Did you know that 'Free Haleh', the most active online campaign about Esfandiari's prosecution in Iran, is run by the pro-Bush, pro-Iraqi invasion, Zainab Al-Swaiji of the American Islamic Council? The other noteworthy fact is that Free Haleh is hosted by Middle East Youth (its staff), another neo-conservative-leaning 'pro-democracy' project.
Reports on an increased possibility of a US attack on Iran are raising some serious concerns. But I don't think it is anything but a psy-op, possibly this time by the liberals to frighten and provoke the Iranian government either to give up the enrichment or to do something stupid that could become a pretext for the more severe UN sanctions.
There is absolutely nothing Bush could gain from such attack and this is not something that only the liberals are saying. But even the most radical but realistic anti-Iranian policy makers in Israel, such as Avigdor Liberman, or in Washington, such as Patrick Clawson, acknowledge the fact that military attack is neither going to stop Iran from its nuclear programme, nor will it weaken or destabilise the government in any way.
And then it's also the Iranian response that could actually destabilise the markets everywhere leading to a serious energy crisis that could anger the EU, China and India and widen the split between the U.S. and the rest of the industrial world.
Knowing all this, Iran has carefully been censoring any news about an imminent attack to undo the psy-op and at the same time, all Iranian opposition, even Reza Pahlavi, have repeatedly said they were against military attack and now have no choice other showing some public contempt to save their integrity.
I suspect soon the U.S. would have no choice but to accept a nuclear Iran, the way Israel, according to senior strategist Ephraim Kam, is ready (PDF) to do so.
It is time to let the world know about Ephraim Kam's report which I am surprised why the Anglosaxon media has never paid enough attention to.
In case you haven't read it, here is the most important part of it:
Living with a Nuclear-Enabled Iran
The conclusion is threefold:
- The United States, Israel, and other countries must do their utmost to prevent Iran from achieving a nuclear capability, since once Iran has nuclear weapons it will be much harder (and militarily impossible) to effect any rollback and disarm it.
- The military move must be included in steps to be considered, both as an option in itself and as a means of increasing pressure on Iran.
- At the same time, these countries will have to prepare for a scenario in which Iran obtains nuclear weapons, all the while maintaining efforts to block this very outcome.
In preparing for this scenario, Israel must:
- Strengthen its deterrent capability towards Iran. Israel currently has limited deterrence against Iran's recourse to conventional weapons and terrorism, based on its strategic capabilities and its relations with the United States. This capability may ebb if Iran obtains nuclear weapons. Therefore, Israel must use the years until Iran attains nuclear capability and take additional steps to bolster its deterrence against a nuclear attack, including: convincing Iran that a nuclear attack on Israel may fail because of Israel’s anti-missile system; strengthening its deterrent credibility against the Iranian regime, and convincing Iran that should Israel be attacked with nuclear weapons, it would retain a response capability that would exact a heavy price from Iran.
- Strengthen strategic cooperation with the United States against Iran. Israel's aim is that the US administration will make it clear to Iran that any Iranian nuclear attack on Israel or its other allies will be viewed as an attack on the US itself, which would force it to act without reservation and with its full strategic strength against Iran. Israel will have to reexamine the possibility of bolstering its deterrent capability by entering into a defense treaty with the United States and/or joining NATO at the appropriate time.
- Take steps, in collaboration with the United States and other countries, to limit risks – beyond the threat of a nuclear attack – resulting from Iran obtaining nuclear capability.
- Reexamine its policy of nuclear ambiguity. Israel would be best served by maintaining nuclear ambiguity, but it is possible that conditions will emerge that will force it to relinquish this policy, such as the conduct of the Iranian regime, its need to increase its deterrence and clarify its red lines, or potential channels of communication with Iran on the nuclear issue.
- Consider the possibility of agreeing to the idea of a nuclear weapons-free Middle East, as a means of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear arms or of disarming Iran.
- Examine the possibility of a peace agreement with the Syrian regime, at the right time and with conditions that are acceptable to Israel, in the hope that this leads to limiting Syria's close ties with Iran and an end to its military support of Hizbollah. If there is a possibility of a peace agreement with Syria, which would entail further warming of Israel’s relations with other Arab countries, the effect of Iran’s militant approach will also be reduced, and there may even be dialogue between Israel and Iran. But even if such dialogue does not develop, it will be hard to assume that under such regional conditions Iran would decide to launch a nuclear attack against Israel.
Can Israel live with a nuclear Iran? Possibly, but it is hard to anticipate this situation. Certain conditions – some of which are not yet extant – may help to soften this reality, and reduce the Iranian threat and the uncertainty that it contains.
These include:
- Collecting credible intelligence that Iran is not planning to use its nuclear weaponry against Israel.
- Obtaining a clear American obligation to retaliate against Iran with a nuclear strike should Iran use nuclear weapons against Israel.
- Arriving at an assessment in Israel that is based on clear, credible indicators that Israel's strategic capability effectively deters Iran from recourse to nuclear weapons.
- Seeing more moderate officials join the circle of decision-makers in Iran.
Finally, if Iran obtains nuclear weapons, this would obligate Israel to try to build up a stable deterrent capability against Iran, which will prevent unintentional deterioration to nuclear confrontation. As yet there are no accepted rules of behavior in a nuclear environment between Israel and Iran, there is no communication and no dialogue, and there is insufficient understanding of the set of considerations and the decision-making processes of the other side. Such uncertainty is liable to increase the risks of miscalculation, overreaction, escalation of crises, and difficulty stopping deterioration in time.
Israel thus has a critical need to try to build channels of direct communication with Iran. Even if indirect, these could allow fostering rules of the game and pursuing confidence building measures in a nuclear environment and help guard against nuclear deterioration. Assuming that Iran is also interested in preventing miscalculations by the US and Israel, which may lead to deterioration and heavy internal damage, the possibility of generating such channels of communication, possibly via European governments, is not unreasonable.
As you might have seen, only a few bloggers wrote anything against the termination of my previous web host account as a result of the threat of a defamation lawsuit by Mehdi Khalaji, a fellow at Washington's Institute.
Most of those who reacted, simply, took the terribly mistranslated text -- sent by Khalaji's lawyer to my web host and my domain registrar -- as utter truth and their defence of me was only from the free speech point of view.
As if I had manufactured the evidence based on which I wrote my post on Mehdi Khalaji; and that he is nothing but an innocent, poor victim of my 'defamation' who had just reacted too harshly to my writings.
Almost no one, except for Niki Akhavan, pointed out the mistranslations in Khalaji's lawyer's note (and its typos too) and almost no one acknowledged that the facts I had gathered about Khalaji were not false.
So what follows is a detailed and documented refutation of what Mehdi Khalaji's lawyer called my 'defamatory statements' against his client. You will also see how they have mistranslated my original post to construct their threat.
These defamatory statements by Hossein Derakhshan directly and by innuendo:
a) state falsely that our client is a traitor to the government and people of Iran;
Mehdi Khalaji is hired by a think-tank, created by the Israeli lobbying group in the US (AIPAC)[1] and has openly advocated for military action[2] or economic sanctions[3] to overthrow the government of Iran[4]. Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and James Woolsey, all strong advocates for regime change in Iran[5][6], are on its board[7].
Washington Institute for the Near East Policy (WINEP), Mr. Khalaji works for[8], has a clear agenda against Iran and that makes Mr. Khalaji, an Iranian citizen, a 'traitor' based on the definition of the word. (The American Heritage dictionary defines 'traitor' as “One who betrays one's country, a cause, or a trust.”[9])
b) state falsely that our client has worked for U.S. Vice-President Cheney's office; and by innuendo is a dupe or puppet of the U.S. government;
Mistranslated. The correct translation is that Mr. Khalaji “indirectly” and “through WINEP” gives advise to vice-president Cheney's office.
WINEP's director, Robert Satloff says that its products have been made accessible to “high-level Washington-based officials, prominent journalists, and senior diplomats.”[10] Vice-president's office is surly where many “high-level Washington-based officials” work and therefore WINEP's products, that includes Mr. Khalaji's contribution, reach Mr. Cheney's office.
There are also strong ties between WINEP and Cheney's office. For example, John P. Hannah, a deputy director of WNEP now serves[11] at a high position at the vice-president's office since 2001.
c) state falsely that our client has counselled the Vice-President of the United States of America to bomb our client's former offices in Iran;
Mistranslated. What I have written is that it is Mr. Cheney who wants to bomb Iran[12], not that Mr. Khalaji advises him to do so. Mehdi Khalaji has worked [13] as a section editor in a newspaper, titled Entekhab run by Taha Hashemi, a cleric appointee[14] of Ayatollah Khamenei in a government-funded organization related to the Qom's clerical school.
Mr. Khalaji wrote later in an article for the BBC Persian that the publishers of Entekhab had the personal support of Ayatollah Khamenei for the newspaper.[15]
A military attack on Iran surly could also destroy the building of Entekhab newspaper in central Tehran, where Mehdi Khalaji was once working.
d) state falsely that our client has counselled the Vice-President of the United States of America to bomb our thousands of men, women and children;
Mistranslated. Again, what I have written is that it is Cheney who wants to bomb Iran, not that Khalaji advises him to do so. Obviously thousands of men and women and children would be killed in a military strike against Iran.
e) state falsely that our client counsels enemies of Iran and of humanity;
Based on its output, it's clear that WINEP does not have a friendly policy toward Iran and openly advocates for regime change. So they are enemies of Iran and Khalaji counsels them.
Given the grave consequences of the illegal US-led invasion of Iraq, I believe those who supported and administered that invasion are enemies of humanity. At least two of these people, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle are on WINEP's board where Khalaji counsels and WINEP had repeatedly and openly supported the invasion.[16]
f) incites others to follow the defamer Hossein Derakhshan's lead by spitting in our client's face;
Mistranslated. The correct translation reads “I don't know what name you want to give this conscious intellectual contribution by Mr. Khalaji to the most merciless and dirtiest enemies of Iran and humanity. But I know that if someday I face him in person, instead of saying hello, I will through a big spit on his face.” There is nothing inciting others to do anything here.
g) state falsely that our client holds and publicizes the belief that political change is not possible from within Iran;
This is not false. Mehdi Khalaji finishes his presentation at the AFPC meeting with the following paragraph in which he bluntly rejects the possibility of reform (5' 55 form the video)[17]:
“The majority of people might not be [unclear word] to the political agenda of the government, but instead suffer from its policy and restrictions upon social freedom without possessing any concrete effective means for any change or reform. Idealism has been reconstructed not only in terms of government's perception of politics, but also in terms of citizens public ambitions. Thus, the regime seems to be more solid and stable as ever before. Therefore the prospect of the prospect for political change is dark.”
Moreover, in an interview with Radio Zamaneh he adds “well, for me the Islamic Republic is similar to Dariush Mehrjooie's film, 'Ejarehneshin-ha.' The owner of the building... doesn't permit any minor changes... Then what will happen? The whole building collapses.”[18]
h) state falsely that our client struggles to converse and express himself in the English language;
Mistranslated. Correct translation reads “Mehdi Khalaji, while sweating to read smoothly from the English translated text of his article.”
But it is true that Mr. Khalaji has problems, at least in terms of reading, pronunciation and intonation. The recorded video of his speech (mentioned above) clearly shows that Khalaji mispronounces or struggles to read and pronounces many words including 'entirety,' 'unprecedented' and ' judicial.'
i) state falsely that our client counsels the government of the United States of America to choose military action and economic sanctions against Iran, over and instead of diplomatic talks;
Mistranslated. The correct translation reads that Khalaji “tried to show why political change from within is impossible in Iran and therefore the U.S., in order to remove 'the increasing threat by Iran against world piece' should not negotiate with Iran. Instead, through economic sanctions (or implicitly even through military invasion if its it was feasible.)”
Khalaji said these words in a conference to an audience at the AFPC, not to the government. I didn't quoted from him, but sumerised in my own words what could he ultimately mean by his speech.
The words in quotation mark ('the increasing threat by Iran against world piece') refers to a widely used theme by the media and the politicians and by doing so I'm trying to mock the sterotypical aspect of those words.
j) state falsely that our client's academic research paper are in reality thinly veiled instruction manuals on how to locate and attack the weaknesses of the legitimate government of Iran;
In May 2006, Mehdi Khalaji says to a Wall Street Journal reporter “Western countries must push the internal conflicts inside the Iranian government.”[19]
In July 2007, in an article published on WINEP's website, Khalaji writes:
“For the West, there are many advantages if Iran's leadership is weakened by internal disputes. Such an Iran would be busier domestically and therefore less able to concentrate on foreign adventures. It would also be more aware of its weaknesses and therefore more likely to compromise. To be sure, a weak Supreme Leader would presumably have less authority to impose difficult compromises on objecting factions. That, however, seems like a price worth paying in order to see a less powerful revolutionary leadership.“[20]
k) state falsely that our client is a proponent of, and openly supports, civil unrest, revolution and a regime change in Iran through the use of the military, and violence if necessary; and
Mistranslated. I never implied Khalaji supports violent change. It is Khalaji's employer, the Washington Institute, who has advocated regime change through violence.
In February 2007, Jeffery White, a defence fellow at the Washington Institute, writes[21]:
“The choices for dealing with the Iranian challenge, both in and outside Iraq, are not clear, and the consequences of making the wrong choices are dire. But by the time the choices are clear, it will be too late for anything but acquiescence to the presence of a nuclear-armed Iran driven by hostility toward the West -- or a war to prevent it. “
But in his interview with Radio Zamaneh he explicitly advocates for a 'fundamental change', defining it as the removal of Ayatollah Khamanei, the Supreeme leader of the Islamic Republic, in a similar fashion to non-violent revolutions in Eastern Europe. He then adds that this fundamental change is “impossible without foreign assistance.”[22]
l) clearly evidence a personal vendetta being waged by Hossein Derakhshan against our client, under the guise of alleged "commentary."
Before Khalaji started working for the Washington Institute, I had written positive posts about him and his writings. [23] [24]
But since he started working for the neo-conservative Washington Institute with its clear agenda to overthrow the Islamic Republic, even through military action if necessary, I have been critical about Khalaji's contribution to such entity. The same way I have been critical of Mohsen Sazgera who was a fellow there before Khalaji. [25]
I have never met Khalaji and never had anything personal against him, either in public or private and what I have written about him is only based on his work.
At the same time, I am a established commentator on Iranian affairs. Aside from my bilingual blog that I have written in the past six years, I am a columnist for The Guardian[26], Washington Post[27] websites. My writings have also appeared on The New York Times[28], International Herald Tribune[29],, BBC News[30], Die Zeit[31], etc. and I have been interviewed by various print or broadcast media on Iranian affairs. [32]
- ^ http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
- ^ http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2520
- ^ http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC04.php?CID=257
- ^ http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/download.php?file=Soref2006.pdf
- ^ http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=4200
- ^ http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3422.htm
- ^ http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC11.php?CID=133
- ^ http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC10.php?CID=33
- ^ http://www.answers.com/topic/traitor
- ^ http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC11.php?CID=21
- ^ http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/2926
- ^ http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/18834.html
- ^ http://news.gooya.eu/politics/archives/2007/04/058513.php
- ^ http://www.shareh.com/new/persian/magazine/hawzah/61/01.htm
- ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/story/2005/08/printable/050803_mj-mkhalaji-qom-press.shtml
- ^ http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=1486
- ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAhLUjGPJ8Y
- ^ http://www.radiozamaneh.org/special/2007/04/post_188.html
- ^ http://www.opinionjournal.com/wsj/?id=110008382
- ^ http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2638
- ^ http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2567
- ^ http://www.radiozamaneh.org/special/2007/04/post_188.html
- ^ http://i.hoder.com/archives/2003/08/030805_007814.shtml
- ^ http://i.hoder.com/linkdooni/2004_03.html
- ^ http://i.hoder.com/archives/2005/03/050322_013794.shtml
- ^ http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/hossein_derakhshan/index.html
- ^ http://blog.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/hossein_derakhshan/
- ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/28/opinion/28Derakhshan.html
- ^ http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/30/opinion/edhossein.php
- ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4947354.stm
- ^ http://www.zeit.de/2005/27/Iran
- ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hossein_Derakhshan#References
I know speaking against Haleh Esfandiari is like suicide these days. After all, with the help of her mostly American and Iranian neoliberal allies (especially Washington Post's Robin Wright whose love for Esfandiari, for some reason, surpasses that of Esfandiari's own daughter), has become a symbolic victim of the 'most repressive regime on the planet.'
But let's be honest for a moment. If an American scholar served , in Tehran, as the head of a prominent think-tank, very close to the heart of the Iranian policy making machine, and started travelling back and forth to the U.S. and tried to establish contacts and with dissident Americans (let's say the leftists) and invited them to Tehran to speak for highest Iranian policy making, top officers of the Revolutionary Guards and intelligence officers, how would the U.S., even the most liberal one like Jimmy Carter, would treat him or her?
On top of that, Haleh Esfandiari was the first Iranian fellow at the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) in 1995, as the first group of NED fellows. (She was followed by Hossein Bashirieh, Ramin Jahanbegloo, Siamak Namazi, Ali Afshari and Manouchehr Mohammadi ever since.)
And we all know about NED's roles and functions in countries where the U.S. wants to bring about its favorite governments such as in Venezuella and the rest. Some even suggest that the links between the CIA and NED are undeniable. "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA," says Allen Weinstein, who helped draft the legislation establishing NED in 1991. (Read the entire Le Monde Diplomatique's article on the links between NED and the CIA. )
Given what we know about NED today, I believe, anyone in any country who has had any ties with NED and its affiliate organisations (International Republican Institute, National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, American Center for International Labor Solidarity and Center for International Private Enterprise) deserves to be charged and fairly and justly prosecuted.
I emphasize on the process to be just and fair because I think Iran has sometimes ignored some of its own laws when it comes to such cases. For example, withholding Esfandiari's passport and therefore keeping her in Iran without prosecuting her was totally wrong and illegal.
But more or less the rest of her case was handled fairly and legally, given the laws in Iran, that like like in many countries post 9/11, give the right to the judge to extend the time a detainee can be held without charges. But Esfandiari had a lawyer, has contacts with her mother and, at it appears, was treated well in detention.
Now perhaps Danny Postel would like to write another piece for openDemocracy and compare me this time with Adolf Hitler. I wonder what he and other Christopher Hitchens clones think about the NED.
I'm glad to see The Guardian's Robert Tait now officially showing his Rafsanjanist side these days. Two of his recent pieces are particularly revealing:
"Iran hangs 30 over 'US plots'", a shameless piece of false reporting that tries to connect the execution of murderers, assassins and rapists to Iran's concerns over the real American plots to destabilise the government exploiting the capacities within the Iranian civil society.
The Observer editors -- who are equally to be blamed for that shameless piece of propaganda -- seem to even doubt that U.S. has any plots against Iran and therefore put it in quotation marks.
The other Robert Tait's piece (Khomeini 'sought to drop Death to America chant') in The Guardian is yet another clear pro-Rafsanjani report that we see these days from Tehran-based correspondents since Ahmadinejad came to power.
Tait, who I don't think is able to read Persian, exclusively reports on a new volume of Rafsanjani's endless and self-appreciating memoir that has just come out.
The new volume apparently includes a paragraphs on Rafsanjani's knowledge of Ayataollah Khomeini's disapproval of the popular "Death to America" and "death to the Soviet Union" slogans in Iran, Tait reports.
Even though in the following paragraphs Tait tries to balance his blunt bias toward Rafsanjani, the message of the article is too clear to hide: "Dear America, Rafsanjani will topple Khamanei and rules Iran they way you like. Please support him."
To use his own words, Robert Tait's reporting "comes at a sensitive time for Mr Rafsanjani as he prepares to seek election next month as head of a powerful clerical body, following the death of its sitting leader. Leadership of the assembly would put Mr Rafsanjani, an advocate of renewed ties with America, in a strong position to challenge Mr Khamenei."
Thank you Robert Tait to show us where exactly you stand these days.
For a large part of the Iranian society, except for the post-Rafsanjani upper class, Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)'s image is associated with pure patriotic and Shiite ideals about justice and sacrifice.
They are seen by the majority of Iranians as solely responsible for not having lost land during the war with Iraq.
It's no accident that the the birthday of Imam Hossein, the central icon of the Islamic Republic's ideology, was chosen as the official day to celebrate the Sepah.
After Ahmadinejad's win, Rafsanjanists started a big anti-Sepah campaign to paint it as a corrupt and brutal shadow government. Ironically, they were the same people who were cheering for the same Sepah after Khatami's victory, painting it as a diverse, honest, patriotic and moderate entity.
If the US wanted to further strengthen its image among the common Iranians as a force against the core values of justice, patriotism and sacrifice, nothing could be more effective than calling Sepah a terrorist group.
By this, the US has officially declared war against tens of millions of Iranians who are still living under the shadow of their loved ones who saved them and their country and whose names are seen in every corner of the country, on its schools, streets and stadiums.
In last year's DWblog awards, I objected to an award sponsored and also dictated by Reports Sans Frontier on many grounds. Most important of which was the fact that unlike other jury members, RSF has a clear political agenda to demonise countries who happen to be those disliked by the United States, like Iran, China, Cuba and since last year apparently Russia. (I have written before about RSF's agenda before: here, here and here)
Long story short, I sensed that the DW-Online's staff and managers didn't like the challenge I posed against RSF and I decided not to accept their invitation this year, if RSF is still involved -- and I guess I even raised that with some of the DW staff.
Now I just saw on their website that the jury members for 2007 awards are announced and RSF's Julien Pain, who is a great guy but works for a terrible organisation, is on the jury again.
It is unfortunate that Deutche Welle has allowed RSF again to use its jury's and its own credibility for RSF's clear political agenda. But I don't think there is anything I could do now.
Masih Alinejad has replaced with me as the jury member for Iranian blogs, and even though I have never met her, I have followed her work and I think she's a great choice. I wish her success and I hope this year, in my absence, the jury sessions would not be too boring. :)
I also have to confess that I feel I am gradually getting isolated since I stopped looking at Iran and myself from the stereotypical Western point of view. It feels great, especially now, after being kicked out by my hosting company.
In last year's DW blog awards (The Best of the Blogs or The BOBs), I objected to an award sponsored and also dictated by Reports Sans Frontier on many grounds. Most important of which was the fact that unlike other jury members, RSF has a clear political agenda to demonise countries who happen to be those disliked by the United States, like Iran, China, Cuba and since last year apparently Russia. (I have written before about RSF's agenda before: here, here and here)
Long story short, I sensed that the DW-Online's staff and managers didn't like the challenge I posed against RSF and I decided not to accept their invitation this year, if RSF is still involved -- and I guess I even raised that with some of the DW staff.
Now I just saw on their website that the jury members for 2007 awards are announced and RSF's Julien Pain, who is a great guy but works for a terrible organisation, is on the jury again.
It is unfortunate that Deutche Welle has allowed RSF again to use its jury's and its own credibility for RSF's clear political agenda. But I don't think there is anything I could do now.
Masih Alinejad has replaced with me as the jury member for Iranian blogs, and even though I have never met her, I have followed her work and I think she's a great choice. I wish her success and I hope this year, in my absence, the jury sessions would not be too boring. :)
I also have to confess that I feel I am gradually getting isolated since I stopped looking at Iran and myself from the stereotypical Western point of view. It feels great, especially now, after being kicked out by my hosting company.
While almost everyone in the Iranian blogosphere and also the Iran-based or foreign-based Persian media outlets are dead silent on this unprecedented violation of free speech among Iranian blogs, some principled individuals have expressed concern in their English language blogs:
Whatever personal or political differences people have with Hossein, it's the responsibility of those of us who blog in English to expose the repressive and underhanded tactics of Iranians like Khalaji and the right-wing institutions for which they work. The same people and institutions that thrust themselves to the frontlines of debates about "democracy in Iran" and "freedom of expression" are quick to mobilize their financial resources and connections to muzzle the voice of one person who uses his blog to uncover just a few cogs in the wheels of what seems like a veritable anti-Iran industry. [...] Hossein Derakhshan is not a threat to Khalaji or the Washington Institute because of the content of what he said. What he has written about places like the Washington Institute and the National Endowment for Democracy is based on information that is widely and publicly available, often from the websites of these institutions themselves. Hossein's grave sin is that he wrote this material in Persian , and this is the real danger he poses for the Khalajis and their employers.
The blocking of websites by national filtering systems make content unavailable to those in such countries, but the deletion of content makes it unavailable to all. The blog of my friend Hossein was recently shutdown due to legal threats, making it unavailable to all while it was previously only censored in Iran. Threatening ISP’s with “take down” requests is one of the most undocumented methods of censoring Internet content. Some sites, such as ChillingEffects document this to some degree but most cases occur in silence. Since much of it is related to copyright violations or terrorism few are paying close attention. Libel and defamation cases are more notable especially the cases in Malaysia and Singapore.
The following assessment by Host Matters is scary. It creates the unfortunate precedent of allowing large media figures to shut down speech by apparently harassing a web host for a week. Moreover, Hosting Matters is most likely immune from liability even if Hossein committed defamation. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) says that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” This federal law preempts any state laws to the contrary: “[n]o cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.” [..]
Underlying these legal arguments, however, is the plain fact that Hosting Matters’ actions are disturbing. Shutting down a blog and seeking to control its contents, even though it is legally permissible, is not an action ANY service provider should be committing. Its enough that all bloggers and activists take notice and petition against their action.
This is an email I just sent to some friends. Feel free to spread the word please and note that this is a threat to all of us who have a blog or have any presence online.
Dear friends,While everyone is on holidays, a new blow to online free speech has taken place and I would like to share it with you and ask for help..
Last Friday, I was kicked out of my hosting company (Florida-based Hosting Matters), as a result of a legal notice sent by Mehdi Khalaji, an Iranian fellow at a neo-conservative think-tank (Washington Institute for the Near East Policy with Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and James Woolsey on its advisory board).
Mhedi Khalaji's lawyer has sent a notice to my hosting company and also my domain registrar, Go Daddy, asking them to a) remove any 'defamatory' material about him, b) make me publish an apology, and c) pay $10,000 for the claimed damages
The lawyers claim are based on a mistranslation of a post I had written a few months ago about Khalaji and his support for a disgusting anti-Iranian campaign (http://www.afpc.org/IFI/iranfreedom.shtml) at another neo-conservative think-tank (American Foreign Policy Council) and his counsel to a think-tank with a clear agenda to overthrow the Iranian government by an economic warfare or a military attack.
The hosting company, clearly intimidated, asked me (documented below) to remove that specific post and also any material related to Mehdi Khalaji, since they didn't have enough resources to figure if they were actually defamatory or not.
I removed the mentioned post, but resisted against such strange request to remove anything I had written, mentioning Mehdi Khalaji.
Then last Friday, I noticed that the hosting company had actually removed, from my web serve and even my blogging software's database, any post where Mehdi Khalaji was named in English.
After threatening me not to disclose what the hosting company did, and after a few email exchanges, they terminated my account.
I have now migrated to a new hosting company, outside the United States, still struggling to get my numerous domain names, databases and online applications back and running.
This is a threat to all of us who write anything online these days. If someone could silence whatever he or she didn't like, even before a court order and based on intimidating hosting and domain registrar companies and based on mistranslated material, we would all going to be in big trouble soon.
It's all quite ironic that the way I am treated in the United States (by being kicked out of my servers) is worse than that in the Islamic Republic of Iran (by filtering my blog and forcing me to sign apology when I was last in Tehran). Ever more ironic is that a blog I was editing to cover internet censorship in Iran has also been shut down.
Please feel free to blog this and spread the word any way you can. I'll keep you post about the new developments by email, and as well on my temporary blog on blogspot (http://hodertempblog.blogspot.com).
Here are the supporting documents:
1) The initial legal notice from Khalaji's lawyer:
http://hoder.com/weblog/images/khalajithreat.pdf2) Email exchange with the hosting company led to termination of my accounts:
http://hodertemp.blogspot.com/2007/08/accounts-and-billing-hosting-matters.html3) My trouble with Islamic Republic of Iran's authorities:
Warm regards,
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2006/03/70522
Persian bloggers, even my own (former) friends, can be so nasty.
Some are skeptical if what I say about being kicked out of my previous hosting account in Hosting Matters, as a result of Mehdi Khalaji's threat of a taking them and me and my domain registrar to court, is actually true.
So even though I guess it might cause some problems later on, I have published the entire email exchange I had with my hosting company over Mehdi Khalaji's threat. Please take a look and share it with others.
The new hosting account I have bought is a bit more sophisticated than the previous one and runs on with different arrangements. Therefore, I haven't managed to properly install my blogging software (Movable Type) there yet.
That's why I decided to continue on blogspot for now, until the problem is fixed. So please bear with me.
Last night Hosting Matters abruptly terminated both my accounts on their server, because I noticed they had removed ANY English post where Mehdi Khalaji was mentioned. Not only from my web directories, but also from my blogging software database. Then they threatened me not to reveal anything about what they had done or they would sue me!
Fortunately, I had backed up all my data on both servers. But I'm still frustrated and puzzled at why were they so scared?
I'm considering taking legal action against Hosting Matters for its unethical conduct that has and is going to cost me a lot of time and money and energy.
Anyway, I'm now using a new hosting account I have recently bought. But I have to migrate dozens of domain names, software and plugins, blogs and databases to the new server and this takes a lot of time and energy -- and also technical expertise which I don't have when it comes to Virtual Private Servers.
So in the past 24 hours I've just managed to setup my email address and my main domain names and a tiny part of my archive, especially for my Persian blog.
I'm writing these lines using manual HTML coding and I guess I would have to do this until I finish the migration process, most likely in the next few days.
Let's see what Mehdi Khalaji, the Washington Institute's fellow, is going to do next to silence someone who thinks he is helping the enemies of Iran and humanity.
Here is the backgroud of the story, in case you don't understand what is happening here: Part one, part two
I can't believe this!
Hosting Matters, my hosting company, has removed two of my posts abot Mehdi Khalaji's attempts to shut down this blog from my movable type database without even letting me know. (Cached versions: here and here)
They have threatened me to remove anything I've written about Mehdi Khalaji, or they suspend my account. After objecting to it and telling them that I would consider suing them for violating my rights, they have now asked me to leave!
I'm beginning to think that this guy is really supported by the people who are on the board of where he works for, i.e. Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and James Woolsey.
Why does Mehdi Khalaji want no one know about whom he work for?
I understand Trita Parsi's frustration over accusations VOA Persian has raised against him and NIAC in its usual partial way of journalism. (Read NIAC's response that was never given a voice on VOA Persian. )
But I wonder how can this personal vendetta justify spending NIAC's hardly earned credibility to Mehdi Khalaji, a strong advocate for sanctions against Iran, a resident fellow at the Washington Institute (read AIPAC's think-tank), and an associate of Patrick Clawson and Ilan Berman, whom I think all NIAC members already know about their hardline anti-Iranian stance.
This is just a shame and I think NIAC members and supporters should object to that.
Brief message to Press TV's editors: Touria Ghaffari is not a qualified presenter and she has visible problems with English language. Please give her another job.
The other day I asked you to take part in a guessing game, based on some quotes. Now, here is the answer.
The person who, in a speech at Woodrow Wilson's centre in 2003, said those words was Ramin Jahanbegloo.
Jahanbegloo also said in his speech, titled ' Iran: From Political Gridlock to Crisis of Legitimacy' that "[t]oday, what is certain is that democratic developments in Iraq are taking a slower pace than what was expected and the Iranian population has no hope of a future American intervention in Iran." (And note, thanks to my friend Mo, that Jahanbegloo used the word 'hope,' not 'fear'.)
He later went on and and by his three scenarios of a) the centrist Rafsanjani's win b) Revolutionary Guard's coup and c) wide-spread urban chaos, effectively called the US liberals to stand behind Rafsanjani in the then forthcoming election, if they didn't want to see those two other scenarios.
This is a further evidence for me about the ties between the neo-liberal regime change plans and Rafsanjanist reformers.
Reporters Sans Frontier (RSF) is at it again. (Read what they did before.)
Two individuals (Adnan Hassanpour and Abdolvahed “Hiva” Botimar) from a well-known Kurdish armed separatist group (Pejak), similar to PKK in Turkey, are sentenced to death in Iran, and just because they have apparently written a few articles in a tiny local newspaper, RSF wants us to believe their verdict is because of their writings.
These are not my words, this is what their own lawyer, Saleh Nikbakht, has told a Kurdish newspaper. He has also added that none of these two men are charged for their civil or journalistic activities. None are heroes and the people who want to make them look like a martyr have a political agenda.
Then the whole false story appears on the front page of the BBC news and everyone starts talking as if Iran is going to execute two innocent young men because of their writings.
But the BBC Persian, according to their lawyer, Saleh Nikbakht, gives us some more detail about their initial charges: Smuggling arms from Iranian army storage outside to the outlawed separatist armed Kurdish groups, giving information about military compounds to Kurdistan-based armed opposition groups, having direct contacts with the U.S. State Department's staff, helping two suspects of terrorism in south of Iran escape to Iraqi Kurdistan. (Although BBC Persian's headline still talks about them as journalists, even though in the story this is rejected)
Has the BBC News started to love anything negative about Iran these days so much that they don't even bother to verify these dodgy reports, coming from these so-called watchdogs? Why haven't they even asked the Persian service about any of this?
Knowing the fact that RSF's reports are based on the judgement of its only Persian speaker, Reza Moini, who is himself a well-known victim of the Islamic Republic's crackdown n the leftists/separatists in the early 80s and has not been back to Iran ever since, should make every impartial journalist doubt about whatever RSF sends out about Iran.
And then the French Foreign ministry also jumps on the wagon and calls Iran on stopping the execution of the two 'journalists'. When was the last time Bernard Kouchner's ministry said a word about executions in United States, China, Saudi Arabia, and many more countries whose laws still acknowledge the death punishment.
When someone is simultaneously involved in human rights-oriented organisations and activities on Cuba, Russia, and Iran, there is surely something fishy there.
On the board of Press Now, the Amsterdam-based non-profit organisation that has launched and financed Radio Zamaneh, using a good chunk of the Dutch Foreign Ministry's 'Media Diversity in Iran' funding, there is someone like the above said.
Jan ter Laak is on the board of directors of Press Now and he has heavily been involved in Iranian human rights and NGO affairs. A bit of googling never harms:
a) "Jan ter Laak" and Iran
b) "Jan ter Laak" and Russia
c) "Jan ter Laak" and Cuba