

Is hosting a banquet for the members of the [United Nations] Security Council in such a situation going to solve our problems? Wouldn’t it make the government more powerful if it would have the backing of the people? Given the turbulent condition of the area, wouldn’t it better for the government to hear the people and achieve a national unity? Which one is better? Increasing the pressure and building new cells in Evin Prison despite the slogan of the early days of the revolution which was for eliminating the Evin Prison, or hearing and working with the people?...

We expected that the government before anything else would consider the situation of the suffering families and follow up on the crimes committed [after the election], not accuse Israel for one and US for another one. This approach only increases the problems of the country. It was not supposed that we rule the people, it was supposed that people would rule us. It was supposed that the transfer of power would happen with people’s will and continuously. One should be concerned of a time when it is thought that the solution is a continual repressing, pressuring and restricting of the [political] atmosphere.

Iran Document: Maziar Bahari's Response to His 13-Year (and 74-Lash) Sentence

On Monday a Revolutionary Court in Iran sentenced Iranian-Canadian journalist Maziar Bahari, in absentia, to 13 years and 74 lashes. Bahari, detained just after the June election until October, offers this response:

I didn't attend my sentencing. In June last year, I was thrown into prison in Iran for 118 days, then finally released and allowed to leave the country in October. But on May 9, 2010, without bothering to inform me or my lawyers, Branch 26 of the Revolutionary Court sentenced me to 13 years and six months imprisonment plus 74 lashes. A member of my family went to the court just this morning and was told of the judgment, such as it was: a reminder that this is a regime that deals in brutal symbols that make sense only to its own.

The Real Threat to Iran: The Spies of the Daily Show
Iran Video & Text: Maziar Bahari on His 118 Days in Detention
The Latest from Iran (11 May): Opposition Surfaces

You may say, "Thirteen and a half years is already a harsh sentence, why do they need to flog you as well?" My guess is that they hate the idea you might come out of jail unscathed, and relish the notion they could leave marks on your body that you could never forget—if you were there to feel them. Or perhaps in a perverse way the sentence is meant to win my gratitude. On the day they let me out of prison last year, the resident judge in Tehran's notorious Evin prison told me that there were 11 charges against me. So in a sense, as I was reminded repeatedly during almost four months of interrogation and torture, I was benefiting from "the Islamic kindness" of the "holy" government of the Islamic Republic when I got out.


The six charges I was sentenced for and the reason for the sentences, as my interrogator and the resident judge told me, are as follows, and they will tell you more about the regime than about me. I was, after all, just doing what a reporter does. But like the interrogators in George Orwell's 1984, those at work in Iran's justice system today are not interested in having you tell the truth, they are intent on making you accept their truth:

Five years imprisonment for unlawful assembly and conspiring against the security of the state.  I reported about four days of peaceful demonstrations after the presidential election in June 2009 when millions of Iranians came to the streets to oppose the reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Four years for collecting and keeping secret and classified documents. In 2002 a leader of the opposition group Freedom Movement of Iran gave me a court document about the arrest of members of his group. There was nothing secret in the document. Everything in it was later announced by Iranian judiciary officials. The Revolutionary Guards who raided my mother's house to arrest me found the document in one of the boxes they confiscated. I was never interrogated about it and it was only mentioned once during 118 days of interrogation.

One year for propagandizing against the system. In a series of articles for NEWSWEEK after the presidential vote I quoted members of the opposition who said Ahmadinejad's reelection was tantamount to a military coup: that it tightened the grip of the Revolutionary Guards over Iran's military, political and economic affairs. The Guards also took over the intelligence apparatus. After they arrested me, they said that by reflecting the views of the opposition groups I was staging a media campaign against the Islamic Republic.

Two years for insulting the Supreme Leader.  In a private e-mail to my NEWSWEEK editors Nisid Hajari and Christopher Dickey, I said that Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has learned from the mistakes the Shah made when he was overthrown by the Islamic revolution in 1978 and 1979, and Khamenei ould not allow his opponents to act so freely. I mentioned that Khamenei tries to nip the opposition in the bud by arresting its leaders and preventing people from coming to the streets. The agents of Khamenei who tortured me for months said that by comparing the ayatollah to the shah I was implying that Khamenei was a dictator, and that calling him a dictator was an insult.

One year and 74 lashes for disrupting public order.  On June 25 I reported at a demonstration in Tehran that led to a clash between the paramilitary Basij forces and a group of young people who attacked a Basij base. I filmed the attacked and wrote about it for NEWSWEEK. I was told that reporting the incident incited the public to rise against the government.

And, finally, the real icing on the cake:

Six months for insulting the president. Someone tagged a photo of a young man kissing Ahmadinejad so that it appeared on my Facebook wall. My interrogator said that the picture implied that Ahmadinejad was a homosexual and that it was an insult.

Strangely, no sentence was handed down for any of the more severe charges brought up when I was being interrogated and tortured. Those included spying for the United States, Great Britain, and Israel; paving the way for a "velvet revolution" in Iran like the peaceful revolutions that transformed Ukraine, Georgia, and Czechoslovakia; being in contact with Jews and Israelis; improper sexual conduct; and putting various reformist leaders in touch with Western governments.

None of those charges made any more or less sense than the ones I was sentenced for, so why leave them out?

I can write these lines with my tongue firmly in my cheek from the safety of my house in London, of course, but more than 30 journalists, writers, and bloggers are still languishing in Iran's prisons. Dozens of others are either out on bail or furlough and can be put in prison anytime the Revolutionary Guards desire. Hundreds of other Iranians are in jail for charges that are even more absurd than mine. Five activists were executed on May 8, and 25 others are on death row.

Since the disputed election last June, the regime has somehow managed to contain the public outcry against its injustices by passing preposterous sentences and saturating Iranian cities with the police and Revolutionary Guards. A wave of judgments like the one against me, coming on the eve of the first anniversary of the election, appears aimed at discouraging people from taking part in new mass demonstrations aimed condemning the reelection of Ahmadinejad and the repression that followed.

Whether the regime successfully preempts the demonstrations this time we will have to wait and see, but it cannot play this game forever. Its fantasy of justice, like its fantasy of democracy, and its fantasy of economic development is a farce. Iranians are too smart, and too hungry, for that. One way or another the future will belong to those who want to build their future in the real world.

Iran Special: A Renewal of Protest for 12 June?

Just over 24 hours ago, we wrote, "Iranians and activists throughout the world responded with sadness and fury to the Sunday morning news that five Iranians...had been executed....But what will the response be inside Iran? Will the hangings provoke public anger or will any display be muted?"

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqqsSVWVa1s&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

UPDATED Iran Video: Protest Against Ahmadinejad at Shahid Beheshti University (10 May)
The Latest from Iran (11 May): Opposition Surfaces

We got a partial but vivid answer yesterday. The Tehran Bus Workers Union, as well as labour activists outside Iran, condemned the hangings. Mir Hossein Mousavi issued a statement on "the Judiciary shift[ing] its position from supporting the oppressed toward supporting authorities and those in power....Is this the...justice you were after?"


And then there was the demonstration at Shahid Beheshti University in Tehran. As news leaked that President Ahmadinejad was coming to the campus to speak, the students gathered. They not only gathered; they chanted defiantly. They proclaimed their readiness to sacrifice; they sang songs of unity; they taunted the President. They did so in the face of the security presence and even as the clashes began.

That protest alone resurrected international coverage of Iran as more than a nuclear issue. The 8-minute clip of the chanting and the confrontation with Iran's security troops gave images to reports which had come out in the press, bringing broadcasters like CNN, which had gone to sleep over the post-election developments, to life.

Defenders of the regime will jump in today and claim this was an isolated incident, even as they redouble the loud pronouncements of foreign intrigue and a malevolent opposition. But consider that yesterday's university protest, even if fueled by the news of Sunday's hangings, was not the first one this month. Students at Tehran University also defied the regime crackdown on 1 May, again "welcoming" the President as he tried to seize publicity with a statement from the campus.

That in turn winds the clock back to November-December 2009 when opposition was marked by a series of university demonstrations before, during, or after National Students Day on 7 December. Publicly this kept demands for justice and rights simmering, leading up to the show of resistance against the Government on Ashura (27 December).

And it should never be forgotten that the public display is not and will not be the sum total of discontent with and challenge to the regime. The simple formula of Greens v. Ahmadinejad ignores the strands of pressure upon the President, coming not only from "reformists" but from other politicians, clerics, and even the "conservative" establishment. While the Green Movement has supposedly crumbled after 11 February, more blows have been thrown against Ahmadinejad over his economic plans, the supposed corruption and mismanagement of allies including his First Vice President and his Chief of Staff, and the handling of the post-election crisis.

The image of a revival of direct opposition to the President, even if it is "only" on a university campus, buttresses the political foundations for that assault upon Mahmoud. Thus the significance of the coincidence that the Shahid Beheshti demonstration occurred as former President Hashemi Rafsanjani was resurfacing with the pointed declaration that his 17 July Friday Prayers, which was accompanied by large demonstrations, still contained the solution for this crisis.

Will it do the same this time, as the clock now ticks toward the 1st anniversary of the Presidential election on 12 June? Too soon to tell. However, I have to raise a bit of a smile that yesterday's events came only hours after an analyst for Al Jazeera English, Massoud Parsi, declared:

Several months on, Ahmadinejad's government appears to have emerged stronger and more self-confident than it was before the contentious elections....

The government and security forces have managed to suppress any serious challenge to the government and what looked like an increasingly popular movement has withered away as a result of a brutal crackdown and political gamesmanship.

This has been greatly assisted by foreign plots against the regime, which made it much easier for the government to rally support in the face of external threats.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. The Fat Lady (and Mahmoud) have not sung. This is not over.