Iranian Music Teacher Jailed for Opium Smuggling

From The Evening Standard:

A music teacher who brought almost £200,000 of opium into Britain has been jailed for seven and a half years.

Jamshid Soltani-Tehrani, 47, of Hammersmith, pleaded guilty to smuggling 19.98 kilos of the drug into the country.

The Iranian national was caught after arriving at St Pancras Station on the Eurostar from Brussels in March.

UK Border Agency officers discovered the drugs stashed in a computer case Soltani-Tehrani was carrying and also in a bodypack around his midriff and arrested him. The seizure was the result of a joint Hammersmith council, Hammersmith police and central government operation to crack down on drugs and fraud.

Peter Avery, assistant director of HM Revenue and Customs criminal investigation, said: "Our investigators are determined to bring anyone involved in drug smuggling to justice.

"Drugs devastate lives and communities and we are determined to prevent them reaching UK streets."

Greg Smith, a Hammersmith councillor, today welcomed the sentence which he said contributed to making "the streets of Hammersmith and Fulham free of drugs and drug dealers". He added: "Around 80 per cent of our most prolific criminals are addicted to either opiates or crack cocaine, or both.

"Drugs destroy lives and we will continue to hound those who peddle them into submission."

Soltani-Tehrani was jailed at Isleworth crown court last week.

Opium, which contains morphine, is extracted from poppy seeds and used to produce heroin.

Controlling poppy fields is one of the key elements of the war in Afghanistan, where the drug is controlled by the Taliban.

The net weight of the opium he pleaded guilty to importing has been estimated to have a street value of £199,980.

Sweden Gets it Right - and Wrong

Something which we are not accustomed to seeing occurred today - some common sense was displayed by the Swedish authorities:

Iranian nationals have been banned from Swedish university programmes with ties to nuclear and missile technologies following a warning from the country’s Säpo security service.

So far two Swedish institutions – The Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm and Chalmers University of Technology in Gothenburg – have decided to turn away applicants from Iran.

“For us it means that we don’t accept Iranian citizens to our masters programme in nuclear technology,” said Chalmers spokesperson Magnus Myrén to the TT news agency.

The restrictions also affect students from North Korea, but according to Säpo there are only a handful of North Koreans studying in Sweden.

The measure comes as part of a 2007 European Union regulation connected to a 2006 United Nations resolution authorizing sanctions on Iran.

“It concerns not only that which is directly affected by nuclear weapons, but also aerospace technology,” Säpo spokesperson Patrik Peter told TT.

According to Sveriges Radio, Säpo, along with two other agencies – the Inspectorate of Strategic Products (ISP) and the Radiation Safety Administration (Strålsäkerhetsmyndigheten) – sent letters to the heads of security at seven Swedish universities alerting them to how their institutions could be affected by the restrictions on Iranians wishing to study in Sweden.

As we await the first human rights lawsuit as a result of this situation, it is a shame that Sweden cannot generally be so sensible about its policies pertaining to immigration, entry and settlement.

It was also announced today that the Gothia Cup, an annual youth football tournament, ended with five Tanzanian players absconding in Sweden. Apparently, some of the African players absconding before they fly home is as much a tradition as the tournament itself.

The disappearance of five Tanzanian youth footballers has prompted the Swedish Migration Board (Migrationsverket) to tighten entry requirements for non-European players in the Gothia Cup, the world's largest youth football tournament.

The event is held every July in Heden, outside of Gothenburg in western Sweden, and features 1600 teams from 60 nations.

Starting in 2011, players will be required to provide a fingerprint in order to receive an entry permit to Sweden, reported Göteborgs-Posten (GP) newspaper.

The Migration Board wants to make it more difficult for players to drop out of the tournament and seek asylum under false pretenses.

Fingerprints make it easier to recognize individuals who apply for asylum elsewhere in Sweden or in other Schengen countries.

Five players from Tanzania disappeared after this year's tournament. As of Monday, none of them had file asylum claims.

But Leif Andersson of Migrationsverket in Gothenburg says that most defectors wait awhile before applying for asylum. That makes it less likely that the Migration Board will be able to make a connection between the applicant and the Gothia Cup, reported GP.

The five who disappeared are born between 1990 and 1993 and all played for the same team. According to Nils Lundqvist, police inspector at in Gothenburg, it's not uncommon for players to disappear in the wake of the tournament.

“It's a common occurrence after Gothia. Every year, we have young people who disappear. There are always a handful, most often from African countries, who take off,” he told GP.

Lundquist told GP that last year, an entire team from Libya disappeared. In another case, a number of Tanzanian girls left their team in 2002. Four years later, two of them were found working as prostitutes in Gothenburg.

Would it be too sensible to simply ban teams from certain nations, or make it clear that if a team member absconded, the entire team would be deported and banned in future, rather than just waiting for some of them to abscond and get up to God knows what?

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei Backs Iranian Election Result

Iran's supreme leader has finally broken his silence to throw his support behind Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the victor in the Iranian presidential election.

From the Telegraph:

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei declared that the election in which Presidential Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was controversially declared the winner was "over".

In a clear endorsement of the incumbent president, the Supreme Leader said that his own views were closest to Mr Ahmadinejad's vision for Iran's foreign policy than that of any other candidate.

In a long sermon at Friday prayers at Tehran University, he also warned demonstrators that they must stop their daily protests.

The election's outcome was a vindication of the Islamic Republic, he said, and stated that there was "no cheating".

In an attempt to stave off a formal split in the regime, he declared all four candidates were part of the Islamic system. "The competition for the election was very clear and we can until now we can witness that the competition was among four persons who are from and belong to the Islamic system," he said.

He said that on the basis of an 85 per cent turnout, the vote was an earthquake for the country's enemies. "If the people did not trust in the system they would not participate in it," he said. "Iran's enemies are targeting the beliefs and trust of the people."

He declared that Iran was a functioning democracy, a message he said he wanted to send to Western countries "which are leaders of the media".

He said: "These divisions come from the Zionist radio and the bad British radio trying to change the meaning of the election."

He also branded the British government the 'most treacherous' in the world as he addressed followers for the first time since the country's disputed election.

The cleric used Friday prayers to make his extraordinary attack. After he spoke, thousands of supporters who had packed a hall at Tehran University chanted: 'Death to the UK, America and Israel'.

Khamenei told his audience that there was no doubt Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had won the election and secured a second term as president.

'Some of our enemies in different parts of the world intended to depict this absolute victory, this definite victory, as a doubtful victory, ' he said.

Despite this attempt at a display of unity, two of the four presidential candidates were not present, including Mousavi.

Yesterday supporters of Ahmadinejad's main rival, Mir Hossein Mousavi, held a day of mourning for those shot in protests earlier this week.

The huge protests and unrest have moved even hard-liner Ahmadinejad, who was forced to backtrack on comments about the protesters:

Overnight Mr Ahmadinejad was forced to backtrack on his previous dismissal of the protesters as "dust" and sore losers.

"I was only addressing those who rioted, set fires and attack people. I said they are nothing," said Mr Ahmadinejad. "Every single Iranian is valuable. Government is a service to all."

Mousavi is still demanding a full recount and if necessary another election. His supporters show no signs of backing down. Khamenei alluded to harsher clampdowns, however:

Ayatollah Khamenei acknowledged some "different points of view" with the veteran powerbroker.

He condemned "black" attacks on Mr Admadinejad, who he praised as hardworking. The Supreme Leader said Mr Ahmadinejad's views on "social justice" were "closer to mine". Drawing cheers of "God is Great", he said the Basij militia, or religious police, would stand against the protesters.

The Jerusalem Post reported earlier his week that there is strong evidence of an Arab presence among the government's thugs and militias - potentially even the presence of Hamas members:

“The most important thing that I believe people outside of Iran should be aware of,” the young man went on, “is the participation of Palestinian forces in these riots.”

Another protester, who spoke as he carried a kitchen knife in one hand and a stone in the other, also cited the presence of Hamas in Teheran.

On Monday, he said, “my brother had his ribs beaten in by those Palestinian animals. Taking our people’s money is not enough, they are thirsty for our blood too.”

It was ironic, this man said, that the victorious Ahmadinejad “tells us to pray for the young Palestinians, suffering at the hands of Israel.” His hope, he added, was that Israel would “come to its senses” and ruthlessly deal with the Palestinians.

When asked if these militia fighters could have been mistaken for Lebanese Shi’ites, sent by Hizbullah, he rejected the idea. “Ask anyone, they will tell you the same thing. They [Palestinian extremists] are out beating Iranians in the streets… The more we gave this arrogant race, the more they want… [But] we will not let them push us around in our own country.”

It is believed that at least twenty people have been killed in the protests so far.

Tehran is Burning (II)

Despite the authorities banning gatherings and protests, yesterday hundreds of thousands of Iranians marched on the capital in support of opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, who officially lost the election.

It is being reported that seven or eight people are dead after riot police and militias loyal to the regime opened fire on the largest protest.

Now, however, the mullahs have declared that some of the votes will be re-counted.

From the Telegraph:

Iran's Council of Guardians has said it is ready to recount votes from last week's disputed election in the wake of clashes at mass protests that have led to the deaths of at least eight people.

In a statement released through state media, the powerful committee of 12 clerics said the move may lead to changes in the candidates' tally.

A spokesman said it was "ready to recount the disputed ballot boxes claimed by some candidates, in the presence of their representatives".

"It is possible that there may be some changes in the tally after the recount," Abbasali Kadkhodai, a spokesman, was quoted as saying by the official IRNA news agency.

But a senior reformist ally of the defeated candidates Mir-Hossein Mousavi, the former prime minister, and Mehdi Karoubi said they wanted a rerun rather than a recount of "a few ballot boxes".

The council was asked to formally cancel the result by Mr Mousavi.

He has promised not to give up the struggle despite President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad being declared the winner with 63 per cent of the vote at the weekend.

The result has triggered three days on unrest in Tehran and elsewhere in the country.

Seven people have died in clashes in the capital after an "unauthorised gathering" following a mass rally over alleged election fraud.

Reports on state radio said they were killed in shooting after several people in the west of the capital "tried to attack a military location" on Monday evening.

Tehran is Burning

Hopeful as some were that reform could take place, it was apparently not to be.

Incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared victory in the Iranian presidential elections yesterday, and today held a huge victory rally attended by tens of thousands of people. The official results from the Iranian Interior Ministry and a video of the rally can be seen below:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: 62.6%
Mir Hossein Mousavi: 33.8%
Mohsen Rezai: 1.7%
Mehdi Karroubi 0.9%
Turnout: 85%



This is not the full story, however.

Tehran is burning. Many were hoping that reformist Mir Hossein Mousavi would win. High turnout, believed to be up to 85%, fuelled speculation that it would be a much tighter race than it appears if you believe the official figures.

Many in Iran, especially educated women and young people (the majority of the population) yearn for change.

They yearn for the freedom to say what they like, uncover their hair in public without being beaten and arrested, and to live in peace with the wider world.

The results belie this, however. They have endorsed a collision course with Israel and potentially the United States, a strict application of Islam and Sharia law, and a continuation of the status quo with regard to women's rights.

Clearly, all is not as it seems. Hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets after the victory declaration, demanding a re-count and claiming that the election was rigged. This sparked a massive security clamp down in Tehran, with streets being sealed off and mass arrests being authorised.

The British government issued a few weak noises; concerns expressed about how the ballots were counted, duly noted - now it's up to the, er, Iranian authorites to call for an investigation.

To top it all off, here is what Jimmy Carter, who was the Unites States' worst mistake until 2008, had to say:

It does not really matter who wins and becomes president since he is sure that the Supreme Leader will listen and take advice from the opposition.

Sweet Jesus, the stupidity and wilful blindness of some people will never cease to amaze me.

According to the excellent blog antimullah.com, the following things have happened in Iran as of Sunday evening:

1. Former President Hashem Rafsanjani has been arrested and taken to be held at the house of Supreme Ruler Ali Khamenei, where he was forced to resign as the head of the Expediency Council and Council of Experts. He is being held there until further notice to be at the pleasure of the Supreme Ruler.

Rafsanjani not only spent money to oppose Ahmadi-Nejad's re-"selection" but also made a big mistake of threatening the Supreme Ruler with the fact that the councils headed by Rafsanjani were the ones who had to declare the eligibility of the Supreme Ruler and could remove him from office with a quick vote.

He is not expected to emerge alive from his detention.

2. Mir Hossein Moussavi is reported to also be under arrest when he was taken at a press conference and being held hostage to prevent his supporters from pouring into the streets. His life for their remaining out of the streets. His wife Zahra Rahnevard, co-campaigner and head of the Al-Zahra College was also arrested.

Rapidly fired employees of the Ministry of Interior, responsible for the voting results, reportedly told Moussavi he had won by a large margin and to be prepared to take office, two things happened:

a) Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi, nicknamed the "crocodile", leader of the fervent, apocalypse preaching Hojatieh 12th Imam followers and Ahmadi-Nejad's mentor, promptly issued a "fatwah" to reverse the vote count results and accord Moussavi's votes to Ahmadi-Nejad and vice versa. A fatwah is a must be obeyed religious decree for devout Moslems.

b) Former Tehran mayor Karbassi, head of the Election Committee was quickly arrested.

3. Former Reformist President Khatami's brother, Seyed Mohammad, was also arrested though his more prominent brother is still said to be at liberty.

4. For now reports of 'ayatollah' Mehdi Kahrubi, himself a candidate, having been arrested appear to be unfounded.

5. All reformist newspapers have been invaded and taken over by enforcement agents. Dozens of journalists at those locations have been arrested though Moussavi's Ghalam (pen) reportedly has restarted publishing. Though Kahroubi's "Etemad Melli" (National Confidence) remains shuttered.

The sound of democracy in action, nicht wahr?

I genuinely hope something can be salvaged from the struggle for freedom and the loosening of the grip of the mullahs, but I am not hopeful.

Change must come one day, however; women in this country comprise half of all graduates, and applications such as facebook and blogger are changing how young Iranians see the world - and Iran's place in it.

The mullahs will not give up their grip on power lightly; they have shown what they are capable of when their status quo is under threat, and they will crack down ruthlessly on any dissenters.

But, sometimes change has its own momentum; here are images from Tehran over the past two days.

Apprentice Winner's Father Has Harem

The Left-wing Daily Mirror does simpering dhimmitude quite well, but it surpassed itself yesterday with an article on the family situation of Apprentice winner Yasmina Siadatan, whose father is Iranian.

The headline screams: A harem and 12 kids..but dad showed me how to be a winner.

Of course. Because we wouldn't want anyone to get the idea that such unconventional living arrangements can emotionally damage all concerned. We wouldn't want anyone to get the idea that the married family, the building block of civilisation, was somehow superior to letting an Iranian immigrant claim benefits for wives and mistresses.

Her father has three wives, 12 children and even moved his mistress into the family home.

But it was this unconventional upbringing which gave gutsy Yasmina Siadatan the drive and determination to be crowned Sir Alan Sugar's latest Apprentice.

Far from condemning Iranian dad Medi's complex love life, she praises him for inspiring her victory.

Of course she does. But then, we do live in a society which sees selfishness and 'if it feels right, do it' as the ultimate aspirations.

The article continues:

Dad Medi now lives in the Middle East with his harem but is said to be proud of his high-flying daughter.

The tycoon, 57, who made his money in catering, came to the UK from Italy in 1975 and married Yasmina's mother Paula in Leeds a year later. They had three children together - Matthew, Tim and Yasmina - but after just two years of marriage Medi began an affair.

He eventually confessed to Paula who astonishingly agreed to let his girlfriend move in.

However, the bizarre arrangement was not a success and, after three difficult months, Medi and Paula filed for divorce. He said: "The jealousy was terrible. Paula and I agreed to divorce and I decided that, in future, I would follow the Muslim way.

"My religion says, just as a lion has at least four females in his pride, a man can take up to four women."

In 1986 Medi married Italian Cinzia Crispimo, now 47, in an Islamic ceremony in Turkey. Three years later he wed a second Italian, Stefania Loi, 41, before getting hitched to Brit Sarah Deakin, 35, in 1993.

Medi later launched a doomed legal battle challenging Britain's laws against polygamy and was a leader in a campaign for the UK to recognise Islamic partnerships. Yasmina and her brothers have long accepted their father's polygamy and are said to call Cinzia, Stefania and Sarah all "mum".

Medi said of his wives: "I decide during the day who I am going to be sleeping with. I don't have a rota and occasionally the four of us push the beds together.

"I don't like to see my wives feeling left out.

"I'm living in good harmony, we live together very well, the women have no jealousy. They know I have enough love for all of them."

He has even contemplating another wife. Medi said: "My wives and I have discussed this and they know I may introduce somebody else in the future. She will be another friend for them."

The lion comparison is apt - because animals can't control themselves. Human beings are supposed to be able to show self-restraint and self-respect.

How much self-respect can these women really have?

What sort of loathing for their own culture and their own values must they have felt in order to wish to live like this?

This will be our downfall as a society and a civilisation. We are raised to despise ourselves and our history, whilst people who live like this are raised to have confidence and shout it from the rooftops so that one day we might all be 'accepting' and 'tolerant'.

The idea that being raised like this is responsible for her success is simply laughable, unless of course the confidence is just a cover for low self-esteem.

But then, I suppose the idea that a journalist might wish to analyse this situation rather than simply celebrating it as another nail in the coffin for our values is absurd.

Roxana Saberi is Free

It has been announced that Iranian-American journalist Roxana Saberi has been freed from an Iranian jail, where she was sent after being convicted of spying.

Saberi was on hunger strike, but an Iranian appeal court has just reduced her sentence from 8 years jail to two years suspended.

Her father has confirmed that she has 'just left' the prison, the notorious Evin jail in Tehran.

Seeing as we know that not much happens in Iran without the backing of the Mullahs, I can only deduce that this case is what I said it was all along - part of an elaborate game of chess between Obama and the Iranian regime.

I wish Miss Saberi all the best.

Obama & Roxana Saberi

It was announced earlier this week that at least 70% of Americans are happy with the direction in which Obama is taking America.

Rarely, far more people think that the country is heading in the right direction than not.

I must say this surprises me greatly, because I can't really see that Obama is headed in the right direction at all, particularly when it comes to foreign policy.

The tip of this iceberg is the case of US journalist Roxana Saberi, arrested in Iran in January - allegedly for buying a bottle of wine.

Miss Saberi, who is of Iranian and Japanese parentage, was then accused of working as a journalist without a valid press card. Finally, on 8th April 2009, the charges against her were upgraded to a full blown accusation that she was an American spy.

Between January and March, Miss Saberi was only able to contact her family twice, and confirmed that she was being held in Tehran's Evin Prison. She claimed that she was not being physically harmed.

On 20th of April she was convicted of espionage and sentenced to 8 years in prison.


It is understood that Iranian President Ahmadinejad personally told the prosecutor that Saberi should be permitted a proper defence.

However, it has now been announced that Miss Saberi is on hunger strike, and has been so for five days.

The BBC refers to this as a 'strange case'. Former colleagues of Miss Saberi describe her as careful, and insist she was aware of the dangers of operating as a Western journalist in a repressive state and would not have taken unnecessary risks.

So what exactly is going on?

In my humble opinion, Miss Saberi is a pawn in the game between Obama and Ahmadinejad. Admittedly, she was arrested before Obama's Newroz message overture to the Iranian regime, but the charges have been slowly escalating, and now obviously she is in prison and possibly in grave danger.

Her father and Western observers claim that the trial was a sham which lasted only a few minutes.

This is quite clearly a test of Obama's mettle. Some disagree; they claim it is the easiest way for Iranian hardliners to shoot down Obama's peace and reconciliation hopes in flames, by forcing his hand.

There's probably some partial truth in this. However, what I see is a very inexperienced US President increasingly floundering and being played by his friends and his enemies alike when it comes to the world stage.

The world is curious; how far can this man, who talks peace and has no real foreign policy experience, be pushed?

How far will he go to preserve the fantasy of an America loved equally by all the peoples of the world?

My fear is that he will actually go quite far. Then, like Bush, when he feels forced up against the wall, he may well lash out and regret it. Unlike Bush, he seems to believe that every other leader on earth is also a naive optimist who just wants to play nice.

That is a hallmark of inexperience.

As 'The Frozen North' has it:

At least Obama has finally spoken up about Saberi’s case. He says that “we are going to be in contact” with Iran via the Swiss, and that it is “appropriate” that Saberi is released. (Tough talk, eh?) It’s not clear why Saberi being released should be seen as ”a coup” for Obama. If Saberi is innocent, and Iran is playing political games here, then forcing an American president to go on bended knee to them, via the Swiss, would be something of “a coup” for Iran, not for America.

Exactly. The problem with negotiating with regimes such as Iran's is that there is very little common ground, which is absolutely necessary for meaningful dialogue, promises and compromise.

If one side wants peace and the other simply sees peace as a stop on the road to more concessions and ultimate victory - well, we have the Israeli-Arab conflict. This is the elephant in the room when it comes to modern negotiations, but that doesn't mean it's untrue.

I am fairly confident that if Ahmadinejad thought of Obama as a man who says what he means and means what he says, then Miss Saberi would be back at home.

These are dangerous times - can the civilised world afford Obama's learning curve?

As Miss Saberi turns 32 in Iranian custody today, I would suggest not.

Hat tip: The Frozen North.

When the Strands of History Merge: Holocaust Memorial Day, Hitler & Ahmadinejad

Today is a national day of mourning in Israel as the Holocaust, the slaughter of Jews and others perpetuated by the Nazi regime is remembered, those who died commemorated.

There are many lessons for the modern world to be found in the suffering those people endured, the way some overcame all the odds to survive and many others were simply not so fortunate.

It seems that these lessons are never heeded until it is too late, however; how ironic that on this day, which is also Adolf Hitler's birthday, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was welcomed to Switzerland by the Swiss premier and allowed to address a UN conference on 'anti-racism' in Geneva.

Many important states chose to boycott the conference; sadly, the United Kingdom was not among them.

Much was made of the fact that when Ahmadinejad began to spread his poison and outright lies about the Israeli government at the podium, several diplomats walked out, including the British ambassador to the UN.

They should not have been there in the first place, however; Ahmadinejad is a notorious anti-semite. He calls the Holocaust 'a myth', and has called for the state of Israel to be wiped off the map. What were the diplomats who attended expecting him to say?

It was fairly obvious that this run up to Durban II and Durban II itself will be an outlet for undue criticism of Israel, whilst ignoring the sins of any Muslim state. That is exactly what happened last time, and it is why many civilised nations are boycotting the conference this time, and showing it up for the joke it is.

Allowing Ahmadinejad to speak goes beyond a joke - even UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon admitted that he used his speech to 'divide' and 'incite'. I'll ask again - what did he expect?

Many states have tried to reaffirm the spirit of the earlier conference; this means that Islam will be placed beyond criticism on the pretext of protecting religions from 'defamation', and the crimes of Muslim and other regimes will be ignored in favour of spewing obsessional hatred about Israel.

Here's what Ahmadinejad said:

'Following World War II they resorted to military aggressions to make an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering.

'And they sent migrants from Europe, the U.S. and other parts of the world in order to establish a totally racist government in the occupied Palestine.

'And in fact, in compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe, they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive racist regime in Palestine.'

He then went on to call Israel a 'cruel and repressive racist regime'.

Obviously his own treatment of Kurds, Jews and other ethnic and religious minorities, not to mention women, simply does not matter; all of our focus should be on Israel, the only free nation in the Middle East.

As this nonsense becomes increasingly mainstream and dangerous, the words of Shimon Peres on Holocaust Memorial Day ring true:

"Nazism was defeated, but anti-Semitism is still alive. The gas has evaporated, but the poison remains."

Quite. Whilst Islam is immune from the criticism it constantly issues to everyone else, it always will remain - the UN should be fighting its attempts to silence the free world, not aiding and abetting.

As Burmese dissident Daw Aung San Suu Kyi said: “Please use your liberty to promote ours”

That is the founding ideal of the UN, and it is sad to see how far it has deviated from it.

Watch the rest of Ahmadinejad's speech, along with demonstrators dressed as clowns and wildly applauding Arab diplomats, here:

Social Problems in Iran

The following documentary is part of the BBC's 'Storyville' series, and I've been meaning to upload it here for some time. At 50 minutes it's quite long, so I've had to break it down to six parts, but it's very interesting and well worth the watch.

'Prostitution Behind the Veil' looks at many of the social problems found in modern Iran, particularly those concerning women and their treatment in the strict Islamic Republic. Many problems and activities which would not be automatically associated with such a country are actually exacerbated by strict Islamic law.

Some of the issues addressed are women forced into prostitution, drug addiction (a huge and growing problem in Iran), and the sale of babies to rich couples by poor women to avoid the wrath of the authorities for 'illicit' sexual activity.

A horrifying and fascinating phenomenon explored by the programme is that of 'Sighe' or Nikāḥ al-Mut‘ah (Arabic: نكاح المتعة‎ marriage for pleasure), whereby Shia Islamic law allows short 'marriages' between men and young girls, some as short as an hour, simply so the men can indulge themselves in a way which is acceptable in Islam.

Many of the women take on a 'Sighe' contract out of convenience, providing sex and getting a man to do things such as odd jobs in return - but some suffer from horrifying abuse at the hands of older men, and there are cases of men who already have a family getting a Sighe wife pregnant and then snatching the child or forcing her to have an illegal abortion.

The programme is narrated in Farsi with English subtitles - but some strong language is included.

When the Strands of History Come Together

Glancing at Wikipedia's 'on this day' section, I notice four events occurred which at first seem quite separate from each other, but actually have a strong relationship if not to each other, then to the modern world.

On 23rd March 1775 Patrick Henry made his "Give me liberty or give me death," speech to the Virginia House of Burgesses. This speech is credited with convincing said house to commit troops to the American Revolution.

On 23rd March 1933 the German Reichstag passed the Enabling Act, which effectively gave Adolf Hitler dictatorial powers over Germany by ensuring any decisions he made could bypass the Reichstag.

On 23rd March 1940 the Muslim League drafted the Lahore Resolution, calling for greater autonomy in British India.

On 23rd March 2007 Iranian Revolutionary Guards captured 15 Royal Navy personnel and imprisoned them for 12 days.

All of these events still seem relevant when you look at current affairs. In the first we see a patriot lamenting the state of his nation and the treatment of his countrymen by what he sees as a tyrannical force completely out of touch with the populace and its customs - Geert Wilders, anyone?

The analogy is far from perfect and obviously they have some completely different goals, but the similarity is there - both free-born men who wish to decide their own fate, not be at the behest of outside forces or traitors in their own land.

As for the Enabling Act in 1933 - there are many chilling similarities between this law and the Civil Contingencies Act of 2004, a New Labour nonsense foisted on the British people for use in an 'emergency'. We also have the Terrorism Act and the ID Cards Act.

The political Left spend much time discussing the rise of the 'far-Right' and how Europe should have learned its lessons from fascism the first time around, but another thing people should have learned is giving the government, any government, unlimited power is a terrible and potentially tragic error.

Even if one see the current British Government as benign, which I do not, there is no telling what the government of tomorrow will be like. The Civil Contingencies Act basically allows the Prime Minister and the Cabinet to bypass Parliament on a range of issues, temporarily suspending any Act of Parliament but the Human Rights Act 1998 (naturally, the least useful piece of legislation must remain).

This includes suspending the right to trial by jury, and taking on powers nominally reserved for the Sovereign such as suspending Parliament or even suspending elections. It also includes all of our ancient freedoms and liberties, generally found in the Habeas Corpus Act 1679 and the Bill of Rights 1689. Of course, these are the rights which our soldiers are dying to spread to far-off deserts.

As for the other two events - to me they encompass the idea that nearly 70 years apart, Muslims are still trying to blackmail the West to get their way through violence.

Of course, the British and the Hindus and Sikhs were far from blameless during the partition of India, but the demands made by the Muslim League are largely responsible for the ongoing insurgency in Kashmir, and the belief of many Pakistanis that more of India belongs to them than is contained within Pakistan's borders (that and, of course, India's large Muslim population).

Perhaps not explicitly, but like all ideas of Islamic supremacy masquerading as civil rights, it's there in the background.

That leads us neatly on to the incident in 2007. At that point, we were probably almost at war with Iran due to groups they backed, armed and funded being responsible for many British deaths in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

However, they had to add insult to injury - from Wikipedia:

Iranian military personnel seized 15 Royal Navy personnel during 2007 and held them for 12 days. On 23 March 2007, 15 British Royal Navy personnel, from HMS Cornwall, were surrounded by the Navy of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and were subsequently detained off the Iraq-Iran coast. In the course of events, the British forces claimed that the boat was in Iraqi waters, but the Iranian side insisted that they were in Iran's territorial waters. A year later a British investigation report[1] was released which stated that the area in which the incident took place was not covered by any formal agreement between Iran and Iraq.[2][3] The 15 personnel were released on 4 April 2007.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad unexpectedly announced the release of the captives halfway through a long press conference on the afternoon of 4 April 2007.[99][100]

"On the occasion of the birthday of the great prophet, and for the occasion of the passing of Christ, I say the Islamic Republic government and the Iranian people — with all powers and legal right to put the soldiers on trial — forgave those 15. This pardon is a gift to the British people."[20] When returned to the UK the group claimed to have been put under "constant psychological pressure" from the Iranian authorities.[21] In addition, British equipment including secure voice communication kit and navigational hardware has not been reported as being returned.

Ahmadinejad reiterated the statement that Iranian waters had been breached, and he praised the border guards who detained the British personnel. Abolqassem Amangah, commander of Iran's southwestern Maritime Border Patrol Guard was awarded the third degree medal of bravery for stopping the sailors. Ahmadinejad also criticized the British government for sending the mother of a child to the battlefield, and asked the government "not to prosecute them for their confessions." The release was announced after the British government supposedly sent a letter of apology to the Iranian government, accepting the breaching of their border, the illegal insertion of military units in Iran and the promise that Iranian territory would never be violated again. However, the British government denies that such a letter exists, and says that the release was performed without any agreement from both sides.[101]

After the conference, the Britons met Ahmadinejad outside the presidential palace, where they reportedly showed their appreciation for their release.[70][102] Later Tony Blair said he was glad and stated that he "bears Iranian people no ill will."[103] They were released on 5 April 2007.[104] Whilst in Iran one of the sailors stated that when interviewed by British media at home, he would say nothing different than comments he has made in Iran about being well treated by the authorities. "I would not say anything different to here and I will be completely truthful. I will definitely promote Iran actually; there is a lot of ignorance in the UK about Iran and the people".[105]

The release was presented to suggest that it was an Easter "gift" to the British people; to this end the captives were not released to British consular officials but placed directly aboard British Airways flight BA6634 (flown by franchisee British Mediterranean Airways using Airbus A321 G-MEDL), a direct flight to the UK, on the morning of 5 April 2007,[106] landing at about 12 noon local time.[107] They were given gifts of CDs, Persian candies, pistachio nuts, books, vases and handicrafts by the Iranians. After a briefing on board at London Heathrow, the press were allowed a short photographic opportunity, before the personnel were flown directly to Royal Marines Base Chivenor in north Devon by two Royal Navy Westland Sea King helicopters for medical checkups, a full debriefing and meeting with their families.[107]'

An extraordinary incident, a classic example of Islamist attempts to blackmail free nations. However, I don't fee our own version of the Enabling Act did anything to prevent this, and it won't the next time it happens, even if it occurs on our own soil.

It will just gradually erode the differences between free countries and those that aren't lucky enough to be free.

On balance, I think this is one of the many, many reasons why I prefer Geert Wilders to George Galloway.

A Different Perspective on Obama's Iran Address

Further to my brief comments on Obama's Newroz message to Iran, in which based on Obama's record to date and stated beliefs I took his statement at face value, regular contributor Derius sent me a link taking a slightly different perspective.

Here is an excerpt:

There are those who are certain that the message sent to Iran by President Obama can only be a strategic and moral error, that will confirm the rulers of Iran in their arrogance and hatred and folly. But there is another conceivable interpretation that is not quite so bleak. The signal to Iran, the obvious attempt to flatter Iranians about their "great civilization" -- mention of art, literature, and "innovation" -- is done not in a message on a Muslim holiday, but on Nowruz, a pre-Islamic holiday that the Islamic Republic of Iran has been unable to stamp out, though in the past it has tried to limit the "enthusiasm" of the celebrants.

In other words, the message from Obama is crafted to appeal to Iranian pride, but pride about what? Not pride in Islam, but pride in art (which art? The mosques only?), in literature (and the careful mention of Sa'adi was meant to appeal to Iranian pride), when everyone knows that Firdowsi, Sa'adi, Hafiz, and Omar Khayyam are all part of a constellation of Persian poets identified not so much with Islam, as with being beyond, or indifferent to, or in some cases hostile, if not to Islam, then at least to the cultural and linguistic imperialism of the Arabs.

Interesting. The premise seems to be that the State Department have a trick or two up their sleeve - using references to Iran's pre-Islamic culture and heritage to instill national pride that can go beyond the Islamists.

If it's true, it is a nice idea, but I'm not sure it can be effective in practice. As much as I would love to see the Iranians attempt to throw off the Islamist yoke and vote for a more moderate candidate in their next general election, let's not forget where much of the country's power rests; with the supreme leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. On his wikipedia page, under the heading 'political attitude', you will find the following quote:

"In his speeches Khamenei consistently dwells on familiar themes of the 1979 revolution: the importance of justice, independence, self-sufficiency, and Islam; the need for resolute opposition to Israel and United States.[16] Dealing with the presidents who have served during his reign, Khamenei has successfully scuttled President Rafansjani's attempts to find a modus vivendi with the United States, President Khatami's aspirations for a more democratic Islamic state, and President Ahmadinejad's desire for confrontation.[16]"

Despite the potential hope in the latter statement, which suggests the supreme leader does not necessarily seek war with other states, he's hardly a moderate. Ahmedinejad has also used the words of the previous supreme leader to defend his assertion that 'Israel should be wiped off the map', claiming that the beliefs of and words uttered by so holy a man are non-negotiable.

However, the quote leads me on to another theme found in the Jihad Watch article; the idea that in Iran, Islam, or at least its worst and most oppressive aspects, constitute foreign influence or the last vestiges of Arab oppression.

Although if you talk to ordinary Iranians you might find a degree sympathy for these views, it seems to me that most of the Iranian activities which the US disapproves of or sees as hostile are attempts to become a regional power in its own right, be independent and answerable to no other power, and spread Shia Islam.

Some of these activities include its nuclear programme, its hostility to Israel, funding of organisations like Hezbollah and Hamas, plus its activities in Iraq and Afghanistan against coalition and NATO troops. Clearly, Iran wishes to assert itself and the radical Islamic ideas which gave birth to it in its present form. It wishes to become a regional power, and in doing so usurp mainly Israel, but also more powerful Sunni states.

It could also be argued that it wants its influence to spread into 'Greater Iran', the lands and peoples Persian in culture, language or influence like Afghanistan and Tajikistan.

All of this, is of course, pure conjecture; but I find it difficult to imagine how Obama or the US administration will persuade the Iranian people to oust their less moderate leaders when the least moderate of all never even comes up for election.

More than that, will the people of Iran see these overtures as a genuine attempt to integrate them into the community of nations, or more of an attempt to subvert and neutralise an Iran growing in influence, status and power?

By all accounts, Iran's leaders have not reacted to Obama's message well; the Supreme Leader said that 'he spouts the mantra of change, but does not change'. He then reeled off a long list of grievances which Iran has against the US.

However, he did say that if America changed some of its policies, including its unwavering support of Israel and sanctions against Iran as a supporter of terrorism, then the Iranian Government would 'leave the door open' for talks.