Fearless and fearsome...

It was the third day.
According to Shia tradition, the deceased are to be mourned anew three days following their demise.
Grand Ayatollah Montazeri had died the previous Sunday in the holy city of Qom. Thousands of mourners were gathering to attend a memorial service in the main mosque of the city of Isfahan. Security forces were already there and waiting for them.
They didn't allow anybody to enter the mosque, Tens of thousands gathered outside for the memorial but were savagely attacked by security forces and the Basijis, one mourner, Farid Salvati, told AP.
Montazeri mourners shouted slogans against the top authorities. They are beating protesters, including women and children, with batons, chains and stones, according to the Rah-e Sabz website quoted by Reuters.
The angry crowd shouted slogans such as Khamenei is a murderer, his rule is invalid. Some 50 people were arrested.
Ayatollah Jalaleddin Taheri, a reformist cleric who had organized the ceremony and was prevented from reaching the mosque, said treating people this way at a memorial service is deplorable.
Taheri had led Friday prayers in Isfahan, but resigned in 2002, as he could no longer condone the regime’s repressive policies.
Demonstrations also took place in Najafabad, Montazeri’s hometown.
Then came Tasooa, the ninth day in the Islamic month of Muharram, a religious holiday second in importance only to Ashura, which takes place the next day.
Demonstrators again seized the opportunity to fill the streets on an official religious holiday. Confrontations with the security forces occurred in three squares in the center of Tehran, Imam Hussein, Enghelab and Ferdowsi, according to the NYT.
That evening, thousands of protesters congregated near Jamaran Mosque, the mosque attended by Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and who died in 1989.
They were then set upon by the police, as the number of protesters increased, the government forces quickly brought in more forces and waged a very savage attack on people, one Iranian on the scene told the NYT.
Former reformist President Mohammad Khatami was to deliver a speech at the mosque that evening, as part of the ceremonies commemorating Tasooa.
Imam Hussein’s rebellion arose from his willingness to die for the sake of freedom. He fought against those who wanted to govern society in the name of religion and abolish freedom, Khatami said. Pro-government supporters, Basijis according to some witnesses, reacted angrily to Khatami’s comments, interrupted the speech and prevented him from concluding his remarks.
The death of Hussein, Prophet Mohammad’s grandson, at the hands of the evil tyrant Yazid is at the heart of Shia Islam. The opposition clearly identifies its current struggle against the Shia autocracy led by the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei with Hussein’s.
Hence, in the eyes of the opposition, the evil caliph Yazid is no other than the Supreme Leader himself. Thus, a religious holiday commemorating events that took place in the seventh century has clear political significance in today’s Iran.
The violent reaction of the Supreme Leader’s supporters to Khatami’s speech is not surprising, therefore.
The police had to intervene to disperse the crowd and empty the mosque.
Many participants were planning to meet again the next day, to participate in the Ashura ceremonies; the new slogan was "Hasti? Hastaam," -- "Are you in? I'm in.
On Ashura, the religious holiday commemorating the martyrdom of Imam Hussein, mourners form processions and fill the streets.
This day also coincided with the seventh day following the death of Grand Ayatollah Montazeri, an event, according to Shia tradition, traditionally commemorated.
As a result, the regime was undoubtedly expecting mass protests, with not only religious but also explicit political overtones, Montazeri having been a marja-i taqlid (or source of emulation, a supreme authority in matters of Islamic law), and the spiritual leader of the opposition movement.
Yet, all services commemorating the seventh day of his demise were banned by the regime, except in Qom and Najafabad.
The mourners marched along the traditional route used by mass protest movements of the past, especially those of the revolution of 1979, from Imam Hussein Square in the east, toward Azadi Square, to the west of the capital, ten kilometers away.
The confrontations with the security forces were numerous and intense.
A large throng had convened near Valiasr Square at about 1 pm, which was blockaded by police. Lines of black-clad Special Guards guarded the square. What happened next was something I had never seen.
People broke off slabs from the sidewalk and smashed them to smaller pieces -- they threw these stones at the Guards. The crowd -- a few thousand people, with a few hundred in the front line -- had gone into guerrilla mode. They were fearless and fearsome: not only did not back down but went on the offensive. The sky looked like a hailstorm of stones. The Guards had taken refuge under their shields; for some reason, they did not fire tear gas at us. After about 20 minutes of this, the Guards retreated and left on their bikes. The crowd was elated; we felt we had 'conquered' Valiasr Square.
We poured into the square. The ground was littered with stones and a few broken helmets, like a battlefield. People set a police canister on fire. The atmosphere was very jubilant, one participant told tehranbureau.
Unable to disperse the huge crowds, Iranian security forces fired on stone-throwing protesters in the center of the capital Sunday, according to AP.
Interestingly, however, there are reports that some police forces refused to obey such orders. Those who did shoot were civilian-clad paramilitaries, according to some reports. Does that mean that traditional law enforcement forces are refusing to participate in the repression of opposition demonstrations?
Is the security apparatus divided and not wholeheartedly behind the regime’s hard line against its opponents? This is indeed possible, but too early to tell…
Perhaps emboldened by their sheer number, one woman activist shouted in encouragement to her fellow demonstrators don't be scared. We are safe as long as we are a big crowd, and by a growing determination fueled by the regime’s obduracy,
The protesters refused to relent and boldly confronted the police and paramilitary forces. At Valiasr and Enghelab [Freedom Square], police forces attacked us. We dispersed into nearby alleys. After a while, we heard cheering and whistling. Venturing back out, we saw that people had managed to overwhelm the police and had captured three of them, disarmed them of (their) shields and batons and let them go. Black smoke was rising from the direction of Karim Khan Street. Police cars had been set on fire, one witness told theranburau.
Chants of Death to Khamenei, and This is the month of blood, Yazid will fall, filled the streets, Yazid, here, being assimilated to Khamenei.
People no longer fear, concluded one protester.
Young boys, even younger than me, braved all the tear gas, and motorcycles of the anti-riot police storming them. Some of the young people, only holding sticks . . . counterattacked the anti-riot police and Basijis. As soon as they were beaten up or dispersed by tear gas, they appeared on some other corners. I have never remembered such a day with so many brave people, one university student told the LAT. Some likened the ferocity of the violence to civil war.
In the end, eight people were reportedly killed, including the nephew of opposition leader Mir Hussein Mousavi, Ali Mousavi.
According to Moshen Makhmalbaf, a former spokesman for Mousavi, and an Iranian filmmaker in exile in Paris, Mousavi was first run over by a vehicle; one of its occupants then shot him. For Makhmalbaf, it was clearly an assassination designed to cow the opposition leader.
The people's protests have become deeper, wider and more radical. Everything will, from now on, be harsher, tougher, stronger, said Hamid Reza Jalaeipour, an opposition supporter and professor at Tehran University.
The gloves are off. There is no question about that. No one can now doubt that change is coming, added Ali Ansari, a professor of Iranian Studies at the University of St Andrews. One opposition activist concluded, after Sunday’s violent altercations, the regime is on borrowed time. The entire country is beginning to rise.
Indeed, protest demonstrations also took place in the cities of Qom, Isfahan, Shiraz, Arak, Najafabad, Kashan, Babol and Mashad…
The next day, Mousavi’s body mysteriously disappeared from the hospital.
They have taken my brother's body from Avicenna hospital and wherever we look for him we can't find him. No one is taking responsibility for taking the body and they are not answering us. Until we find the body [of my brother] all funeral ceremonies are off, said Seyyed Reza, another Mousavi nephew.
Initially, on Sunday, the family had been warned not to organize a funeral.
The authorities also seized the bodies of five other victims, ostensibly because the circumstances surrounding their deaths were still under investigation.
The regime was clearly holding the bodies of opposition activists to prevent their subsequent funerals from engendering further destabilizing demonstrations and protests.
It is this cycle of demonstrations, deaths, funerals, further demonstrations, more victims and funerals that led to the overthrow of the Shah’s regime that the authorities wish to avoid at all cost.
The regime, far from alleviating its pressure on the opposition however, arrested some 1500 activists since Sunday, 1,100 in Tehran alone, including Ebrahim Yazdi, a former foreign minister, and Emadeddin Baghi, a human rights activist.
In addition, it has begun arresting relatives of opposition leaders and dignitaries.
Dr Noushin Ebadi, sister of human rights lawyer and activist Shirin Ebadi, Nobel Peace Prize recipient in 2003, was also detained, as was Mousavi’s brother-in-law, Shapour Kazemi.
Yet, the regime was obviously rattled by the recent demonstrations, they can't believe this system of organizing ourselves by ourselves. They think there must be some infrastructure, and they are dying to find it, one activist told the LAT.
That is undoubtedly the movement’s great strength. It is highly decentralized, composed of thousands of small autonomous groups, which communicate and coordinate their activities thanks to the modern technologies available such as mobile phones and the internet. Concomitantly, this absence of structure is also its principle weakness. The movement has neither a clear leadership, nor a coherent strategy.
The movement may probably need both soon if it hopes to topple the current regime.
For the moment, the regime is determined to crush the movement, though this is getting ever more difficult, yet it cannot afford to kill any activists who would then become martyrs to the cause, spawning that endless cycle of funerals and demonstrations.
Nevertheless, its determination to crack down at all cost has alienated many religious and conservative Iranians as well.
In its rabid campaign to annihilate the opposition, the myopic and intransigent regime has undermined its political legitimacy.
The regime purports to be an Islamic one, fostering, protecting and upholding Islamic values. Yet, in its furious battle to preserve its monopoly on power, it has violated all the principles it is supposed to embody.
During the Islamic month of Muharram, the Qoran prohibits violence of any kind. Nevertheless, the regime has had no qualms about assaulting peaceful demonstrators, and shooting into crowds…
It has also prevented commemorations from taking place, particularly for Grand Ayatollah Montazeri, a clear violation of Shia tradition.
The regime abducts the bodies of those of its opponents it has slain in order to prevent funerals and thus demonstrations and commemorations from taking place.
It has blocked access to certain mosques, and provoked disturbances in others.
These are not the actions of a government led by a Supreme Leader and inspired by God.
These criminal and sacrilegious acts can only alienate and infuriate those who take Islamic values seriously, its traditional constituency.
People in my neighborhood have been going to the Ashura rituals every night with green fabric for the first time. They have been politicized recently, because of the suppression of this month, one Tehran inhabitant told the NYT.
Not even the Shah’s hated regime evinced such contempt for religious principles.
Mehdi Karroubi, who was assaulted during Sunday’s violent demonstrations, and who is no longer under police protection, in a clear attempt by the regime to inhibit his movements, said the dictatorship regime of the shah was respectful to Ashura and avoided killings, punishment and arrest of opposition leaders. Why is it that a government, which had risen from Ashura riots, orders the killings of people and causes horror among society during the holy day of Ashura?
More and more Iranians are no doubt asking that valid question…
The regime’s opponents now judge its conduct even more harshly than they do the despised Shah’s…
The regime has lost its way, or perhaps has finally shed its veneer of respectability and exposed its true nature for all Iranians to see.
Islam is but an alibi, its values obviously not underpinning its policies…
The moral vacuity at the core of the Islamic Republic of Iran can no longer be concealed.
So, the struggle continues.
How long can the regime survive?
It is now divided, and on the defensive.
Many of its supporters are keenly aware that the unrest and uneasiness are spreading.
There were many (acts of) sedition after the Islamic revolution. But none of them spread the seeds of doubt and hesitation among various social layers as much as the recent one, Mojatab Zolnur, the Supreme Leader’s representative to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps recently declared.
The regime has lost the support of the nation, and even its core constituencies now are wondering if it still has the ability and moral right to lead the country.
It can still rely on the security apparatus for now, the security forces, especially the Revolutionary Guards, are prepared to fight until the end, as they have nowhere to go, one activist told The Times.
For how long?
The funerals, the religious ceremonies commemorating the dead cannot forever be denied.
The fortieth day following Montazeri’s death will soon be upon us, and will coincide with Safar, the day the Prophet’s own death is commemorated.
This will be but one occasion among many…
The opposition, fearless and fearsome, has come too far to be denied the universal rights it has been demanding since the fraudulent June elections, and for the better part of the last one hundred years.
May they prevail and be spared the bloodbath the regime’s last holdouts may be preparing in order to make one last stand…
(the photograph above is by Amir Sadefi, AFP/Getty Images)
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　

Christmas in Beijing

On Christmas day, the Chinese authorities sentenced Liu Xiaobo, a literature professor and writer, to eleven years in prison, and deprived him of his civil rights for an additional two years.
Mr. Liu was arrested in December 2008 and charged with incitement to subvert state power. The accusation based its case on Mr. Liu’s participation in the development of Charter 08, a document calling for the establishment of a democratic China and the respect for basic human rights. It also accused him of subversion because of six essays that he wrote between 2005 and 2007.
The sentence was issued December 25, after a two-hour trial found him guilty of subversion on Wednesday.
During the sentence hearing, which also lasted but two hours, his lawyer had only twenty minutes to defend his client.
The verdict stipulated that the accused had the goal of subverting our country's people's democratic dictatorship and socialist system. The effects were malign and he is a major criminal.
Western diplomats and journalists were not authorized to attend the trial at the Number One Intermediate People’s Court in Beijing.
The prominent Chinese human rights lawyer Mo Shaoping, whose firm was representing Mr. Liu, declared that they would lodge an appeal against the decision,
Mr. Liu has worked to try to find a way to allow the ordinary citizen to criticize the government or to make proposals to the government, on how the people can participate in government. We pleaded not guilty - his crime is a crime of speech, he said. We cannot accept this sentence because we have argued in court that Liu is innocent, he added.
This is not the first time that Mr. Liu has run afoul of Chinese law.
In fact, he has been confronting the authorities for over twenty years.
In 1989, though a professor at Columbia University in New York, he returned to China in order to support the students at Tiananmen Square who were staging a hunger strike. He was imprisoned for twenty months following the June 4 events.
He spent an additional three years in a reeducation camp (1996-1999), after he had publicly criticized China’s one party system.
Banned from the teaching profession by the authorities, Liu continued to write essays attacking the Chinese system, and promoting the cause of democracy and human rights.
In 2008, he co-authored a document called Charter 2008.
Inspired by the Charter 77 movement of Czechoslovakia led by Vaclav Havel and other intellectuals, the document called for putting an end to the monopoly on power of the Chinese Communist party, and the creation of a democratic China, we couldn’t have a repeat of June 4, where all sides lose, so we came up with a constructive way forward, one author of the Charter, Zhang Zuhua told the NYT.
There are laws but there is no rule of law. There is a constitution but no constitutional governance. And there is still the political reality that is obvious for all to see. The power bloc continues to insist on maintaining the authoritarian regime, rejecting political reform, the Charter declares in its preamble.
As such, the authors propose a new direction for China, based on the following fundamental principles: freedom, human rights, equality, republicanism, democracy and constitutionalism.
Furthermore, the Charter explicitly demands the repeal of the inciting subversion of state power provision, the one the authorities used to convict him December 24.
The Charter was written in December 2008, and sponsored by three hundred academics, lawyers and other professionals. Since then, some 10,000 Chinese citizens have signed it.
Only Liu has been arrested and prosecuted for his involvement in the Charter. He was arrested just before the document was issued.
During his trial, Liu denied the government’s contention that his activities were illegal, he rejected their argument that Charter 08 brought about a ‘malevolent social impact’ and told the court that his remarks are within the realm of free speech, which is protected by the Constitution, his younger brother, Liu Xiaoxuan told the NYT.
Indeed, Article 35 of the Chinese Constitution states the following, Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.
China’s authoritarian regime is clearly violating its own laws, thereby confirming Liu’s analysis that there is no rule of law in China.
This strategy of confronting the regime with its own contradictions is clever, in that it exposes its hypocrisy, but dangerous in that it also fuels its vindictiveness.
In an essay called Changing the Regime by Changing Society, written in 2006, Liu states the following, the greatness of nonviolent resistance is that even as man is faced with forceful tyranny and the resulting suffering, the victim responds to hate with love, to prejudice with tolerance, to arrogance with humility, to humiliation with dignity, and to violence with reason. That is, the victim, with modesty and dignified love, takes the initiative to invite the victimizer to return to reason, peace, and compassion, thereby transcending the vicious cycle of “replacing one tyranny with another”.
The activist takes pride and solace in being everything the despotic regime is not, in embodying all that a decent regime should espouse,but only pays lip service to.
Liu has taken the initiative, and dared the regime to respect its own fundamental documents, heed its own legal texts and its professed principles.
By taking the regime’s laws and principles seriously, the writer has thus placed the onus on the authorities to do likewise, or publicly repudiate them, thereby revealing their true selves to the Chinese people and the world at large, as imposters and hypocrites.
The Chinese autocrats are well aware of this, and it is no accident that Liu was sentenced on Christmas, a holiday in the West.
In essence, by providing the authorities with an opportunity to redeem themselves or face the moral consequences, the dissident also reveals to them and the Chinese people their inherent moral corruption. It is the dissident’s audacity that fuels their wrath and hunger for retribution.
The activist seeks to provoke within the autocratic regime the realization that they are leading the nation on the wrong path.
A regime that has no democratic legitimacy can only cling to power through deception, oppression and corruption.
The regime feels sufficiently vulnerable to crack down harshly on militant democracy activists and make an example of Liu, but not enough to accept the offer of dialogue, and the inevitable dissolution of its monopoly on power that would ensue.
Today, the autocrats running the country have a tacit understanding with the Chinese people: in exchange for the people's submission, they will provide for their material well-being. They have, in essence, bought the people’s submissiveness. As a result, they are compelled to implement an aggressive economic policy promoting economic growth at all cost. Nothing is to get in the way of China’s economic expansion.
The viability of the regime depends on it…
Economic growth and a rising standard of living have so far enabled the regime to stifle all significant calls for social and political reform, for the time being.
Yet, the ruler and the ruled engage in a cooperation based on the principle of profit-before-everything. The loyalty bought by the promise of a comfortable life is actually a soul that is rotten to the core. Driven by profit-making above all else, almost no officials are uncorrupted, not a single penny is clean, nor a single word honest, Liu wrote in 2006, in an essay entitled The Many Aspects of CPC Dictatorship.
The ruler bribes the ruled to continue ruling. The ruled accepts ever-bigger bribes to satisfy his growing material needs. Each betrays his better self in the process…How long can this last, before the system collapses under the weight of its own corruption?
Liu seeks to promote regime change not by violent political upheaval, but gradually, by reforming the system, and fostering the development of a civil society in China.
In other words, pursue the free and democratic forces among the people; do not pursue the rebuilding of society through radical regime change, but instead use gradual social change to compel regime change. That is, rely on the continuously growing civil society to reform a regime that lacks legitimacy, Liu wrote.
The process will be a lengthy, gradual one, but one that can only succeed.
The lawyer, Mo Shaoping, also a signatory of Charter 08, similarly believes that the advent of democracy is inevitable, it’s a historical trend. China will move towards democracy, rule of law and constitutional governance. And no one can stand in its way, he told the NYT.
Indeed, there are less confrontational, and perhaps no less efficient ways to gradually reform the system, and widen the personal freedoms of the Chinese.
Mo Shaoping first began defending dissidents in 1995, when a democracy activist could not find any other lawyer willing to take the risk of representing him…
Since then, he has been involved in more sensitive cases than any other Chinese lawyer.
Needless to say, he has never prevailed in any major human rights case, it’s impossible to win these cases. The best you can hope for is a compromise, he said.
Mr. Mo has not been a victim of the regime’s wrath himself because he is careful not to provoke the authorities, and never emphasizes the political nature of the cases he accepts. He seeks instead to defend his clients through all possible legal means.
Hence, he is not a political crusader, but a pragmatist trying to use the system to broaden individual rights incrementally, without alienating the authorities. It is a difficult balancing act, I do my bit to push forward democracy and rule of law, but writing essays is not my thing, he said.
He is no Mr. Liu, therefore, though they share the same objectives.
A saying on how to conduct one’s self goes: Man is born free and equal. Universal enslavement and inequality are never due to the ruler being too powerful or brilliant, but because those ruled knelt down, Mr. Liu wrote in an essay called Can it be that the Chinese People Deserve Only «Party-led Democracy»?
In essence, the tyrants need the cooperation of the ruled in order to survive, and preserve their power. The ruled need to accept their subjugation for the regime to endure.
Liu, obviously, has always refused to kneel, even if that is the easier course to take, at great personal cost to himself.
The regime will tolerate dissent, as long as it is not overtly political in nature.
The party loathes anyone who engages in organization and Liu Xiaobo is paying for that, one Charter 08 signatory told Jane Macartney of The Times.
Although it was Christmas, observers around the world were appalled by the sentence.
Liu Xiaobo's detention and trial shows the Chinese government will not tolerate Chinese citizens participating in discussions about their own form of government, deplored Sam Zarifi, of Amnesty International.
The French human rights group Reporters without Borders called the sentence a disgrace.
The Chinese reacted harshly to international condemnation of the trial, and calls to release the dissident, as gross interference in China‘s judicial internal affairs.
If China’s Communist Party wanted to advertise to the world that they will do anything to protect their power and use the judiciary to accomplish that, then the persecution of Liu Xiaobo was a perfect vehicle, Jerome A. Cohen, of the Council on Foreign Relations, told the NYT.
Edward Friedman, an expert on China at the University of Wisconsin added that it’s clear that what matters most to the Chinese Communist Party is the survival of the regime and their monopoly on power.
More interestingly, some brave individuals inside China condemned the verdict as well,
China's Mandela was born this Christmas, wrote Beichen, a prominent Chinese blogger.
One unemployed worker who waited outside the courtroom, and who has signed Charter 08, Lei Ji told the NYT, I’m not afraid. I love China. I just want my country to have freedom and human rights.
Liu Xiaobo had to be dealt with harshly.
What would happen were his compatriots suddenly to refuse to kneel, and no longer accept the domination of a party no one has chosen and elected?
What is the fate of a despotic ruling clique once the people no longer fear it?
Its days are numbered.
The regime clearly hopes that Lui’s fate will ensure that no one emulates him.
But a nation, a people can wallow in fear only so long…
Some day, the Chinese will simply no longer tolerate being ruled by a clique of corrupt autocrats. Then, and only then will China fulfill at last its vast potential…
(the photograph above is by Kim Cheung AP)
　
　
　
　
　

Christmas Bells

I heard the bells on Christmas Day

Their old, familiar carols play,

And wild and sweet

The words repeat

Of peace on earth, good-will to men!

And thought how, as the day had come,

The belfries of all Christendom

Had rolled along

The unbroken song

Of peace on earth, good-will to men!

Till, ringing, singing on its way

The world revolved from night to day,

A voice, a chime,

A chant sublime

Of peace on earth, good-will to men!

Then from each black, accursed mouth

The cannon thundered in the South,

And with the sound

The Carols drowned

Of peace on earth, good-will to men!

And in despair I bowed my head;

‘There is no peace on earth,’ I said;

‘For hate is strong,

And mocks the song

Of peace on earth, good-will to men!’

Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:

‘God is not dead; nor doth he sleep!

The Wrong shall fail,The Right prevail,

With peace on earth, good-will to men!’

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Joyeux Noël à tous,

Richard

(the photograph is from http://www.terragalleria.com/)

I call you father...

Initially, the news that his old rival had died must have brought a smile to Ali Khamenei’s dour face…After all, the Grand Ayatollah who had been designated to replace the founder of the Islamic Republic, Ruhollah Khomeini, as Supreme Leader, but then had clashed with him, his implacable foe who was the Green Movement’s most formidable and influential supporter, was finally out of the way…
Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri died early Sunday morning in his sleep, at his home in the holy city of Qom, at the age of 87... He had been suffering from diabetes and asthma.
As soon as the passing away of the venerable ayatollah was made public, thousands began to converge on Qom, about 150 kilometers south of Tehran, where the funeral was scheduled to take place the following day.
Anticipating that the funeral could degenerate into a huge anti-government demonstration, the authorities dispatched thousands of security forces to the city.
Once again, internet connections were interrupted and mobile phone services disrupted. Foreign media was also prevented from covering the event.
In addition, Iranian intelligence agencies warned many activists not to attend the funeral or risk arrest. Ahmad Ghabel, one of Montazeri’s students was arrested on his way to Qom, according to the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran.
Both former presidential candidates, Mir Hussein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi participated anyway.
We started out from Tehran for Qom at 2:00 am, one participant told tehran bureau.
We arrived in the early dawn hours at Ayatollah Montazeri's house, which was open to the public, to pay our respects. His home was open to the public. Mourners waited in line to see his body, which was laid in a glass coffin. By 7 am, the entire street outside his house was packed. Many people had driven to Qom the night before out of fear of traffic on the Tehran-Qom highway and slept in their cars to be able to attend the funeral in the morning.
At 9:30, the hearse left Montazeri’s house and headed for the Shrine of Fatemeh Masoumeh (Fatemeh the Infallible), a Shiite saint, where he was to be buried next to his son.
The funeral began at 10:00, attended by hundreds of thousands of mourners who thronged the streets leading from the house to the shrine.
The mourners, as is now customary in such gatherings, began chanting anti-government slogans. The important thing was that the radical slogans were cried by the sea of 'greens' among the townspeople of Qom. Word has it that Qom was stirred by this funeral; the people and merchants stared in wonder at the massive green crowd and the slogans. Montazeri's funeral was beautifully done. Everyone was there: from theologians to intellectuals to political figures, one witness told tehran bureau.
Many slogans were heard throughout, such as Death to the Oppressor, whether Shah or the Supreme Leader, Montazeri’s dying wish, the death of dictatorship, as well as the green nation of Iran is in mourning…
Those government supporters present retorted with Hypocrites leave Qom.
Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei paid his condolences to the Montazeri family, and a message was read during the ceremony. For a long period of his life, he had been at the service of the [Khomeini] movement. In the later part of his life, there was an ordeal that I wish almighty God will forgive and conceal, and that his worldly suffering will be atonement for that, Khamenei declared, referring to Montazeri’s clash with Khomeini, and which led to his political downfall.
The crowd hissed at this allusion, and responded with shouts of Death to the Dictator.
President Ahmadinejad, who won last June’s fraudulent presidential election, has so far remained silent and made no comment following the Grand Ayatollah’s death.
At the end of the ceremony, Basijis attacked Montazeri’s house and tore down a large portrait of the Ayatollah adorning the facade. They attacked -- they lost all control, his son told the WP. They started to throw stones at people and tore down the mourning banner of my father.
Fortunately, there was little violence during the day’s proceedings. That evening, however, a private ceremony organized by the family and that was to take place at the A’zam Mosque had to be cancelled. The Basijis occupied the mosque and prevented access to the building.
Furthermore, a group of Basijis on motorcycles attacked Mousavi’s car as he was returning to Tehran, breaking one of its windows. The opposition leader was not injured during the incident… It seems that the Basijis have failed to heed the warning Montazeri had issued a few weeks ago, it would be a misfortune to go to hell for the sake of the worldly desires of others, he said.
Demonstrations had erupted as early as Sunday in Montazeri’s hometown of Najafabad. Crowds of protesters had filled the streets holding green banners and chanting Oh, Montazeri, your path will be followed even if the dictator shoots us all! Official media coverage of Montazeri’s death considered disrespectful had outraged his supporters, for official reports repeatedly failed to refer to him as Ayatollah.
Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri was born in Najafabad, in the central province of Isfahan, in 1922. His father Ali was a farmer. He attended the Isfahan seminary when he reached the age of 12, then went to Qom to further his theological studies.
He eventually became a reputed Islamic scholar and, as a result, a member of Ayatollah Khomeini’s inner circle, who was one of his teachers. The latter highly appreciated the young Montazeri, later referring to him as the fruit of my life.
He, in turn, became a fervent supporter of the Ayatollah, and, consequently, spent many years in the Shah’s jails, where he was tortured.
During his stay in the notorious Evin prison of Tehran in the 1970s, Montazeri led the Friday prayers, acquiring a significant following, much to the chagrin of the SAVAK, the Shah’s political police, which eventually banned the practice.
He was released in 1978 after four years in prison.
Soon after he had regained his freedom, Ayatollah Khomeini told him, it is not surprising that the criminal [political] establishment subjects you to medieval torture. Those who commit treason against the country and the people are afraid even of your shadow.
As Muhammad Sahimi makes clear in tehran bureau, those very words could also be applied to the current regime, and its treatment of political prisoners.
Two basic themes dominated his political thinking, according to Baqer Moin, of the Guardian. The first was his anti-imperialist convictions. He was a strong supporter of liberation movements, and believed that it was Islam’s duty to defend the oppressed.
This motivated his initial opposition to the US, such that, when a rapprochement was in the offing in 1987, initiated by the Reagan administration, he publicly revealed the initiative, infuriating Khomeini. As a result, one of his relatives, Mehdi Hashemi was executed. The contacts eventually led to the Iran-Contra scandal…
Secondly, he was also a staunch promoter of justice and human rights. Needless to say, few in the clerical establishment shared this preoccupation.
His years in prison had taught him all there was to know about tyranny and abuses of power. It also exposed him to other ideas and philosophies, as his prison mates were not only clerics, but also leftwing militants and nationalists of all kinds.
This may account for the fact Montazeri was sufficiently tolerant to respect other points of view.
After the Revolution, he became the Chairman of the Assembly of Experts of the Constitution… The principle of Velayat-e Faqih, or rule of the Supreme Leader was soon established.
Moreover, for Montazeri, the Supreme Leader was to act as an adviser to the country’s rulers, and not exercise any executive powers of his own.
Other prominent clerics, however, and Khomeini himself, did not share this view.
Yet, in 1985, the Assembly of Experts (which selects the Supreme Leader and then monitors his performance) chose Montazeri to succeed Khomeini upon his death.
Nevertheless, Montazeri could not condone the human rights abuses committed by the Islamic Republic throughout the 80s. He wrote to Khomeini to voice his concerns, do you know that, the crimes that are taking place in the jails of the Islamic Republic did not even take place in the Shah's regime?
Many people have died due to torture?
In Shiraz's jail [in southern Iran] a young woman who was fasting [during the month of Ramadan] was executed for a very minor offense right after she broke her fast [in the evening]?
Some young girls have been forcefully possessed [raped]?
During the interrogation of young women very nasty profanities are used?
Many prisoners have become blind or deaf, due to torture, and nobody has helped [to treat them]?
In many jails they even prevent the prisoners from saying their prayers?
In some jails the prisoners do not see the light of the day for months?
Even after a prisoner is given a jail sentence, he/she is still beaten regularly?
I am sure that [if you talk to others about this letter] they will tell you that these are lies and he [Grand Ayatollah Montazeri] is naïve.
Thousands of political prisoners were executed, and Montazeri publicly condemned these crimes.
I could not sleep at nights, knowing that innocent people were being killed, he later said. Instead of simply waiting to become Supreme Leader to put a stop to such vile policies, he had to speak out and denounce them. The confrontation with the establishment was inevitable, and he was stripped of his official status of Supreme Leader in waiting.
He remained in the opposition until his death.
When Ali Khamenei was selected to succeed Khomeini as Supreme Leader, Montazeri declared that he was not qualified to do so.
During the reformist presidency of Mohammad Khatami, he repeatedly sided with the President against the conservative establishment, considering that Khamenei’s credentials to rule the country were bogus.
As a result, he was placed under house arrest; his religious school was closed, and his office in Qom ransacked.
Official media were instructed never to refer to him as Ayatollah, even though he was the second most senior cleric in Shia Islam’s clerical hierarchy, behind Ayatollah Sistani, the Iranian-born cleric who lives in Najaf, Iraq.
They branded him the simple-minded cleric instead. Yet, he never relented. The regime eventually backed down, lifting his house arrest in 2002.
After the June 2009 Presidential election, Montazeri immediately defended the people against the regime. He considered this his religious duty, and that of every citizen, as I said, those who have lost, religiously and reasonably, the credibility for serving the public, are automatically dismissed, and the continuation of their work has no legitimacy. If they want to use force, or fool or cheat people in order to keep their power, people must express their opinion about the illegitimacy and lack of their approval of their performance, and seek their dismissal through the best and least harmful way. It is clear that this [dismissal of the officials] is a societal duty of everyone, and all the people, regardless of their social positions and according to their knowledge and capability, must participate in this endeavor, and cannot shirk their responsibility, he declared.
As far as he was concerned, victory was inevitable, the victory of the [democratic] movement is certain. Therefore, there is no need for chanting radical slogans [that provoke violence], he added.
The regime, by its actions, reliance on violence and betrayal of Islamic principles had lost all legitimacy, and was no longer fit to rule the nation. A political system based on force, oppression, changing people’s votes, killing, closure, arresting and using Stalinist and medieval torture, creating repression, censorship of newspapers, interruption of the means of mass communications, jailing the enlightened and the elite of society for false reasons, and forcing them to make false confessions in jail, is condemned and illegitimate, he wrote.
For Montazeri, the Islamic Republic was neither Islamic nor Republic, and thus had to be abolished…
In fact, Montazeri now considered that the Islamic Republic should never have been erected in the first place.
Several years ago, wrote Borzou Daragahi and Ramin Mostaghim in the LAT, a reporter asked Montazeri whether he would support the Islamic Revolution again if he could turn back the clock. He went silent for a few moments as he considered his response.No, he finally replied.
Last November, he even apologized for supporting the US embassy takeover in 1979...
With Montazeri now gone, the Green Movement has lost its spiritual guide.
Yet, the wily Ayatollah may still prove to be useful in the weeks ahead.
The emotional and political impact of Ayatollah Montazeri's death could morph into a widespread flame that the government cannot contain, suggested Mohamad Javad Akbarein, a former student of Montazeri.
An aide of Mehdi Karroubi concurred, it was a very timely demise. The grand ayatollah passed away at the zenith of his reputation among middle class and educated people of Iran, he said.
In fact, according to Shia tradition, the dead are mourned seven days after their demise. By an uncanny coincidence, next Sunday, the seventh day after Montazeri’s death is also Ashura, the end of the Muharram holiday, one of the most important commemorations in the Shia calendar. On that day, Shiites mourn the death of Hussein, the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad, killed and beheaded in the battle of Karbala by the evil tyrant Yazid, in 680.
Hence, both events will be commemorated on the same day, and are thus likely to draw huge crowds to honor two martyrs who fought against tyrannical rule.
He died at exactly the right time. He will be revered for his courage, and his example is likely to restore some of the clergy’s prestige, said Rasool Nafisi, an authority on Iran.
His death has become a pretext for the movement to expand. He was the only cleric who gave up power and supported human rights, the characteristic that earned him respect from various political factions, Fatimeh Haghighhatjoo, a former Iranian parliamentarian, and now at Boston University, told the NYT.
The old Grand Ayatollah thus, is not through serving his people.
His very name and dedication to the cause of justice and human rights are likely to inspire his compatriots for years to come.
I call you father because I learned from you how to defend the oppressed without using violence against the oppressor. I learned from you that being silent is helping the oppressor. Father, I learned much from you, although I never [got the chance to] show my appreciation for being your child and student. Father, forgive us, the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize winner, Shirin Ebadi declared in a statement, following his death.
Montazeri showed the way…
By never reneging on his principles, by choosing justice instead of political expediency, by the sheer exemplary value of his conduct, he can still guide the Iranian nation towards democracy, even though he is no longer with us.
Next Sunday should be a major test for all Iranians.
May those who share Montazeri’s credo prevail.
We shall be rooting for them from afar…
(the photograph above can be found here)
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　

The threat resides within, and not in Afghanistan...

In an editorial published yesterday, The New York Times urges the Europeans to provide additional military resources in Afghanistan because the war being waged there is a common fight.
Defeating Al Qaeda is a matter of common defense. President Obama is right to insist that the allies do more. Now Europe’s leaders need to demand more of themselves, the paper insists.
Yet, for all practical purposes, al Qaeda has already been defeated in Afghanistan.
At a recent Senate hearing, John Kerry (D-Mass), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, asked Bob Grenier, a former CIA Pakistan station chief, the following question, so in terms of 'in Afghanistan, they have been disrupted and dismantled and defeated. They're not in Afghanistan, correct?
That's true, he replied.
There’s no Qaeda in Afghanistan and no Afghans in Qaeda, opined Marc Sageman, a former CIA officer.
According to US intelligence officials, there are only about 100 al Qaeda fighters left in the country.
If so, why is President Obama sending an additional 30,000 troops to fight an enemy that has already been defeated? Al Qaeda is already on the ropes globally, with ever-dwindling financial and popular support, and a drastically diminished ability to work with other extremists worldwide, much less command them in major operations. Its lethal agents are being systematically hunted down, while those Muslims whose souls it seeks to save are increasingly revolted by its methods, wrote the anthropologist Scott Atran, in the NYT.
Consequently, one is at a loss to explain the rationale behind the troop increase. To ask the Europeans to contribute further resources in order to wage a battle that has already been won makes no sense either. The newspaper argues that Al Qaeda has used its sanctuaries in Afghanistan and Pakistan to plot and launch attacks on European cities.
In fact, and this is the crux of the matter, the terrorist attacks that targeted London in July 2005 and Madrid in March 2004 were designed and executed by local extremists, and not al Qaeda militants located in Afghanistan or Pakistan.
As such, and for the time being, al Qaeda is no longer a threat.
By escalating a war which no longer has any reason for being however, we may resurrect that very threat the war in question was designed to eliminate.
It is a mistake to conflate the Taliban with al Qaeda.
The former seek to expel all foreigners from Afghanistan and impose an Islamic government in Kabul.
They have no other ambition, and waging holy war on the West is certainly not one of them.
Their alliance in the past was mostly tactical, and financial, the Taliban government being scant of resources.
In addition, most of those we refer to as Taliban are but Pashtun nationalists infuriated by foreign occupation, not Islamic fanatics. To be Taliban today means little more than to be a Pashtun tribesman who believes that his fundamental beliefs and customary way of life are threatened, Atran wrote. A key factor helping the Taliban is the moral outrage of the Pashtun tribes against those who deny them autonomy, including a right to bear arms to defend their tribal code, known as Pashtunwali, he added. Yet, by escalating the war against the Pashtun, we are pushing the Taliban into its (al Qaeda’s) arms, to quote Mr. Atran. An anti-foreigner and occupation alliance is thus constituted, much to the benefit of the terrorist movement, currently in great need of support and resources.
Let us not make the mistake of unwittingly reviving a movement that is currently moribund…
Does that mean that the terrorist threat has disappeared, and that Western nations should no longer fear attacks by Islamic radicals?
Not at all, but the threat is not where we think it is…
Mr. Sageman, the former CIA official, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last October that we have misinterpreted, if not altogether misread the terrorist threat since 9/11. In fact, the actual context refutes claims by some heads of the intelligence community that all Islamist plots in the West can be traced back to the Afghan-Pakistani border, he said.
The plots and militants do not originate in the East, but in the West…
Al Qaeda is not plotting against us (it is no longer in any condition to do so) only inspiring those in France, Britain, Spain, Germany the US and elsewhere whose ambition is to attack us. The real threat is homegrown youths who gain inspiration from Osama bin Laden but little else beyond an occasional self-financed spell at a degraded Qaeda-linked training facility, wrote Atran.
By our actions and policies, we are producing that terrorist threat we believe is primarily centered in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and that requires the presence of 140,000 foreign troops to contain and annihilate.
Hence, escalating the war will not make us safer, but only increase the risk of a terrorist attack on our own nations.
Even the US is not immune to this development of the homegrown terrorist threat, though it was widely assumed that Muslims in America, unlike those in France, for instance, were better integrated into mainstream society…
The Fort Hood killings, the arrest of Afghan-born Najibullah Zazi, and the recent detention of five young Americans in Pakistan suggest that this may not be the case.
What has made these young Muslims suddenly receptive to the message of jihad propagated by al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden?
Quite simply, it is our policies in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Middle East in general that has alienated and radicalized a small minority of Muslims living in our midst.
As long as we can be convincingly portrayed as enemies of Arabs and Muslims, then we shall be vulnerable to terrorism no matter how many soldiers patrol the unruly lands of Asia and the Middle East.
As one British journalist put it, albeit rather crudely, if the United States wants to improve its image in the Islamic world, it should stop killing Muslims.
The Harvard Professor Stephen Walt studied this very issue and concluded that, in the last thirty years, the US, with help from its friends, is responsible for the death of about 290,000 Muslims, and this is a very conservative estimate.
Conversely, Muslims killed ten thousand Americans (including soldiers) during this period, a ratio of thirty to one…
When you kill tens of thousands of people in other countries -- and sometimes for no good reason --, you shouldn't be surprised when people in those countries are enraged by this behavior and interested in revenge. After all, how did we react after September 11? concludes Mr. Walt.
The US has been in Iraq for more than six years, in Afghanistan for eight…
In the latter country, we have killed anywhere from 12 to 32,000 civilians already…
The fact that we do not even know exactly how many is a telling one.
What must the Afghans think?
Can they really trust us to protect them, and shield them from harm?
Surely, we mean well. Perhaps, but it is only what we do that counts.
Instead of bringing security and development, we have sowed chaos and mayhem,
Afghanistan should have been easy. Eight years in, the U. S. has restored brutal warlords, established a corrupt authority, and killed civilians. The Taliban look good by comparison, wrote the journalist Nir Rosen.
The reality on the ground is that Afghanistan is Vietnam redux. Afghan President Hamid Karzai's regime is an utterly illegitimate, incompetent kleptocracy. The Afghan National Army (ANA) -- slotted to take over the conflict when the coalition pulls out -- will not even be able to feed itself in five years, much less turn back the mounting Taliban tide, wrote Thomas Johnson and M. Chris Mason in Foreign Policy.
Sending an additional 30,000 troops, escalating a war that we have been waging ineptly for the last eight years sends a clear message to the Afghans and all the other Muslims who already view us with suspicion: we intend to impose our order on your country, regardless of what you think or desire, and the number of victims our determination to win the war shall engender…
Just the length of U.S. involvement in these countries (Iraq and Afghanistan) is provoking more Muslim Americans to react, wrote Robert Leiken, a terrorism expert at the Nixon Center.
The longer we’ve been in Iraq and Afghanistan, the more some susceptible young men are coming to believe that it’s their duty to take up arms to defend their fellow Muslims, suggests Bruce Hoffman, of Georgetown University.
This new deployment increases the risk of the next 9/11. It will not make this country safer, Robert Pape, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, told the NYT.
In essence, we are now manufacturing our own enemies, within our own communities at home…
A change of policy is long overdue. We, as messengers of a great civilization, should promote peace and development, and forsake our obsession with war and counterinsurgency. We claim not to be at war with Islam, but then why are we fighting and killing so many Muslims?
The most effective anti-terrorism policy is called economic development.
Let us strive to improve living standards of the people of this region, and encourage economic activity. Let us devote our efforts and resources to providing them with an education and economic opportunities.
If we genuinely try to help them fulfill their potential, and not seek to impose our order and values on their societies, will so many in so many places continue to loathe us?
I shall wager that the answer is no…
We believe the president knows perfectly well that Afghanistan is Vietnam all over again, both domestically and, as we wrote in Military Review this month, in Kabul and out in the Afghan hills, where good men are bleeding and dying. And he's seeking the same cynical exit strategy that Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger did in 1968: negotiating the best possible second-place position and a "decent interval" between withdrawal and collapse. In office less than a year, the Obama administration has already been seduced by the old beltway calculus that sometimes a little wrong must be done to get re-elected and achieve a greater good, Johnson and Mason conclude their piece in Foreign Policy.
One wonders which of the following two propositions is the most dispiriting: that President Obama actually believes a policy that has failed for eight years shall suddenly begin to succeed now that he is in charge, or that he knows perfectly well that it will not, but lacked the courage to put an end to the war now, preferring instead to defer the withdrawal decision to July 2011, once the popular COIN strategy of Petraeus and McChrystal will have patently failed?
In any case, a chance to display authentic leadership, and change course has been lost…
In a powerful speech against the Vietnam war delivered in New York in 1967, Martin Luther King said the following,
We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace in Vietnam and justice throughout the developing world -- a world that borders on our doors. If we do not act we shall surely be dragged down the long dark and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.
It is late, but probably not too late, to use our power with wisdom and benignancy.
Let us not condemn ourselves to fighting endless wars, wars in which we end up killing thousands and betraying our values and ourselves for no discernable reason…
(the photograph above of US Marines in Afghanistan is by AFP)
　
　
　
　
　
　
　

We are fighting the wrong war in Afghanistan

In his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, President Obama argued that the use of force is at times necessary, even though violence can engender great tragedies of its own.
Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms, he said.
Though both of these affirmations are no doubt true, were both of these threats comparable in nature? Did they require the same response?
The danger posed by German belligerence intensified in the 30s precisely because the Western European Powers, namely France and Great Britain, had lost the will to confront it.
Their stamina and determination had withered in the trenches of Verdun and northern France.
That low and dishonest decade aptly demonstrated that appeasement does not forestall war, but merely renders inevitable.
One can safely say the formidable United States Army saved the civilized world.
There was no other alternative but to destroy the Third Reich, and the Japanese Empire, if the world ever wanted to live in peace again.
The United States achieved the signal feat of crushing both simultaneously…
All those who believe in the values of civilization shall never cease to be grateful for this…
But what of al Qaeda?
That it is an evil organization with little regard for human life was made abundantly clear one cloudless September morning.
It had killed scores before, and many since, but the 9/11 attacks are unlikely to be forgotten, and certainly not by those who experienced them, vicariously or otherwise…
Yet, does al Qaeda constitute a threat similar in nature to Nazi Germany?
What arms, those they have refused to lay down, is the President referring to?
The 9/11 hijackers needed but box cutters to perpetrate the most hideous terrorist attack in history. True enough, al Qaeda has used bombs and various devices in its numerous dastardly attacks, but its effectiveness is not conditioned on the quality of its arsenal, negligible at best.
Al Qaeda has no army, does not control any state, and its vital economic and military resources.
As such, are we truly dealing with an existential threat, much as Nazi Germany constituted in the 30s and 40s?
The answer is clearly no.
It is a dangerous movement, and in all likelihood, will remain one for decades to come.
It will perpetrate other terrorist attacks wherever and whenever it can, killing and maiming the innocent without the slightest qualms.
But, will it ever impose its will on the United States, Great Britain, France Germany, to name but a few of its enemies?
Its leaders dream of establishing a caliphate throughout the Muslim world, and imposing shariah law on all continents. But it is only that, a dream, a figment of their distorted imaginations…
Al Qaeda is not an army, a national liberation movement, a hostile, threatening nation. It is primarily an idea, a way of interpreting the world, a vision for restoring an Islam purified of all baneful, modern and Western influence, and proffering it to the Muslim world, much as the Prophet did himself fourteen centuries ago…It a movement at war with modernity, and all those who symbolize it.
Bullets, the 82nd Airborne and Apache helicopters shall not destroy that vision.
They seek to restore an Islamic world that never existed and can only be imposed by violence and mayhem.
Al Qaeda’s false prophets shall never sway those who have faith in life, and believe in the idea of progress.
What we should be waging in fact, is an ideological, cultural war.
Al Qaeda’s program boils down to this: jihad and martyrdom, a better life, but only in the next world, where Allah and seventy virgins are awaiting with open arms.
What are we offering? Globalization, connectivity, freedom, knowledge, empowerment and hope for a better future.
Chances are, if we are willing and able to compete with the Islamists on their playing field, we should enlist more recruits then MM. ben Laden and Zawahiri ever will.
It is on that battlefield, and not in the mountains of Helmand Province, that we should be waging this war.
Instead of bombing and attacking Pashtuns on both sides of the Durand Line, why not seek to educate their youth instead?
As the NYT columnist Nicholas Kristof recently pointed out, for the cost of deploying one soldier for one year, it is possible to build about 20 schools.
This idea should have been worthy of discussion during President Obama’s policy review, for our best ally in the competition against al Qaeda is education.
A youth who has received a decent education is more likely to find a decent job, paying a decent wage, allowing him to raise a family and be independent.
Furthermore, an educated youth is unlikely to plant roadside bombs on dusty Afghan roads, or detonate his explosive-laden vest in the lobby of the Islamabad or Djakarta Marriott. Needless to say, it is just as critical to ensure that girls are afforded the same educational opportunities.
In essence, can we truly claim to be fighting the just war, Mr. Obama’s term, in Afghanistan?
In his Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas quotes St. Augustine, true religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good.
The initial 2001 campaign to overthrow the Taliban government led by Mullah Omar, who was harboring Osama ben Laden and al Qaeda, is no doubt faithful to this definition.
What about now, after eight years of occupying a foreign, Muslim country? Can we still make that claim?
Can a just war be fought or muddled through for eight long years and remain one?
Time, countless raids and civilian casualties, and the absence of progress in improving the lives of Afghans, have chipped away at our moral authority in Afghanistan. What is left of it? Will President Obama’s good intentions suffice to restore it?
On what grounds can we possibly continue occupying Afghanistan, to prevent one faction of the Afghan people from taking power?
The Pashtun nationalists will still be there long after we have left. Afghanistan, after all, is their home. Some sort of accommodation with this faction is inevitable. Why not sooner rather than later?
We claim that our principle objective is to eradicate all al Qaeda presence in Afghanistan. That goal is virtually attained…
It can be persuasively argued, furthermore, that the Pashtuns are only fighting us because we are still there, on their soil, eight years after the start of our just war.
Is it really a silly notion to suggest that the war might end, on the whole, were we to withdraw and go home?
The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war, Augustine continued.

We have strayed off course. We are no longer fighting a just war, but attempting instead to impose our will on a nation that refuses to be cowed into submission, or support a corrupt and inept government imposed by foreigners on a people renowned for their fiercely independent spirit.
I know there is nothing weak -- nothing passive -- nothing naïve -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King, the President said in Oslo.
Hence, we should be helping the Afghans help themselves, and not be supporting one side in what resembles a civil war.
Let us devote our resources to educating the youth of the Muslim world, and to promoting democracy and justice there. There is so much to be done...
We have no business increasing the size of our military footprint, so resented and reviled, in foreign lands…
(the photograph above is by John McConnico AP)　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　

The way ahead is long, but the goal is achievable...

Another demonstration was inevitable.
Incensed at the way they had been harassed and assaulted by civilian-clad Basijis the day before, during the 16 Azar commemoration, several hundred Tehran University opposition students gathered at the Engineering College Tuesday to voice their outrage.
Campus guards however, left the gates of the university open, allowing the Basijis to enter. Police forces outside surrounded the campus.
The paramilitaries then set upon the demonstrators, attacking them with pepper spray, steel clubs, electric batons and tear gas.They broke the windows and cut some of us with the pieces of glass. We lit fires in front of the faculty's entrance, but they poured in and fights broke out in the hallways, one student who was wounded in the scuffle told the WP.
A number of students were arrested.
At Shahid Beheshti University, in northern Tehran, some 200 Basijis confronted 300 students.
Scattered demonstrations also took place throughout Tehran.
Protesters chanted Death to the regime that lies to people! Dictator! Dictator! This is our last warning! And The Green Movement is ready to rise up! among other slogans.
Also on Tuesday, Basijis on motorcycles surrounded Tehran’s Academy of Fine Arts, where Mir Hossein Mousavi works, taunted him, and tried to prevent his departure.
Outraged, Mousavi got out of his car and cried, you are on a mission — do your job, threaten me, beat me, kill me. The paramilitaries eventually left, and Mr. Mousavi was able to go about his business…
Clearly rattled by the magnitude and intensity of the Student Day protests, in spite of the threats and warnings issued before the commemoration, the regime is nervous yet determined to crush all opposition.
The country’s chief prosecutor Gholam Hossein Mohseni-Ejehi warned the opposition that the regime was running out of patience, I declare that from today there will be no tolerance…Intelligence and security... forces have been ordered not to give any leeway to those who break the law, act against national security and disturb public order, he said. Those officials who fail to uphold the law with sufficient alacrity shall not be spared, we will warn and take other necessary measures even against the Tehran prosecutor if he is not sensitive about those who violate people's rights and disrupt order in the city every day, he concluded.
In fact, 204 demonstrators were arrested on Monday.
The few remaining reformist newspapers (television and radio are entirely controlled by the regime) are also under tremendous pressure.
Yesterday, the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance shut down a prominent reformist newspaper, Hayateno, because it had violated the terms of its license, straying into politics, instead of covering solely economic issues.
Concomitantly, Iran’s television programs are to become even more religious, perhaps in an attempt educate the nation’s youth, led astray by Western values and culture.
Yet, the regime’s heavy-handed tactics are radicalizing the opposition.
The latter has been left with no other option but mass demonstrations and confrontation to vent its anger, and express its rejection of the regime’s repressive policies.
The movement is now questioning the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic itself, since it is that very regime which is denying them their fundamental rights.
The activists are clearly losing patience as well, I take to streets to protest because I want change now not tomorrow. I am fed up with the current situation, one young woman told the LAT.
Some within the establishment are clearly alarmed, and believe that the confrontation between the regime and the opposition must not be allowed to further intensify, and reach a point of no return.
A prominent conservative cleric, Ayatollah Nasser Makarem Shirazi, suggests that some sort of compromise must be found, a large number of people formed the majority in the elections and another large number of people the minority. We should sit together and negotiate, and the precondition to that is the creation of a calm atmosphere, he said.
The difficulty here is with the precondition…Assaulting students is surely not the most effective means to restore a calm atmosphere…
In addition, the regime is attempting to enlist those establishment figures who also wield influence in opposition circles.
Last week, the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei asked former President and consummate insider Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who supported Mousavi in last June’s election, to intervene and convince the latter to abandon his campaign against the government. Rafsanjani refused to do so…
The regime, weakened by its divisions, can now only count on its core constituency, the security forces.
Yet, the IRGC and the Basijis are facing a determined and bold opponent, the nation’s youth, students were really brave, one Iranian journalist said, following the 16Azar event. They said all they needed to say today. The way ahead is long. But the goal is achievable.
The next confrontation may take place as early as next week.
The Shiite religious festival of Ashura starts on December 18, and lasts until the 27th.
It commemorates the death of Hussein, a martyr who died in the 7th century…
Activists are already calling for demonstrations during the festival…
The way ahead is long, but the Iranian people are on the march…
(the photograph of the Student Day demonstrator holding a sign saying Death to the dictator can be found here)　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　

Tyranny's welt on our flesh/Has not faded with time...

No stone was left unturned to ensure that Student Day would not be marred by illegal protests.
The regime well knew that its opponents would seize the day and demonstrate against the government, demanding democracy and justice.
Student Day, held every year on December 7 (16 Azar, on the Iranian calendar) commemorates the killing by Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi’s police of three students on December 7, 1953.
The students were demonstrating against the visit to Iran of US Vice President Richard Nixon, shortly after the CIA engineered a coup, which toppled the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh.
Since 1979, the regime has used the occasion to fill the streets with pupils and students to denounce the US and the West.
Since demonstrations have been banned following the massive street protests engendered by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s fraudulent victory in last June’s presidential election, which the regime brutally repressed, the opposition movement has now cleverly resorted to the stratagem of exploiting official commemorations organized by the regime itself, and hijacking them to protest against the oppressive regime.
As such, opposition activists were able to demonstrate on Qud’s Day last September and 13 Aban last month.
This time, the regime went on the offensive several days before the commemoration of Student Day.
To begin with, the usual stark warnings were issued, we will confront any gathering or ceremonies of universities on 16th of Azar which will be considered illegal gatherings. We are expecting professors and students to prevent any misuse of the occasion, the Tehran police indicated in a statement released last Saturday.
Internet access in Tehran was interrupted also on Saturday, two days before the event, in order to prevent opposition activists from communicating with each other.
Furthermore, to ensure that coverage of the event would be limited, the Iranian authorities suspended the work permit of all foreign journalists operating in the capital, from the 7th to the 9th of December.
For its part, the Iranian media were only authorized to cover the official event.
The regime’s campaign of repression is clearly intensifying and becoming more sophisticated.
Also on Saturday, fifteen women belonging to the Committee of Mourning Mothers were arrested in Laleh Park in Tehran, during their weekly demonstration.
The committee was formed by mothers of activists who were killed by the security forces during the post-election repression, and includes the mother of Neda Agha-Soltan.
A spokesperson for the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, Hadi Ghaemi, was indignant, it is a moral outrage that Mourning Mothers are arrested while the killers of their children continue to enjoy unlimited impunity, she declared.
Other women belonging to the One Million Signatures Campaign , a human rights movement demanding equal rights for women, have also been arrested of late, detentions of women’s rights activists are patently illegal. They are not even charged with an offence under the law, Ghaemi added.
The campaign of repression is now also increasingly targeting those Iranians abroad who have supported the opposition in Iran.
Part of the effort involves tracking the Facebook, Twitter and YouTube activity of Iranians around the world, and identifying them at opposition protests abroad, wrote Farnaz Fassihi, of The Wall Street Journal.
The father of one expatriate Iranian, Koosha, was arrested after the latter failed to heed an email warning him not to criticize Iran on Facebook.
This is not an isolated case.
The regime is clearly intent on silencing all opposition, wherever it happens to be located. Protesters inside and outside Iran have been identified and will be dealt with at the right time, declared General Massoud Jazayeri, deputy commander of Iran's armed forces last month.
Opposition to the Shah in the 70s had been actively supported by the Iranian diaspora.
The current regime is well aware of this and will do its utmost to undermine all foreign support of the opposition.
In anticipation of the protests on Student Day, the repressive campaign had already begun in Iranian universities.
Since the fall term began, many students have been arrested while others expelled.
Members of the Herasat, an intelligence service and morals police, present on campuses have harassed women whose dress was not sufficiently conservative and male students with long hair. Those close to the Basijis spy and inform on those deemed not sufficiently loyal to the regime. Student dissatisfaction has reached a point where it's about to explode, one student told AP.
The Basijis are also offering to compensate financially those students willing to denounce their peers, with salaries of $400 a month, and an additional $250 for each piece of particularly incriminating information...
Six months later, the fire is still burning. We are under aggressive surveillance, a post-graduate student at Sharif University concluded.
And yet, the regime’s efforts have been found wanting…
On Sunday night, the eve of the commemoration, rooftop shouts of Allahu akbar, the signature act of defiance of the Iranian opposition since the days of the Shah were even more vigorous than usual, the chants rocked Tehran, one Iranian journalist told the NYT.
The day began with the regime shutting down the capital’s mobile phone service.
This was not sufficient to prevent the mobilization of tens of thousands of students.
The police and Basijis surrounded Tehran University at dawn.
In order to prevent activists from infiltrating the campus, all those wishing to enter had to show their student IDs at the door.
Some police forces dressed in civilian clothes used phony IDs to enter the premises and help quell any potential illegal demonstrations.
White banners surrounded the campus in order to prevent outsiders from looking inside.
The students gathered near the Faculty of Technology, where the first 16 Azar demonstration took place in 1953.
By 11AM, several thousand students, many now clad in green, began marching, singing an Iranian resistance anthem, Yare Dabestani («My grade school friend»). Clearly intent on a confrontation, they were heading toward the Basijis inside the campus.
Because the Basij had entered campus without student IDs posing as students, the students mocked them with shouts of "Phony student/ where's your student card?"
As Basij are famously paid by the government for their services, students also shouted at them, "Basiji go home/ no free meal today!" and "Get lost, mercenary!"
Basijis replied with shouts of "Death to Traitors" [Marg bar monafegh].
As the slogan-battle escalated, the sides became physically engaged. The Basij on campus were unarmed and attacked students with bare fists, and students fought back in defense. The skirmish lasted a quarter of an hour and ended when people on both sides intervened to stop the fighting, one witness told tehranbureau.
The official commemoration involved some 2000 students, who held portraits of Ali Khamenei, and chanted slogans hostile to Mir Hossein Mousavi.
Outside the university, crowds began to gather, chanting slogans that were bolder than on previous occasions, such as Khamenei should know, his downfall is near! The cry of our nation: politics is separate from religion! This government is Fascist/ it must stop at some point.
One particularly significant one had never been heard before, Death to the oppressor, whether it’s the shah or the leader. For the first time, Khamenei’s rule was associated with Reza Pahlavi‘s, the despised Shah overthrown and driven into exile in 1979…
In addition, in another unprecedented act of defiance, some protesters burned portraits of the Supreme Leader.
The crowds became ever larger as wave after wave engulfed the streets.
Don't be afraid! Don't be afraid! We are all together, they shouted…
The security forces charged the crowd, firing plastic bullets and tear gas.
Others beat protesters with truncheons. Youths retaliated by hurling stones and bricks, and by setting fire to garbage cans and tires.
Many protesters were arrested on Monday, AP reported.
Demonstrations also occurred at numerous other institutions, such as Amir Kabir, Tehran, Sharif, Elm va Sanaat, Honar, Tehran Markaz, Sureh, and Tehran Shomal Universities in Tehran.
Opposition leaders Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi were prevented by the regime from attending the demonstrations.
Some reports indicate that they may be under house arrest. Mr. Mousavi’s wife, Zahra Rahnevard took part in the Tehran University protests.
The daughter of former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, Faezeh Hashemi, was arrested while trying to attend the protests at the Science College of Azad University.
Universities across the country, in Isfahan, Kermanshah, Shiraz, Mashhad
also participated.
One beaten activist did not regret the day’s events, this is the price for freedom. Our friends in jail are on hunger strike. I cannot help protesting. I simply have to do something, he told the LAT.
Mousavi, though physically absent, denounced once again the regime for having chosen the path of violence and repression, you fight people on the streets, but you are constantly losing your dignity in people’s minds. Even if you silence all the universities, what are you going to do with the society?… The issue is not who should or shouldn’t be the president. The issue is that a great nation has been sold out, he declared in a statement.
The opposition’s grievances have indeed evolved.
It is no longer about an election recount.
Because the regime has refused to address these grievances, and solve the crisis peacefully and through compromise, the movement is becoming more radical.
The regime’s intransigence has left it with but one alternative. It has condemned itself to either destroying the movement and oppressing an entire people, or being swept away by a popular uprising.
The opposition movement is not in any way a passing phase, it is a permanent part of the political dynamic inside Iran, said Geneive Abdo, of the Century Foundation in New York, and editor of insideiran.org. People are in this for the long term…This is a different Iran, which has developed after the June 12 election. Major figures inside the system are defecting, and there is a shrinking number of conservatives around the leadership.
The regime and its two titular heads, Ali Khamenei, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad refuse to budge and recognize reality, and continue to insist that the unrest was designed and manufactured in the West, in order to overthrow the regime.
There is an unmistakable element of paranoia in their interpretation of events.
Last Friday, the Iranian President declared the following,
In the recent [post-election] incident, they (the West) claimed that they had devised a plan that could bring hundreds of governments to their knees. But he who is on the righteous path will always be victorious and will never see defeat.
They have a reason for this and they act upon that reason. However, they do not break the news about it. We have documented proof that they believe that a descendant of the prophet of Islam will raise in these parts [Middle East] and he will dry the roots of all injustice in the world. They have devised all these plans to prevent the coming of the Hidden Imam because they know that the Iranian nation is the one that will prepare the grounds for his coming and will be the supporters of his rule.
They have planned to annihilate Iran. This is while all policymakers and analysts believe Iran is the true winner in the Middle East.
In light of this, it is no longer surprising that the West has been unable to launch a substantive dialogue and reach a meaningful agreement with the Iranians, particularly on the nuclear issue.
Khamenei also insists that there is an international plot to undermine Iran.
The Zionists, the Americans, and other arrogant powers are afraid that the Iranian nation will become an example … and that is why they have been using every trick and plot in order to isolate Iran, he said last Sunday.
Since neither the opposition nor the regime will back down, what will happen next?
According to Mehdi Karroubi, the time is not ripe for reconciliation.
Our demands are reasonable and lawful, he said in an interview with Le Monde.
People were humiliated by the election results, he added. The regime’s contempt for the election process and for its own people engendered the protest movement.
The government’s overreaction (repression and torture) only further fueled the people’s indignation. Reconciliation is conditioned on tolerance, and the acceptance of criticism. We must do our utmost to restore relations based on trust between the government and the people, he said.
It seems however, that this bond may have been broken, irrevocably…
Yet, Karroubi refuses to lose all hope, the Iranians are a great, patient, intelligent people. I am optimistic for the future, he concluded.
Next Saturday, December 12, activists around the world, at the behest of United4Iran, are planning a day of protest to honor the Iranian people’s peaceful struggle for their human and civil rights, six months to the day after Ahmadinejad’s stolen election victory, and the 61st anniversary of the proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights..
Activists inside Iran may not be able to participate, but there will be other events to hijack in 2010, no doubt…
Who but you and I
Has power to cure our pain? concludes the resistance song Yare Dabestani…
The struggle is far from over, the trials bound to be numerous…
But who can doubt that the Iranian people shall eventually prevail….

(the title of this post is a quotation from the resistance song Yare Dabestani; the photograph can be found here)