Showing posts with label MEK. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MEK. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

Rafsanjani :The death of the Ayatullah Machiavelli

Published on January 9th, 2017 | by Eldar Mamedov1

Rafsanjani: The Death of the Ayatollah Machiavelli


by Eldar Mamedov
In October 2013, I was part of a delegation of the Social-Democratic Group of the European Parliament (EP) to Iran. The trip, which took place shortly before the Geneva nuclear interim agreement was reached between the P5+1 and Iran, was meant as a confidence-building measure between the EU and Iran, aimed at widening the space for diplomacy and re-establishing connections after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s toxic presidency. As such, it was the first official visit from the EP to Iran after a seven-year hiatus provoked by a string of misunderstandings, petty politicking and overbidding from both sides, but mostly due to the Ahmadinejad administration’s poisonous rhetoric and flagrant human rights violations, which made it politically unfeasible for mainstream European politicians to visit the country.
Among the Iranian officials that the delegation, led by the then-Social-Democratic-Group President Hannes Swoboda, met with in Tehran was the Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. At that time, Rafsanjani was the head of the Expediency Council, an institution he’d created to mediate between the different branches of power in Iran. More importantly, he was imbued with the mystique of someone who, together with the late Ayatollah Khomeini, was perhaps the most consequential leader of the Islamic Republic. Rafsanjani was the ultimate powerbroker, whose political skills and acumen prompted Ali Vaez, the Iran expert at the International Crisis Group, to call him the “Ayatollah Machievelli.” Rafsanjani did not defy expectations.
On a personal level, in a marked contrast to some decidedly dour characters representing the Islamic Republic, he came across as a gregarious man clearly at ease with a European delegation that comprised several female MPs. He was keenly aware of his place in the history of the Islamic Republic. For instance, he spoke at some length of his role as the “Commander of Reconstruction,” as his supporters called him, during the years following the end of the Iran-Iraq war when he served his two terms as Iran’s president (1989-1997). Like other Iranian officials meeting their Western counterparts, he didn’t fail to complain about the West’s backing of Saddam Hussein during that war, or the support that the radical Iranian cult Mojaheddeen-e Khalq (MEK), bitterly opposed to the Islamic Republic and removed from the EU terror list only in 2009, still enjoys in some quarters in the EU and the US.
This latter point had an intense personal connotation for Rafsanjani. Like other top figures of the newly minted Islamic Republic, including the current Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, he was a target of an assassination attempt by the MEK in a massive terror blast in 1981. Later, in a culmination of a bloody power struggle, the authorities massacred thousands of real and alleged MEK prisoners in what surely remains a stain on the history and reputation of the Islamic Republic.
Yet overall in that meeting with the European MPs Ayatollah Rafsanjani lived up to his reputation as a moderate and a proponent of engagement with Europe. He spoke fondly of the days when, in his role as the president, he negotiated the normalization of relations with Germany. This détente included an end to assassinations of the Iranian dissidents in Europe—another dark chapter in the history of the Islamic Republic, in which Rafsanjani was deeply involved – and the beginning of what was known as a “critical dialogue” between the EU and Iran. Despite many false starts in his long career—such as a bold effort to reach out to the United States in 1996 by offering Conoco, an oil major, a $1 billion deal to develop offshore Iranian oil and gas fields, only to be punished with new sanctions by the Clinton administration—Rafsanjani was quite forward-looking and confident that at least Iran’s ties with Europe stood a fair chance of prospering.
Subsequent events have proved him half right. European diplomacy, spearheaded by the High Representative for the EU Foreign and Security Policy Federica Mogherini, played an important role in achieving the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). It continues to play this role through Mogherini’s chairing of the Joint Commission tasked with overseeing the implementation of the JCPOA. European politicians and businesses are busy exploring venues of cooperation with their Iranian counterparts. Iran Task Force, established in the Mogherini-led European External Action Service (EEAS), coordinates the outreach of the EU institutions and confidence-building through concrete projects in areas as diverse as aviation safety and banking. In October 2016, the European Parliament adopted a forward-looking and detailed report emphasizing mutual respect, a relationship of equals (extremely important notions for the Iranians of any persuasion), and further engagement with Iran. And the Council of the EU, the bloc’s main foreign policy decision-making body, has ratified this approach by adopting its own Conclusions in November 2016.
These developments reflect a certain level of institutionalization of the EU engagement with Iran. The strategy is to create a dense network of connections and interdependencies that would make the survival of the relationship less reliance on single individuals. In this sense, although the EU certainly has reasons to lament Rafsanjani’s passing as an influential Iranian advocate for rapprochement, it won’t change much in the way the EU engages Iran. If anything, the disappearance of a strong ally of the moderate president Hassan Rouhani, up for a re-election in April 2016, and the uncertainty associated with the Trump presidency, should mobilize the EU to double down on its commitment to normalize relations with Iran.
One area where Rafsanjani’s hand will clearly be missed is regional security and relations with the Persian Gulf states. In its Global Strategy, adopted in 2016, the EU announced its intention to pursue a balanced engagement with both Iran and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). Unlike the US, the EU is well placed to mediate between regional actors, especially Iran and Saudi Arabia, to end their proxy wars. Rafsanjani had ties with top GCC leaders and was respected by them as an elder statesman. His passing definitely removes a powerful advocate of lowering tensions with Saudi Arabia and other GCC states. More assertive elements, tied to the Revolutionary Guards, might benefit as a result. This will make the EU’s task more difficult.
Ultimately, only time will tell whether Ayatollah Rafsanjani´s passing is more than a mostly psychological blow to the supporters of closer relations between Iran and the West. That it is not immediately seen as threatening to upend the rapprochement already testifies to the ground covered since that memorable EP visit to Iran in October 2013. Iran´s foreign policy is in the steady hands of the Rouhani administration and its foreign minister Javad Zarif. The death of Rafsanjani, however, also reminds us that the legacy of moderation and pragmatism can only be safeguarded if it is constantly built upon. That will be the main challenge in the coming months.
Photo: Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani announcing his candidacy in 2013 election.
This article reflects the personal views of the author and not necessarily the opinions of the European Parliament.
Print Friendly


About the Author

avatar
Eldar Mamedov has degrees from the University of Latvia and the Diplomatic School in Madrid, Spain. He has worked in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Latvia and as a diplomat in Latvian embassies in Washington D.C. and Madrid. Since 2007, Mamedov has served as a political adviser for the social-democrats in the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament (EP) and is in charge of the EP delegations for inter-parliamentary relations with Iran, Iraq, the Arabian Peninsula, and Mashreq.

Thursday, September 8, 2016

IRAN : the 1988 massacre

Montazeri and the 1988 Massacre of Prisoners


Friday, 12 August 2016Reza HaghighatNejad
  • Montazeri was more outspoken about the executions of political prisoners than previously thought — he said Khomeini would go down in history as a “bloodthirsty murderer” 
     
  • Role of Ayatollah Khomeini’s son revealed, including the extent to which he kept vital information from the founder of the Islamic Republic
  • Further evidence that prisoners were unjustly tried — and even those who agreed to cooperate with officials were killed
  • The voices of those who sat on the so-called “death panel” can be heard in the clip, adding further eeriness and menace to an already horrifying series of events

     
On August 10, the office representing the late Ayatollah Hussein-Ali Montazeri released an audio file from 1988, raising new questions about the execution of thousands of political prisoners that year, including over 2,000 jailed members of the Mojahedin-e Khalq or the People’s Mojahedin Organization (MEK). MEK originally played a role in the 1979 Islamic Revolution, but, following disputes and violent clashes with Ayatollah Khomeini supporters in the 1980s, the group turned into one of the Islamic Republic’s most controversial and long-standing opponents. It sided with Iraq during the eight-year war between the two countries, and, until recently, countries including the United States considered the MEK to be a terrorist organization.
The audio clip released documents Montazeri's August 15, 1988 visit with the members of Iran’s revolutionary death panel. Comprised of religious legal expert Hossein Ali Nayri, Morteza Ashrafi, then Tehran’s prosecuting attorney, deputy prosecutor Ebrahim Raisi and Mostafa Pourmohamadi, the Ministry of  Intelligence's representative to Evin Prison, the body was tasked with carrying out the orders of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini with regard to political prisoners.
In 1988, Khomeini had declared in writing that “All those who, in prisons all over the country, have persisted and continue to persist in their hypocrisy are at war against God and condemned to death.” According to Montazeri’s memoirs, 3,800 people lost their lives in the executions of summer 1988.
So, with the release of this audio clip, what new facts have emerged, and how do they contribute to our understanding of this dark chapter in Iranian history?

-Montazeri as a Reliable Source
The release of the video adds further credibility to Montazeri’s accounts of those days. Hearing is believing. But in addition to this, the audio files do something else: they allow the listener to witness one of the most bitter meetings regarding political, security, and judicial affairs in Iran’s history. Rage and laughter, emotion and indifference, despair and concern, sincerity and deception (both obvious and hidden) between interlocutors do not exactly jump out in dry written memos. But now they are here in this audio clip to be heard verbatim.
At moments in the recording, Ayatollah Montazeri registers his concern that anyone else will join the ranks of the dead. “I’m opposed to even a single one more,” he says at one point. One of those responsible for carrying out the slaughter replies that 200 prisoners are in solitary confinement, and that problems will result if those prisoners are released and return to the general population. Although the clip reveals emotion in some places, some of the most disturbing and strange moments include the dispassionate back-and-forth between officials with the power to seal the fates of 200 prisoners by giving them death sentences.


- Montazeri felt more strongly about what was going on in 1988 than had previously been disclosed — and said Khomeini would go down in history as a “bloodthirsty murderer” 
Montazeri's stance in the clip will certainly come as a surprise to some, as the cleric has not been heard being so frank about the 1988 executions before. He called members of the death committee “historical criminals”, presumably to their faces, and claimed that the case is one of the greatest crimes to take place in the Islamic Republic. He also predicted that in future Khomeini will be thought of as a bloodthirsty murderer. The audio file presents a number of these types of statements — claims that did not appear in Montazeri’s written memoirs.

- Ahmad Khomeini played a more major role in events than previously known
The clip also reveals the extent to which Khomeini’s son Ahmad Khomeini’s was involved in the events of 1988. Two points in particular hold significance. First, in collaboration with the intelligence ministry, the younger Khomeini had already set out designs for cracking down on dissidents. For three or four years prior to 1988, he had stated in newspapers, journals, and communiques that all MEK members should be put to death. As part of the attack on the monafeqin (Ahmad Khomeini’s highly polemical term, meaning “hypocrites,” and regularly used by him during the 1980s), he welcomed the chance to raise the issue with the elder Khomeini himself, being sure to secure in writing as much support from his father as possible.
In fact, in the clip, Montazeri makes it clear that that dealing with the Mojahedin-e Khalq’s assault on Iran was but an excuse for following through on a long-standing plan. Owing to the fact that some of those executed were members of other leftist groups, it had been clear even before that the executions were a premeditated project. Montazeri’s audio now further confirms this fact.
Secondly, Ahmad Khomeini was also in such firm control of his family that he didn’t permit detailed information about the killings to reach his father, and the clip provides new evidence for this. Montazeri himself couldn’t even secure a 10-minute meeting with the Supreme Leader: “They’ve cordoned off Mr. Khomeini from everyone,” Montazeri says in the clip. And it was not merely Ahmad doing the cordoning off: in one instance, Mohammadali Ansari — Ahmad’s former agent to his father’s estate, who now handles the affairs of Ahmad’s children — blocked a dissenting judge’s objections from reaching Ayatollah Khomeini, telling him: “You have no right to speak to the Imam. You will kiss his hand and then relate the proceedings to Mr. Ahmad.”

Prisoners’ Trials: The Truth
Also brought to light is new information concerning the manner in which prisoners were tried. Examples of these unjust processes can be found in official documents: a letter to Ayatollah Khomeini from a religious judge of the Khuzestan Revolutionary Court dated August 14, 1988 states that some of those detained “were prepared to talk and give up information,” but were executed “in the interest of the Islamic Republic” because they had not been able to prove that they had defended Iran in its eight-year war with Iraq or because they were accused of siding with Iraq. The newly-released Montazeri file reveals that even those who insisted they had fought in the war on Iran’s side were put to death. For example, one prisoner was, in the course of interrogation, asked to denounce the MEK. He agreed. He was then asked if he was willing to go the front in the war against Iraq, and responded similarly. Finally, interrogators asked him if he was willing to walk on landmines. The prisoner responded: “Is the whole country willing to go walk on landmines? These things shouldn’t be expected of a new convert like me.” The attendant official then said it was clear the prisoner was unrepentant and still supported the MEK, and his execution was carried out.

Did Khamenei Support the Executions?
Up to now, the current supreme leader Ayatollah Khameini has been portrayed as one of those who opposed the slaughter in 1988. The audio file makes clear that after the widespread crackdown on prisoners, executive officials pursued a campaign of deception, intending to tell the nation that those executed had been in contact with foreign powers. One of those present in the meeting indicates that Ayatollah Mousavi Ardabili (then head of the Supreme Judicial Council) and Ayatollah Khamenei (then president) were in on the plot.“So many lies we would tell the people,” Montazeri said. “So many untruths, in this Islamic Republic.”

The actual voices of members of the death panel can be heard on the audio file

One extremely disturbing aspect of the audio file is that the voices of those responsible for issuing death penalties can be heard for the first time. In the clip, they offer a few points in their own defense. They say that they have learned how to suppress extremism — if they had not learned this, they say,  the number of killings would have been three times greater. They also state that they would never argue with Ayatollah Khomeini’s edict. They complain that the Supreme Judicial Council has withdrawn itself and refused to get involved in the issue. They insist they have done due diligence in giving prisoners space to part ways with the MEK, but because they had received no response, they carried out the execution orders.
In one especially bitter moment on the audio clip, Montazeri asks one panel member: “Have you been telling prisoners that if they answer ‘no’ they will be executed?” The member responds, “No, I didn’t say that to anyone.” The panel has no other response to this simple question from Montazeri. “Mr. Nayri, if a person were to ask you why you have put to death a prisoner sentenced to 10 years’ jail time, what would you say? We’ll regret that rashness when it comes time to execute someone sentenced to hanging.” These dialogues illuminate much about the trial process that condemned thousands.

Death panel members were divided, and in-fighting was pervasive
The audio contains further striking revelations of incompetence and hypocrisy on the part of Ayatollah Mousavi Ardabili, head of the Supreme Judicial Council at the time. He not only abdicated his own responsibility in the case but also fanned emotional flames, abetted propaganda efforts, and worked with the others to cook up means for a cover-up. And it wasn’t just Erdibili. The clip neatly exposes  the squabbles and divisions between death panel members: one panel member accuses the body of playing politics, while another says it shirked responsibility by teaching classes every day until noon and meeting only three times a week. Montazeri confirms this: “To hell with them all.”
Another new fact brought to light is the mendacity of some members of the panel. One member claims that some prisoners were spared execution because members of their family had been previously put to death — this claim while there were clear examples of families like the Behkishis, who lost five members to state executions in 1988.
Intelligence Ministry’s representative to Evin Prison was definitely on the panel
Mostafa Pourmohamadi, the Intelligence Ministry’s representative to Evin Prison, has previously denied his presence in the body: “I wasn’t involved in the death panel,” he has said. His voice can be heard on the audio clip, leaving no room for further denial. Pourmohamadi definitely sat on the death panel of 1988.
Other revelations will likely come to light as a result of the audio clip’s public release, and further investigation into its content. Countless questions remain around the events of 1988. Before the release of the clip, the world knew that Montazeri objected to the executions of 1988. But the audio file has provided further documentary evidence of his protest against the very regime he helped to build, and the clash among Iran’s most powerful figures of the time. Now the world knows the full extent of Montazeri’s outrage. It was a bloodbath — a bloodbath that had the full approval of and was carried out by the highest powers in the Islamic Republic.