Dissident Amir Abbas Fakhravar Escapes To The U.S

"Earth could not answer nor the Seas that mourn"

 

"On April 29 secular author and opposition activist Amir Abbas Fakhravar successfully escaped from Iran and is heading for America."

Excuse me, where was I when the news broke out?

Who is he and what is he likely to tell the Administration when he arrives?

Mr. Amir Abbas Fakhravar was born in 1975, is single, and experienced his first jail when he was 17 years old and has been imprisoned 18 times since. He studied law but was forced to abandon it.

In November 2002, Mr. Fakhravar was sentenced to eight years in the 'Evin' prison for criticizing Ayatollah Ali Khameneh’i, the leader of the Islamic Republic in his book Inja Chah Nist ('This Place is not a Ditch'), short listed for the 2001/2002 Paolo Coelho Literary Prize.

On 18 March 2006 Mr. Fakhravar appeared in court for an appeal hearing but was denied representation by his lawyers. After an argument with the judge he was beaten in front of Bench 26 before being transferred to prison. He is a longstanding critic of the Iranian government and has been demanding a referendum on the future government of Iran.

He has been exiled several times to remote areas in Iran, as well as abducted and thrown into an unknown prison in Oroumiyeh (north-eastern Iran) where he was tortured.

Mr. Fakhravar collaborated with several reformist newspapers, wrote three books, including “Here is Not a Ditch”. After newspapers in Iran reported that the book was presented to the Paulo Coelho Literary Award, security forces raided his house and office and took all the copies, but a diskette was saved and sent abroad, where the book was translated into English and published.

Another book, "Prison Papers”, is an account of life and torture practices in Iranian prisons."

Let us hear what Mr. Fakhravar has to say about the Iranian regime in the following interview with the Iran Press Service (IPS) to get an idea of what we'll learn from him when he gets debriefed over here:

Amir Abbas Fakhravar (AAF) – [...] When one reaches the conclusion that nothing can be reformed under the present political system, that the [Iranian] regime has no capacity and potentials of accepting any change, the only answer is what Mr. Amir Entezam has proposed: boycotting the elections and pushing for referendum.

However, knowing that the rulers would not accept the project and would not allow international observers to supervise the referendum, knowing by experience that this regime has no respect for the wishes of the people, we in turn must concentrate on the referendum, a project difficult to achieve, but not impossible. [...]

Iranian Press Service (IPS) – [...] For most of the people it is not clear what is the purpose of the referendum; what is going to be demanded from them? [...]

(AAF) – [...] In 1979, people voted massively for a referendum without knowing exactly what was the Islamic Republic? They voted and less than two months latter, they badly regretted, because they (new leaders) had abused from people’s sentiments. This is no more possible, because people are awake and aware. The question asked from them in the referendum now must be clear: Do you accept the Islamic Republic, yes or not? This is the question people would be asked.

Because Iran is at the center of world’s attention, because the world is looking at Iran, we have a historic, but very short occasion to be on the world’s stage. It is upon us to make the best use of this unique occasion to expose our aspirations, our demands and our wishes. In one word, to tell the world that by referendum, we want liberalism, pluralism, democracy, human rights and secularity.

The repression that exists in our country is unparalleled. Where [would] people be jailed for an innocent open letter, for an interview with a foreign-based radio station, for writing an article or simply for screaming out?

When crackdown culminates such peaks, the possibility for the people to make a colorful revolution become impossible.

In Iran, prison is always the first choice, not the last. Don’t you remember how a prosecutor (Sa’id Mortazavi) killed a photo-journalist (Ms. Zahra Kazemi) without daring to answer anyone? [...]

When crackdown culminates [to] such peaks, the possibility for the people to make a colorful revolution become impossible, leaving them no other way than violence, the one that the Iranian leadership, thanks to its mistakes, have placed in front of the Iranians. When the great majority of the nation calls for radical changes, if the authorities do not respond positively, they would face the wrath of the people. [...]

(IPS) – What is your expectation from the international community?

First, we have to explain them our demands, speaking clearly and with one voice. The world is watching us carefully and follows closely the developments here. When (State Department Secretary) Ms. Condoleezza Rice speaks about Iran, I have the impression that she has lived in this country for many years, that she knows Iran like the palm of her hands, that she knows our youngsters, that she is aware of our demands.

Of course, we know that some European nations have economic interests in Iran, that they have made great investments here. But these countries should be told that a free, democratic and secular Iran ruled by wise leaders can be a much better partner for them, as it would be a connecting bridge between a productive Europe and a consuming Asia. Our brothers and sisters in Europe and in the world must be told that in Iran live children that [are] born sad and depressed and live miserable. That school children in the Islamic Republic are brainwashed, instructed to kill others, to shed blood, to register for suicide operations.

Such an Iranian individual will not permit them to live in peace and security. If they want to live in peace and security, if we also have the right to live in peace and security, they ought to think other wise about their relations with the present Iranian regime, starting by putting aside their short term economic interests.

If this regime had been able to survive, it is because it jumped into the arms of the Soviet Union during the cold war period and now Russia and Europe. Therefore, it is [in] the interests of the free world to act together and unify its action in not permitting this regime to continue repression. If it does so, there would be no need for military intervention.

IPS – One major problem that is worrying the world and Europe, which is discussing with Iran, is the question of the Islamic Republic’s efforts to get nuclear weapon. Do the Iranians in general and the students in particular also think that this regime needs these arms in order to consolidate its power at home and its hegemony over the region?

AAF – First of all, one must ask what need do we have for such a weapon. What those that have this weapon have done with it? Today’s world doesn't need nuclear warfare…

IPS – Why then [is] the Islamic Republic [...] doing its best [...] to get this arm. Why can't it convince the world that it is not after this weapon, as it claims?

AAF – This brings us back to the question of legitimacy. When a regime has no legitimacy at home and abroad, in order to survive, it has no other choice but to equip itself with weapons of mass destruction.

Besides, we live in a country filled with plenty of natural resources. To provide our people a decent, prosperous life, we don’t need nuclear power. We can be a major tourist destination; we can use our natural gas, we can profit from our strategic geographic situation…

IPS – Do Iranians believe the authorities claim that they are not after the nuclear weapon, that they want atomic energy for peaceful, civilian uses only, like producing electricity?

AAF – I can tell you very frankly that if the present rulers come out in broad daylight telling people that it is noon time and the sun is shining, people would not believe them and go saying it is full night. They have so much lied that if they explain that 2+2=4, the people would say the result is five, or three. By the way, do you know what nickname the people have bestowed over the spokesman of the Foreign Affairs Ministry? (Hamid Reza Asefi): Mr. Takzib, or deny, because he always denies everything.

In one word, not only do the people not believe the claims, (that the nuclear technology is for civilian use) but they are also of the view that we don’t need nuclear weapons.

IPS – Several political figures and analysts are of the opinion that in case Mr. Hashemi Rafsanjani enter the presidential elections, he would win the race and once president, one can tell a requiem for referendum, for, according to these people, in order to consolidate the system, he has already made some behind the scene arrangements with the Americans like normalization of relations on the one hand and on the other, to appease the people, he would give some limited freedoms. What is your assessment?

AAF – I don’t have such a worry. A quick look at the world’s developments confirms my view. What kind of deal can Mr. Hashemi Rafsanjani ink with the Americans? What can he offer the Americans against their [resistance] towards the Islamic Republic?

What is important for the United States is its security and that of its allies and here I have to repeat once again and loudly that this regime is exporting terrorism, that youngsters in this country are being brainwashed and prepared for suicide operations, that they are taught to consider all those who do not think like them as an enemy that must be killed.

The other point is that like us, America and the free world’s time period to solve their problems (with the Islamic Republic) is also very short and like us, if they do not make the best use of the massive investments they have done in this region, the stink would be propagated to the entire region, making them loose whatever they have achieved. I seriously think both they (the Americans) and the world are well aware and would not sacrifice their gains to minor benefits a Hashemi Rafsanjani would offer them.

This interview ties in well with the most recent article by Edward N. Luttwak "Three Reasons Not to Bomb Iran Yet":

I know of no reputable expert in the United States or in Europe who trusts the constantly repeated promise of Iran’s rulers that their nuclear program will be entirely peaceful and is meant only to produce electricity. The question is what to do about this. Faced with the alarming prospect of an Iran armed with nuclear weapons, some policy experts favor immediate preventive action, while others, of equal standing, invite us to accept what they consider to be inevitable in any case. The former call for the bombing of Iran’s nuclear installations before they can produce actual weapons. The latter, to the contrary, urge a diplomatic understanding with Iran’s rulers in order to attain a stable relationship of mutual deterrence.  

Neither position seems adequately to recognize essential Iranian realities or American strategic priorities. To treat Iran as nothing more than a set of possible bombing targets cannot possibly be the right approach. Still more questionable is the illogical belief that a regime that feels free to attack American interests in spite of its present military inferiority would somehow become more restrained if it could rely on the protective shield of nuclear weapons. [...]

The greater question, however, is neither military nor diplomatic but rather political and strategic: what, in the end, do we wish to see emerge in Iran? It is in light of that long-term consideration that we need to weigh both our actions and their  timing, lest we hinder rather than accelerate the emergence of the future we hope for. We must start by considering the special character of American relations with the country and people of Iran. [...]

Make sure you read it all. Luttwak concludes:

Because of the continuing flow of detailed and timely information out of Iran, it is possible both to overcome the regime’s attempts at dispersion, camouflage, and deception and—if that should become necessary—to target air strikes accurately enough to delay Iran’s manufacture of nuclear weapons very considerably. At the same time, there is no reason to attack prematurely, because there will be ample time to do so before it is too late—that is, before enough fissile material has been produced for one bomb.  

And that brings us back to the beginning. What gives great significance to the factor of time is the advanced stage of the regime’s degeneration. High oil prices and the handouts they fund now help to sustain the regime—but then it might last even without them, simply because of the power of any dictatorship undefeated in war. There is thus no indication that the regime will fall before it acquires nuclear weapons. Yet, because there is still time, it is not irresponsible to hope that it will.

By the same token, however, it is irresponsible to argue for coexistence with a future nuclear-armed Iran on the basis of a shared faith in mutual deterrence. How indeed could deterrence work against those who believe in the return of the twelfth imam and the end of life on earth, and who additionally believe that this redeemer may be forced to reveal himself by provoking a nuclear catastrophe?  

But it is not necessary to raise such questions in order to reject coexistence with a nuclear Iran under its present leaders. As of now, in early 2006, with American and allied ground and air forces deployed on both sides of Iran in Afghanistan and Iraq, with powerful U.S. naval forces at sea to its south, with their own armed forces in shambles and no nuclear weapons, the rulers of Iran are openly financing, arming, training, and inciting anti-American terrorist organizations and militias at large. Under very thin cover, they are doing the same thing within neighboring Iraq, where they pursue a logic of their own by helping Sunni insurgents who kill Shiites, as well as rival Shiite militias that fight one another.

If this is what Iran’s extremist rulers are doing now even without the shield of nuclear weapons to protect them, what would they do if they had it? Even more aggression is the only reasonable answer, beginning with the subversion of the Arabian oil dynasties, where very conveniently there are Shiite minorities to be mobilized.  

These, then, are the clear boundaries of prudent action in response to Iran’s vast, costly, and most dangerous nuclear program. No premature and therefore unnecessary attack is warranted while there is still time to wait in assured safety for a better solution. But also and equally, Iran under its present rulers cannot be allowed finally to acquire nuclear weapons—for these would not guarantee stability by mutual deterrence but would instead threaten us with uncontrollable perils.

Some new lunacy from Iran: "We have announced that wherever America does something evil, the first place that we target will be Israel," Revolutionary Guards Rear Admiral Mohammad-Ebrahim Dehqani was quoted as saying"

Anyone has the latest Iranian definition of "evil"? Yeah right. The clock is ticking, and we're running out of time....

Comments

[sigmund, carl and alfred]

Damn good post.

http://sigcarlfred.blogspot.com/2006/05/lesson-one-from-sca-school-of-foreign.html

See that for a better look at 'what makes Iran run.'

Fakhravar's dissent is in a way, more important that Arab dissent

[Theway2k]

Fakhravar is an Iranian dissident that has spent a good amount of his adult life in prison. The reason: evidently it is blasphemy to criticize Iranian Ayatollahs. Lucky Fakhravar in his attempt at free speech was the unhappy recipient of torture at one of these prisons. Fakhravar comes to the West telling stories about the evilness of Iran, let us pray the West listens.

[Michael Galien]

A few days ago I saw something on tv that really shocked me: the iranian government had organized some sort of 'terrorist fare / fair (?)': You could get instructions there on how to commit suicide attacks, what weapons to use, etc. To top it all off: One could sign up for a suicide mission in Iraq.

In tehran... a terrorist-fair / market...

They don't even make a secret out of it: it was all broadcasted on Iranian national television. It's right there, in the open.