There has been always a strong correlation between the structure of power in Iran and oil. Not only industry and services are heavily dependent on oil revenue, but also in a larger scale all repressive forces and institutions of dictatorial regimes rely on it. Oil production in Iran is not only at the service of development of country, but mainly at the interests of the corrupt ruling elite and especially survival of their oppressive regime.
In the case of the IRI, oil is the greatest income of state mafia which makes the regime possible to set up their repressive institutions, propaganda machine, thousands of plain clothes thugs to beat up angry people, apologist groups in the West, sold intellectuals from various factions of the regime who propagate that any the regime is both legitimate and can be reformed within its constitution, and terrorist groups to advance the IRI agenda in and out of the country. The regime also spends a part of this Iranian national resource to help the two Islamist terrorist groups, Hamas, Hezbollah to prevent peaceful solutions in the region.
The U.N. Security Council resolutions and EU have already mentioned the possibility of oil sanctions on the IRI due to its nuclear ambitions and its strategy to export violence in the region. In the light of such resolutions and added to them the ongoing brutalities after the coup, the world must timely step up: sanction on fuel supplies to Iran is the first step to shake off the regime and is now widely expected by both Iranians and the international community.
The domestic consume of gasoline is estimated 75 million litres a day, of which 36 million is imported from India. If the gasoline delivery is stopped, Iran’s domestic consummation, including that of the repressive machine, of the regime, can be paralysed within a week. In such a case the heroic people of Iran can better do the rest to send the whole regime in the dustbin of history.
India supplies a great part of the needed gasoline which helps the Mullahs’ regime to survive– it imports Iranian crude oil and exports to Iran gasoline after refining. In a perspective of an international solidarity with the oppressed people of Iran in struggle against the illegitimate regime of coup d’état, India as the biggest democracy of the world can play an important factor to side with the freedom-loving people of Iran in their struggle against the totalitarian IRI in Iran.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
After Iran’s disputed presidential election, we have three different categories of people who now challenge the regime by taking to the streets:
The first category belongs to a Muslim population who voted for Mousavi or Karoubi by conviction; they still capitalise their hope in reforms within the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The second one is those who voted for one of the "reformists" as a "catalyst” to ease the way for a secular and democratic regime. They voted for them as the lesser evils, hoping to have one of them pave the way toward freedom and secularism in the future.
And the third category belongs to the Iranians who boycotted the election and want an immediate democratic and secular regime on the ruins of the IRI.
Without bringing up the value of democracy and democracy, without denouncing the 30-year-old IRI human rights violations, the first category is a hollow bubble which either disappears soon or must be transformed, materialised, and polarised into a national freedom movement close to the ideals of the second, and especially the third category.
Now, according to the news coming from the ongoing anti-regime protests in and outside the country, the second category is joining the third one to the point that the Iranian youth do not want to risk their lives for the survival of such a regime under any form. They start casting doubt on the legitimacy of the regime and will join the third category which wants a total elimination of the IRI.
By asserting that the first category is not hostile to IRI survival, the regime will try to find a compromise with Mousavi or Karoubi to halt uncontrolled development of the movement. This is also an option which is desired by Mullahs' international partners and all IRI lobby groups in the West which, among others, broker the IRI state mafia with the western Oil Companies and military investors.
The regime is highly prudent; therefore, it reinforces its troops on the streets. The IRI tries to separate "reformists" from the "agents of foreign enemies" or in fact from the second and third categories which are rapidly increasing. Khamenei openly threatened them in front of three hundred followers and plainclothes at the last Friday prayers, telling them to join the establishment before it is too late.
What concerns all secular and democrats is that we should avoid any mistrust and confusion which may result in an unnecessary rupture of these three different categories; it will be vital to focus on the unity of our nation in their fair struggles against the plague of the IRI as long as unity is possible; only thus will the first two categories get closer to the third category and so make regime change possible.
Only thanks to the unity, a possible desertion of state troops and their solidarity with their people can be expected. It would not matter to which category people belong.
This spontaneous movement improves and like any spontaneous movement it needs tactical phases to achieve its strategy.
Monday, June 22, 2009
While the, once prudent, EU leaders like Brown, Sarkozy, and Merkel now openly crticise IRI brutalities against Iranian civil demonstrators, Obama remains reluctant. on Iran’s disputed election, Obama said in his last interview in CNBC "not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling." This seems an outdated excuse, especially for the Iranian youth who are challenging the Ahamadinejad's re-election as a result of a "coup" plotted by the IRI.
Mr. Obama can be rightfully sorry for the 1953 coup, but his sorriness does not justify his reluctance toward another coup, namely the IRI 2009 coup. Obama’s position on IRI's post-election brutalities seems an option which is not followed by many human rights activists, US politicians, and even some of his fellow Democrats, including his cabinet members like Clinton and Binden.
How about the values of human rights, what was an apparent tradition, if not a lip service, of his fellow Democrats, Kennedy, Carter, and Al Gore?
A 48-year-old President Kennedy’s sentence “Ich bin ein Berliner” is known by any school kid in Germany. It has been repetitively mentioned during President Obama’s two visits of Germany both before and after his election.
Millions of Tehrani demonstrators who now brace for recognition of their fair struggles would ask themselves if Obama finally speaks up saying "Ich bin ein Tehraner"?
Friday, June 19, 2009
As Iran's 2009 presidential election authorities surprisingly announced on Saturday that hard-line incumbent Mahmood Ahmadinejad was re-elected with about two-thirds of the vote, Iranian people were immediately casting doubt over the authenticity of the results. At the same time, the “reformist” candidates of the regime, Mr. Mir Hossein Mousavi and Sheikh Mehdi Kahroubi, sparked accusations of fraud and branded the election was a total farce.
It was originally quoted from some staff of Interior Ministry that a second round would have been needed to determine the victor between Mousavi and Kahrubi, who according to them received respectfully the first and second place, while Ahmadinejad would have already been out of the race.
Nationwide from Monday on, millions of disappointed people have taken part in the post-election demonstrations carrying banners which said 'Where's my vote? They protest against the “coup” plotted by the hardliners, supported by Ayatollah Ali khamenei, the Supreme Leader. Nationwide clashes erupted as riot police and regime’s militia attacked demonstrators and universities in Iran. Several demonstrators have been reported killed and many activists arrested. Riot police continues to clamp down on a growing demonstration by supporters of the “reformist” candidates. Despite regime’s repression, fresh waves of protests are nationwide reported and are thought to continue.
Prior to the 2009 Iran's presidential election, a voting campaign was widely organised by the IRI and propagated by pro-IRI's media both in and outside the country to bring as much people as possible to the urns to vote for one of the Mullahs' candidates. A massive participation was announced by the regime as a proof positive that the IRI is “legitimate”. As Khamenei has constantly said, each vote is above all a "yes" to the Islamic regime". In the West, with the help of IRI's lobby groups, exported journalists, resident Islamists, state mafia close to different candidates, this demagogical campaign was to portray a legitimate and reformable image of the IRI.
A part of Iranian secular opposition, hoping that their vote to a "reformist" candidate would be considered as a "no" to Khamenei and his favourable candidate, President Ahmadinejad, fell into the regimes' trap and voted Mousavi or Kahroubi as the lesser evils in a naive attempt to run President Ahmadinejad out of office.
In actuality, since the inception of the IRI, there have never been fair elections in Iran. Firstly, all candidates are pre-selected by the Guardians Council, a watchdog institution that has the power to reject any candidates. Secondly, all elections have been rigged and fraudulent so far that among the pre-selected candidates by the Guardians Council, the regime capriciously picks one out of the urns.
To look into the background of these four presidential candidates, we see their direct involvement in the crimes, repressive institutions, and the key government positions in the last thirty years of Mullahs 'regime:
Apart from President Ahmadinejad, who is notorious for his thuggish behaviour and his black background in the repressive institutions of the regime, the other candidates have not a better past.
Mohsen Rezaie was head of the Revolutionary Guards for over 10 years, Mehdi Kahroubi was a former parliamentary speaker, Mir Hossein Mousavi was PM for 8 years during Khomeini's leadership. During this time, thousands of dissidents were summarily executed. As a Hezbollah and a disciple of Khomeini and a PM of Ali Khameini, Mousavi's hands were washed in the blood of many Iranians. The 1988 massacre of political prisoners which war ordered by Khomeini was helped by his Ministry of Information. During the Iran-Iraq War, his regime sent thousands of Iranians children onto the mine in the war zone.
After the 1979 revolution, new waves of people's struggles against the ruling dictatorship have already started in Iran. They will gradually take form during the process of struggle; they are in their nature different from the issues of "reformist" opposition. Most people, even those who voted for the lesser evils, are not really concerned about power struggles within the Islamic regime. They want an end of the whole Islamic regime.
Most Iranians especially the youth want a separation of religion from state; they wish a secular and democratic state. Hence, if they intensify their today's struggles, they will gradually separate their ranks of struggles from the power struggle-related rallies of "reformist" opposition. Of course these rallies may not take a long time and will extinguish as soon as an inner compromise has been acheived, but the longer these take, the more polarised and organised the real opposition to the whole regime will be, to the point that they not only cry "death to dictator"-- hinting the Supreme Leader, Khamenei, -- but also will directly target the whole regime by shouting across the whole country "death to the IRI". The polarisation of our society does not forcibly mean a class issues; it assumes above all a freedom from the plague of the IRI and consequently a transformation of the power to people's representatives.
Of course many of people working for the IRI-- those who do not have people's blood on their hands--are welcome to join the ranks of people, but this is only possible if people's struggles turns into a solid and continuous freedom movement. We can not expect a Mullahs' pre-selected president-- Mousavi or Ahmadinejad alike-- to join the camp of people because a freedom movement targets the whole Islamic regime by rejecting any form of political Islam.
Of course, in terms of their loyalty to the Supreme Leader and Islam as an ideology of state, there is no difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi, but let us see in the case of an odd twist of irony, if Mousavi wants to consolidate people's position, he is constitutionally not in the position to do so. Under the cover of an Islamic regime, no president has such a power to clean up Mullahs and pave the path for a real democracy in Iran-- presidential position is constitutionally so powerless that no president can challenge the Supreme Leader. The Islamic Constitution lets little power for the president vis-à-vis the absolute power of the Supreme Leader who rules over powers of both executive, legislative, and judiciary.
The question nowadays is how Iranian people can one day acquire their full freedom and what steps must be tactically taken initially. We should give our people respect for the courageous struggles they are presently showing with the empty hands against one of the most brutal regime of our history. In a long-term into the future, it is advised that our heroic people with the kind of self-organisation, self-esteem, courage, and patience needed for a regime change in Iran, must firstly consolidate their ranks before any premature rupture with the ranks of better organised "reformist" opposition.
It is evident and quite predictable that to halt the vibrancy of people's struggles, there is a possible compromise in the air between a "reformist" president candidate like Mousavi and the Supreme Leader. In such a case, whoever the next president, the regime will spread its bloody clutches for other four or eight years. If the Iranians who want a regime change give up their ongoing struggles, they will dig their own graves. Therefore, these people must use the current protest actions to recruit, organise, and plan their further and final freedom-struggles.
Gaps between people and any faction of the regime, including Mousavi, emerge and persist as long as the Islamic regime exists. Most of the gaps in daily attitudes of people can be flagrantly perceived. This is what substantially explains the lack of an Islamic influence in our new generation who desire a secular Iran. This ideal is of course ignored by the regime and its "reformist" candidates. Different segments of Iranian society are aware that under the IRI all Islamic inequalities are justified in so far as they are the consequences of three decades of repression in Iran--Man vs. woman, "sayyed" (Muhammad's descendants) vs. non-sayyed, Muslim vs. non-Muslim, insider vs. outsider, etc.
Although, the younger generation suffers from a tangible lack of leadership, they have experienced with their flesh and blood the plague of the Islamic regime. They know that the IRI is essentially incompatible to be reformed and the main problem of Iran is the IRI entirely, not a scapegoat of it called today "hardliners" or else.
Because of a 14-century domination of an intolerant belief system over all aspects of Iranian social life, subjects like Islam and the related issues have not been discussed by Iranian intellectuals. There has been a fear among people to talk about these matters. Therefore, issues like secularism, democracy, modernity, social justice, gender equality, independence from foreign domination of "Islamo-Arab" culture, have not been serious civic issues of the past generations.
Today, thanks to the plague of Mullahs' regime, the youth generation are more aware of such issues and this awareness creates the main gap between the Islamic regime, which in people's consciousness represents an inspiration of a new "Islamo-Arab" invasion, and the Iranian civic society in struggles for freedom, democracy, and secularism.