Show Trial
Nine local employees of the British embassy in Tehran were arrested in the turmoil after the Iranian election.
This can and probably should be read as a rude reminder of 1979, just one step short of the diplomatic worst.
Seven of the employees have now been released and apparently another will be soon, but there has been no such luck for Hossein Rossam, according to this report:
A respected Iranian political analyst employed by the British embassy in Tehran is facing a lengthy prison sentence after he was charged yesterday with “acting against national security”.
The charge was a sharp escalation of the hardline Iranian regime’s campaign to blame Britain for instigating demonstrations against last month’s disputed re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Hossein Rassam, the senior Iranian employee at the embassy and a close confidant of the ambassador, Simon Gass, was arrested last Saturday at his home. Eight other Iranian employees of the embassy were also detained.
Seven have been released and another locally employed member of staff from the political section is expected to be freed soon. However, Rassam, 44, has been incarcerated at the notorious Evin prison.
This, from another report, shows how desperate the tyrants are:
Iran has seized on an item of routine travel advice from the Foreign Office’s website as evidence of the alleged political plot for which an employee of the British Embassy in Tehran is to face trial.
…
The Foreign Office said yesterday that the warning, issued in March, was simply part of its regular advice service to any British citizens who might be visiting Iran at the time. “It is a standard line that we issue as a routine travel precaution for any country where there is a possibility of political unrest around an election,” a spokesman said. “Similar advice was issued for Thailand and Lebanon, for example.”But the head of Iran powerful Guardian’s Council, Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, who revealed on Friday that Mr Rassam would face trial, has highlighted it as proof of a conspiracy.
“We discovered that even a website affiliated to the British Foreign Office had announced last March that public unrest and riots may erupt on the streets during the June elections in Iran,” he said. “It advised its nationals to be careful and not to appear in public places during that period… These [predictions] indicated their true intentions.”
The citing of such a flimsy pretext for Tehran’s case against Britain will add to fears that it is planning a “show trial” for Mr Rassam as part of its bid to prove that last month’s disturbances were orchestrated by foreign powers. Mr Rassam, a father-of-one who had previously worked in Iran as an independent political analyst, has been charged with the catch-all offence of “acting against national security” and is being held along with hundreds of other political detainees in Tehran’s notorious Evin Prison.
I am sure that presenters Lauren Booth, George Galloway, Andrew Gilligan, Matthew Richardson, and Yvonne Ridley are drafting their resignation letters to Press TV, the mouthpiece of the regime, right now.
We can count on them, perhaps opening their letters with “We are all Hossein Rassam”, can’t we.
UPDATE: Martin Bright has asked Ridley when she will resign from Press TV. She won’t. She’s, um, standing by the working class:
“What I find particularly upsetting is the inference that the working class and poor living in rural areas don’t really count — that their votes are inferior to the elite classes in north Tehran… maybe it’s ‘cos I’m a working class lass from Tyneside.”
I must say it’s the first time I’ve encountered Yvonne’s class consciousness. But there you have it: oppression is fine if the working classes voted for it (though quite how anyone would know that’s what they did is beyond me).
Anyway, at least Yvonne believes this nonsense. Andrew Gilligan has no such excuse. He’s on holiday at the moment and says he is “thinking about” his position.
Comments
| 4 July 2009, 11:26 pm |
Good article in the Times about this. Maybe Nigel Lawson reads HP?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/dominic_lawson/article6638036.ece
| 5 July 2009, 12:32 am |
Yes, and the question has to be asked of the UK government:-
What childish, naive impulses ever made the Foreign Office think it was right and proper to employ Iranian nationals in our Embassy, knowing that this was an Islamic dictatorship?
| 5 July 2009, 12:08 pm |
For some reason the Iranians think the British are the weakest link of the chain: the militaries and their PB kidnapped months ago, now this…
They would have liked to arrest Americans, I guess… but they better don’t do that ;)
| 5 July 2009, 12:47 pm |
Field -you are too generous. Instead of childish and naive I would have said complacent and patronising.
| 5 July 2009, 1:37 pm |
‘For some reason the Iranians think the British are the weakest link of the chain’
Yes I wonder what has got them thinking this way/
Certainly nothing that a little night time raid of Iranian press TV and the arrest (followed by Show Trials) of;
Lauren Booth, George Galloway, Andrew Gilligan, Matthew Richardson, and Yvonne Ridley couldnt go some decent way towards correcting.
Or does anyone seriously think that the prescence of these odious creatures does not give the Iranian’s a strong senses of how far they can go in this ridiculous anti-British, warmongering.
I am not sure at exactly what point the behaviour of the gang of five becomes so blatantly treasonable that any old citizen’s arrest will be enough to precipitate charge and trial, but I am studying the matter and the further Iran go in this, unwarranted hostility to Britain the closer that day gets.
A wimpy Iranian appeasement government can only tolerate the gang of five so long before the law will be taken out of their hands (this is why democracies must rely as much or more upon an independent judiciary and legal system than some agenda driven short term political administration).
| 5 July 2009, 2:01 pm |
field, that is silly. No embassy can operate without local employees. The FCO, and I’m not a fan, is not at fault here.
As for “why us?”, normally the US would top the regime’s abuse list. It seems that this time round it does not want to challenge Obama too bluntly. So the UK, normally a silver or bronze winner in abuse marathons, gets the gold.
| 5 July 2009, 2:01 pm |
Given the propensity of the Islamofascist Republic of Iran to hang innocent citizens for ’sex crimes’, it is indeed a measure of the UK government’s rank stupidity and irresponsibility to hire locals to work for the British embassy in Tehran. It’s probably almost as stupid to have an embassy there at all. What is the point of diplomatic ties with a regime this bestial? Did we have an embassy in Berlin after September of 1939? What is Miliband up to? Waiting for another mass hostage taking on the scale of the American experience in 1979?
| 5 July 2009, 2:27 pm |
Well, the diplomats’ families have been evacuated from Iran. That shows how much concern there is. Still, I doubt the regime will cross the immunity line and abuse accredited diplomats as well. If it does, it has a lot to lose. Those who have defended very soft lines on Iran will look like fools and their positions will become untenable.
What’s the point of diplomatic relations? They provide an easy, official and occasionally effective channel for communications. Cutting them is an option, but it is a signal of the most extreme displeasure, and would be presented by the regime as more “proof” that the UK is behind the unrest.
A smaller but very significant step is the withdrawal of ambassadors. That should be done in the name of Hossein Rassam.
In fact, the UK has suggested this tactic. If you want to heap scorn on soft lines, try Germany and Italy, which have rejected a withdrawal.
| 5 July 2009, 2:46 pm |
‘But there you have it: oppression is fine if the working classes voted for it ‘
I wonder whether Ms Ridley would use the same logic about one A. Hitler’s authority? After all, there’s no serious doubt that the elections upon which he swept into power were democratic.
| 5 July 2009, 3:04 pm |
I am still a bit puzzled about the Iranians claiming FO advice to take care if you are in Iran at the time of the elections, was proof of a plot. I thought the majority of Iranians had some basic education, and would be unlikely to regard this as “serious” evidence. (I see the Iranians have also claimed they have footage of our embassy employees stirring up the crowds, but have not yet produced this).
When I lived in Algeria, the Algerians would not have bought these sorts of trumped up excuses for a fight. Or am I wrong and are most of the Iranian population illiterate and credulous? (We all know that Ms Ridley has long been several slices short of a sandwich and her views are not to be taken seriously).
| 5 July 2009, 4:08 pm |
I find it rather strange that Martin gets upset at my being paid for producing and presenting a weekly current affairs show in which he was happy to come on as a guest. (he declined a fee and asked the cheque be given to someone else)
And yet, before he lost his last full-time job as a journalist, he was more than happy to go on a freebie to israel paid for by an arms dealer.
This has previously ben published on his own blog, and not contradicted, in fact Martin was rather silent about it.
BICOM is funded by Poju Zabludowicz who got his money from this company http://www.soltam.com/ click on the link to see how Martin Bright’s trip was paid for in blood
Soltam is an Israeli company which operates both on the military market and the civilian market. Its military expertise is artillery systems, cannons and ammunition. It is a subsidiary of the Israeli defense firm Elbit.
Military products:
* Tank guns
o Merkava smoothbore 120 mm main gun
* Artillery – towed gun and self-propelled gunshowitzers
o M-68 towed 155 mm howitzer.
o M-71 towed 155 mm howitzer.
o Rascal self-propelled 155 mm howitzer
o Slammer (Sholef) – Merkava-based self-propelled 155 mm howitzer.
* Mortars
o Merkava 60 mm internal mortar.
o Cardom 120 mm self-propelled mortar.
o Dragon EFSS (Cardom, version for the USMC).
o M-65 120 mm mortar.
o M-66 160 mm mortar.
* Ammunition
o Mortar shells (60 mm, 81 mm, 120 mm, 160 mm)
o Artillery shells (155 mm , 175 mm)
Another client of Soltam is ‘Prince of Darkness’ and neo-con Richard Perle
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=richard...
‘His first clients are Israeli arms dealers Shlomo Zabludowicz, and his son Chaim Zabludowicz, who would like to sell the US weapons produced by Soltam Ltd., an Israeli company that makes mortars, artillery, ammunition, and other civilian and military products.’.
| 5 July 2009, 4:50 pm |
When I lived in Algeria, the Algerians would not have bought these sorts of trumped up excuses for a fight. Or am I wrong and are most of the Iranian population illiterate and credulous?
Please don’t assume that the majority of Iranians are gullible enough to believe whatever their government tells them– that is, don’t confuse them with Yvonne Ridley. The events of recent weeks have suggested otherwise.
| 5 July 2009, 4:57 pm |
I’m sure Obama will bring them best wishes.
| 5 July 2009, 9:05 pm |
There is a very important article that entirely scuppers Ridley’s dubious assertion that the rural working class voted for ArmchairsAreBad and his lethal regime:
http://tehranbureau.com/irans-rural-vote-and-election-fraud/
So, given the earlier comments to the effect that even if the urban and rural poor did vote for the clerical fascist regime it don’t make it right (there is a distinction between “is” and “should” that conveniently escapes Ridley and like-minded fellow-travellers) – and now given the fact that at least one fieldworker with over 30 years of experience amongst Iran’s rural poor says that the Persian peasantry hate AsMadAsAHatter too – we must conclude that Ridley is talking utter bollocks… as usual.
| 5 July 2009, 9:06 pm |
Yvonne, thanks very much for bringing Soltam to our attention.
Clearly, it’s an excellent firm, producing quality products, used in a just cause.
No time to chat now, though. I’m off to buy a State of Israel Bond (a good investment in tough times :-)
| 5 July 2009, 9:17 pm |
This, of course, would be the Iranian peasantry, who on liberation from serfdom in the “White Revolution” were immediately faced with armed terrorist pogroms unleashed by Shi’a clerics and their fanatical gangs of street toughs (the ancestors of today’s Basij and Ansar)… the Shi’a clergy being amongst the biggest landlords adversely effected by that long-ago reform of the Shah’s regime.
Indeed, it is one of the great ironic twists of history that the Shi’a clergy, once so loyal to the Persian monarchy that they twisted their own faith in order to lend the latter still greater theological credence, when faced with the elimination of their huge revenues from the feudal land system in the Shah’s “White Revolution”, became the Shah’s greatest enemies. In all, the Iranian peasantry have no reason to love or like the Shi’a clergy of that land.
Anyone who believes that the Shi’a clergy of Iran have held the working people of that country in anything other than more or less open contempt neither knows the history of Iran, nor the history of the Iranian clergy’s perversion of Shi’a Islam in their own often very venal self-interests.
| 5 July 2009, 9:24 pm |
Two to three generations ago, the world was naive enough such that totalitarianism garnered support from some otherwise rather fine writers and artists.
Today, the world, perhaps more self-aware and knowing, is such that totalitarianism (such as that in Iran) can only garner the support of second-rate hacks and failed opportunist politicians with a penchant for self-publicity, ethnic headware, and catsuits.
| 5 July 2009, 10:05 pm |
It seems noble of Martin Bright to have donated waived his appearance fee, donating to another cause, no doubt worthy. It also seems good that he is open about visiting Israel at the behest of an organization funded by those dedicated to ensuring the future existence and economic health of this democracy.
But he only went with BICOM once and over a year ago. How different from one who is hired to play Axis Sally week in week out, to push the propaganda of a blood-soaked regime with similar methods and opinions.
| 5 July 2009, 10:41 pm |
In concluding his interesting article, linked to above, which appears to refute claims that there is overwhelming evidence that the rural poor voted for Ahmedinejad, Professor Hoogland says in conclusion:
“But (the Iranian) political elite is divided over how Iran should be governed: a transparent democracy where elected representatives enact laws to benefit the people or a ‘guided democracy’ in which a select few make all decisions because they do not trust the masses to make the right ones.”
I am struggling with the concept of “guided democracy”. What is democratic about a regime in which “a select few make all the decisions because they do not trust the masses to make the right ones”.
And why incidentally do the ayatollahs dislike Mousavi so much?
| 5 July 2009, 11:46 pm |
“Israelinurse
Field -you are too generous. Instead of childish and naive I would have said complacent and patronising.”
Well let’s just say childish, naive, complacent AND patronising.
Habibi –
I don’t accept that an embassy cannot operate without local employees. Why ever not?
But I agree with those who query why we should ever have an embassy in a country that regularly announces its intention to destroy two countries that are our ally or friend.
| 6 July 2009, 11:41 am |
Mrs Ben
Your point about so-called “guided democracy” is well made. I too struggle with the contradiction immanent in this expression.
Another article that destroys Ridley’s inane and ill informed claims (this time concerning the urban poor and their vote) may be found here:
http://tehranbureau.com/who-voted-for-ahmadinejad/
The author, Robert Dreyfus, toured Tehran’s poorest suburbs and found scant evidence of support for Ahmadinejad amongst the urban poor electorate.
Why do the clerical elite dislike Mousavi so much? Well, actually, largely they do not. See this article concerning the widening divide amongst the clergy:
http://tehranbureau.com/widening-divide/
and this:
http://tehranbureau.com/grand-ayatollah-rejects-election-results/
However, a faction presently dominant amongst them dislike Mousavi because he favours even the very limited democracy at work in Iran. This faction, associated with Ahmadnejad and his mentor, the repellent ultra-conservative, Ayatollah Yazdi. The following is enlightening:
http://tehranbureau.com/fatwa-issued-for-changing-the-vote-in-favor-of-ahmadinejad/
And the following article is one of the most important written in a long time, explaining very clearly the fascist threat faced by ordinary Iranians from a deeply reactionary and sinister faction within the clerical elite:
http://tehranbureau.com/the-leaders-of-iran%E2%80%99s-election-coup/
In all, I would recommend the following website, as an excellent and informed source:
Finally, one might point to the elitist and definitely anti-democratic strain in a lot of Shi’a Islamic political theory and theology. This was explored quite adequately by (amongst others) the late Hamid Enayat.
It is a lot cheaper to use local staff at embassies. However, if there is a State vs. State face-off the staff, with some loyalty to their employer, have no diplomatic immunity.
Just who could have see that coming.