February 7, 2005
Can USA Today bring down Rafsanjani?
UPDATE:
- Shargh newspaper today has published the interview with Rafsanjani on its frontpage (PDF File), titled "I can resolve US-Iran problems," without mentioning the main story. Now it's officialy Rafsanjani's propaganda tool.
USA Today has published a very interesting piece about Hashemi Rafsanjani and the possibility of his running again for president.
The article looks like good publicity for him at first, but what Mehdi Hashemi Rafsanjani, his son, has said to Barbara Slavin, the report, can shatter all his father's hope for another term, if proved with some evidence.
His son, interviewed here last week, says the family is not eager to see Rafsanjani run again because "we have everything" already. But Iran needs him again, Hashemi says.
And then this, which is really unusual:
Rafsanjani's son says that, if elected, his father will change Iran's constitution to reduce the power of Iran's supreme religious leader and make the position a ceremonial role akin to "the king of England."
The latter can easily get him and his father into serious trouble, because he has talked about limiting the power of Khamemeni which is the ultimate taboo in today's Iran.
When I linked to this on my Persian blog, I was sure they would easily deny it. But now I wonder if the reporter has a recorded tape from her interview with Mehdi. Because if she has, this single interview could bring down Rafsanjani and ruin all his ambitions for the future election. And that is exactly what Khamenei wants.
By the way, is there anyone in the U.S. who still believes Rafsanjani's promises and wants to work with him? I hope you all take a look at his resume, which USA Today has carefully picked:
Rafsanjani also has a dark side. He has been linked in the Iranian press to the killings of dissidents during his presidential terms.
In 2000, Rafsanjani ran last in parliamentary elections for a seat from Tehran after a journalist, Akbar Ganji, accused him of involvement in the deaths of 80 writers and dissidents. Rafsanjani and his family deny the accusations. But a former intelligence officer who could have testified against him, Saeed Emami, died in prison under suspicious circumstances in 1999. Ganji was sentenced last year to 10 years in prison for "spreading propaganda about the Islamic regime." ... Among the victims was an Iranian intellectual, Ali Akbar Saidi Sirjani, who died in prison in 1994.
[A]n arrest warrant was issued in Germany in 1996 for Rafsanjani's intelligence minister, Ali Fallahian, for organizing the assassination of three Kurdish dissidents in Berlin in 1992. Rafsanjani was also president in 1994, when Iranian agents blew up a Jewish cultural center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, killing more than 80 people, and in 1996, when Iranian-backed Saudi Shiite terrorists blew up the Khobar Towers housing complex in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American airmen. Iran's alleged involvement in the Khobar Towers attack is one of many reasons for deep hostility toward Iran among U.S. government officials.
Posted by hoder at February 7, 2005 1:22 PM
Hi Foster,
thanks for sharing your idea. You have forgotten a very key issue about Iran which is the extreme dependence of the government budget on oil. Before any military action, this major income source of Mullahs should be shut down. By doing so, not only the Iranian government would have huge budget deficit, but also they must rely on the tax of Iranian tax-payers. The more reliance on tax will result in more caring about the people, and hence democracy.
Definitely Iranians would have harsher years, but this is the price of liberty: Either bankruptcy, or war.
---------
S. Foster,
Thank you for your comment. I read your long and partially interesting article. I was encouraged by many things that you had mentioned, mostly in the first half of your articel. However, I think you soon turned to someone who has seen too much Hollywood movies, when you started talking about Invasion of Iran. regardless of the fact that this whole idea, in any condition, would be wrong for Iran and for the US for that matter, it just shows how disconnected you are to the realities of our country and culture.
Of course, it does not surprise me to see someone who is currently "serving" the neo-con agendas in Iraq, by being part of the US's killing machine; volentarily or involentarily, is so easily fading from advocating non-war means of helping Iranians in their journey to freedom, to someone who is promoting war and destruction.
---------
"Praktike, I don't think many of us, Iranians care how US sees Rafsanjani and whether US can work with him. Our main concern is to see how WE will be affected."
Faramin, I understand that, but I was just answering Hoder's question: "By the way, is there anyone in the U.S. who still believes Rafsanjani's promises and wants to work with him?"
And the answer was, yes, some realists in the U.S.
---------
Here it is early in 2005 and as I predicted, after the election and the first of the year…the talk of an invasion of Iran has intensified. I personally feel an Iranian regime change is imminent and would be for the better for the Persian people, the Middle East, and the entire world. However, I’m apprehensive about another military take-over much like our recent success in Iraq.
I am very much enthralled by the Persian culture and history and would certainly prefer an internal revolution to take place by the people of Iran. It seems the young Persians in Iran are starting to yearn for freedom and democracy, but they have much to overcome. My fear is that Israeli or American military action would simply cause them to resist us and maybe even put the inevitable dream of a free Iran further behind schedule.
---------
You're blowing this out of proportion. Rafsanjani or his sons wouldn't say anything that they thought would be harmful to them. He hasn't come this far to be brought "down" by something he or his son has said in an interview!
---------
Praktike,
I don't think many of us, Iranians care how US sees Rafsanjani and whether US can work with him. Our main concern is to see how WE will be affected. The lesser US "helps" us, the better it is for us, as every time the US tried to "help", every time Bush talked about Iran and his plans to "liberate" Iranian people, it back fired on us. So if he keeps his mouth shut, that is the best help he will be giving us.
I do believe that the fact that Rafsanjani's son talks of his dad's plans to change the constitution to limit the power of the Supreme leader is something that would sound good to the ears of many Iranians, and THAT can be a start to build up popularity for Rafsanjani for his possible running for the president, a move that can save the Regime for a few more years, as did Khatami's election.
---------
Well, I think the USA TODAY piece is clearly flawed because of bad translation. It's pretty clear from the transcript that the reporter inteviewed Rafsanjani through an interperter. The interpreter has done a very bad job of translating word-by-word whatever Rafsanjani said, and for a non-persian speaker those words carries different meaning. Just try to translate back the interview from English to Persian and you will see what I mean.
---------
There are rumors within Iranian political circles that Khamenei and Rafsanjani don't get along. If this proves to be true, perhaps one of the main reasons that he has not announced his candidacy is that Khamenei might use his power to prevent him from becoming president. Another reason is Rafsanjani's reputation. He's been accused of accumulating large sums of money for himself and his clan. Perhaps that is the reason his son says "they have everything", which means they're pretty well off and don't need all this headache. If Rafsanjani becomes the next president, it's not good news for the reform movement. Khatami was an outsider that at the end succumbed to the establishment. But Rafsanjani is the establishment itself. He will do his utmost to save the system, and in return, save himself. Since if there was any justice in Islamic Republic, he should have been tried and imprisoned a long time ago.
---------
Hoder: Kenneth Pollack of Brookings tends to see Rafsanjani as a "pragmatist" that the U.S. can work with, as opposed to a radical like Jannati who is hopeless. Other realists, I'm sure, share that view.
I think the answer you're looking for is already in your post, btw.
If Rafsanjani's son didn't want him to run, then clearly a good way to sabotage Dad would be to say that Dad wanted to push Khamenei aside, no?
An aside: have you seen this:
http://www.doostdar.com/articles/vsob.pdf
It's got you in it!
---------
Note:
* Required
The following HTML tags are allowed in your comments: <a> <b> <i>. To make line and paragraph breaks, press return (don't use <br> or <p>).
The bold, italics, and link buttons (and associated shortcut keys) only work in IE 5+ on the PC.