• 19 August 2009
  • Posted By Patrick Disney
  • 0 Comments
  • Events in Iran, Human Rights in Iran, Iran Election 2009

The indispensable Evan Siegel has painstakingly translated the second indictment in all its tedium.  Key points:

During yesterday’s session, in the first introduction to the Tehran court’s charges, the indications that these riots had been planned in advance and the documents proving the recent organized and planned crimes were presented to the court. During this session, the planning, including planning by foreign countries opposed to the Islamic Republic of Iran, with the intention of collapsing [the system] and staging a soft coup in Iran and intervening in the post-presidential election events [and] operations by the counter-revolutionary and terrorist grouplets and their role in the events after the elections and the recent riots will be presented.A) Planning by foreign countries opposed to the Islamic Republic of Iran with the intention of staging a soft coup in Iran and their intervention in the events after the elections to the presidency.

Along these lines, the new policies of the West, particularly the United States and Britain, to confront the Islamic Republic of Iran are based on three principles:

  1. Democratization (democracy for Western aims and interests);
  2. Keeping the [Islamic Republican] system preoccupied domestically by creating domestic insecurity and intensifying conflicts;
  3. Reining in the Islamic Republic of Iran’s regional power;

It has been confirmed that in order to achieve these goals, utilizing the media, public diplomacy, create populist [mardomnahad] organizations and networks and oppositional organizations with the goal of inciting civil disobedience and rolling out a project of non-violent struggle will play the most important roles and enormous budgets and new means of communication have been set aside for this. On the other hand, Western spy agencies were not negligent in taking advantage of all domestic opportunities and resources afforded by the opposition, which is considered to be their operational and executive arms, and the above-mentioned groups, including the illegal group the Freedom Movement, are playing the role of perpetuating insecurity and embroiling the system in strife and playing the role of pawns and the enemy’s fifth column.

Methods to destroy the Islamic Republic:
In order to advance these policies, the enemies of the system (of the sacred Islamic Republic of Iran—comment in the original) put the planning, sketching, and execution axes of the methods of destroying the Islamic Republic of Iran’s in the hands of spy agencies and dependent institutions, some of which are:

  1. Propaganda about and spreading word of the necessity for political regime change;
  2. International support from labor unions, craftsmen, groups which so-called defended human rights and civil organizations which opposed the Islamic Republic;
  3. Actions for economic boycotts against the Islamic Republic of Iran;
  4. Secret financial support to oppositional forces in the system;
  5. Identifying, attracting, and strengthening effective centers and individuals and layers in society such as women, youth, NGOs, etc., to achieve specific ends;

Interestingly, the indictment quotes passages from the 2002 National Security Strategy of President George W Bush in order to demonstrate the West’s plans for a soft coup under the guise of democracy promotion.

Foreign intelligence operations in the tenth presidential elections:

  1. Reviewing and studying the potential in the existing atmosphere in the country with the aim of creating disturbances in relations between the people and the elite with the Supreme Leader and the Velayat-e Faqih;
  2. Efforts towards diminishing popular support for the sacred system of the Islamic Republic of Iran (domestically or abroad) and defeating the Islamic Republic of Iran’s perspective with the aim of preventing Iran from becoming a successful model for other countries of the world;
  3. Utilizing human potential with the intent of gaining goals they have in mind, such as creating distrust and fanning the flames of popular protest, strengthening ethnic currents and the domestic opposition, implementing democratizing projects in Iran with the aim of changing opinions, behavior, and, ultimately, the system’s structure;
  4. Efforts towards exacerbating the divide between the people and the government, exploiting internal differences and existing capacity in this field, particularly in circles related to parties, political currents and officials, and ethnic and religious differences;
  5. Encouraging some Iranians living abroad to engage in activity against the Islamic Republic of Iran and utilize propaganda from societies and their protests;
  6. Organizing, leading, and providing material, political and media support for terrorist groups and cooperation between the domestic and foreign opposition and discontented social groups;
  7. Preparing the basis for the implementation of a soft coup project and the formation of educational terms in various countries (such as the Emirates and Holland) under cover of themes like human rights and non-violent struggle;
  8. Creating and providing material and moral support to NGOs with the intent to create currents in various social layers and to take advantage of their potential and resources according to the dictates of the circumstances;
  9. Activating projects to create domestic crisis (particularly in social circles) and pursuing plans of pressure from without and change from within;
  10. Focusing on psychological operations, spreading rumors, creating currents and propaganda about the Islamic system’s incompetence through Persian internet sites, satellite channels, particularly the Voice of America and the BBC Persian service and other [sic] fugitive, counter-revolutionary news channels, the monarchists, the Hypocrites [OPMI], and other means of networking;
  11. Leading NGOs and currents opposing the system with the perspective of having supervision led by the Americans over the electoral process;
  12. Emphasizing the emergence of fraud and uncertainty concerning the soundness of Iran’s electoral process (about ten days before the votes were counted) and efforts towards raising this topic through sites related to the State Department. (Among the issues are: cutting off the sending of ballots, reducing internet speed, the emergence of difficulties regarding the presence of candidates’ supervisors in vote-counting posts, etc.). It is necessary to explain that the official of Mr. Musavi’s office’s Committee for the Preservation of Votes said that this was an indication that the elections were fraudulent while discussing this matter a week before the elections. (15/3/88 = June 5, 2009);
  13. Provocations and preparing the grounds for domestic violent movements and civil disobedience and setting the stage for the appearance of street rioting and creating insecurity and destruction and chaos;
  14. Efforts towards creating accusations and psychological warfare against the Islamic Republic of Iran, particularly in the matter of violating human rights, with the aim of escalating the Islamic Republic of Iran’s isolation in the international arena;

The foreigners’ measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran after the glorious 22 Khordad [June 12] elections were:

  1. To weaken the velayat-e faqih’s status. This is part of the foreigners’ priority deeds and goals against the Islamic Republic of Iran and a lack of attention by some political currents to the commands and guidance of the Supreme Leader (particularly after the historical sermons of the Friday prayers of 29/3/88 [June 19, 2009]) presented an appropriate opportunity for the foreigners to fan the flames of this issue. Along these lines, the disgraceful efforts based on insinuating a division between the views of the Supreme Leader and that of His Eminence the Imam (Peace be upon him!) were made by the enemies’ propaganda aparatus;
  2. Creating division in the united ranks of the nation and weakening popular support for the Islamic Revolution’s principles and goals;
  3. Spreading an atmosphere of difference between political currents, parties, and individuals;
  4. Dragging the Islamic Republic of Iran’s system’s legitimacy into conflict and posing claims on the matter of the system and its officer’s enjoyment of popular support;
  5. Efforts towards confirming the system’s ineffectualness in creating democracy, holding sound elections, confronting the latest crisis, and observing human rights;
  6. Emphasizing the need for the presence of foreigners and elector observers in the Islamic Republic of Iran for guaranteeing the soundness of the elections held. (This issue was seriously on the agenda of countries such as America and Britain and dependent grouplets like the Freedom Movement.);

Nearly one quarter of the text focuses on the role of the British in fomenting unrest and undermining the system of the Islamic Republic, including the role of the BBC and the BBC Persian service.  Other so-called “grouplets” fingered in the indictment include the Freedom Movement, the Soros Foundation, and of course the PMOI.  

Posted By Patrick Disney

Leave a Reply




XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


Sign the Petition

 

7,349 signatures

Tell Google: Stop playing Persian Gulf name games!

May 14, 2012
Larry Page
Chief Executive Officer
Google Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, California 94043

Dear Mr. Page:

It has come to our attention that Google has begun omitting the title of the Persian Gulf from its Google Maps application. This is a disconcerting development given the undisputed historic and geographic precedent of the name Persian Gulf, and the more recent history of opening up the name to political, ethnic, and territorial disputes. However unintentionally, in adopting this practice, Google is participating in a dangerous effort to foment tensions and ethnic divisions in the Middle East by politicizing the region’s geographic nomenclature. Members of the Iranian-American community are overwhelmingly opposed to such efforts, particularly at a time when regional tensions already have been pushed to the brink and threaten to spill over into conflict. As the largest grassroots organization in the Iranian-American community, the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) calls on Google to not allow its products to become propaganda tools and to immediately reinstate the historically accurate, apolitical title of “Persian Gulf” in all of its informational products, including Google Maps.

Historically, the name “Persian Gulf” is undisputed. The Greek geographer and astronomer Ptolemy referencing in his writings the “Aquarius Persico.” The Romans referred to the "Mare Persicum." The Arabs historically call the body of water, "Bahr al-Farsia." The legal precedent of this nomenclature is also indisputable, with both the United Nations and the United States Board of Geographic Names confirming the sole legitimacy of the term “Persian Gulf.” Agreement on this matter has also been codified by the signatures of all six bordering Arab countries on United Nations directives declaring this body of water to be the Persian Gulf.

But in the past century, and particularly at times of escalating tensions, there have been efforts to exploit the name of the Persian Gulf as a political tool to foment ethnic division. From colonial interests to Arab interests to Iranian interests, the opening of debate regarding the name of the Persian Gulf has been a recent phenomenon that has been exploited for political gain by all sides. Google should not enable these politicized efforts.

In the 1930s, British adviser to Bahrain Sir Charles Belgrave proposed to rename the Persian Gulf, “Arabian Gulf,” a proposal that was rejected by the British Colonial and Foreign offices. Two decades later, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company resurrected the term during its dispute with Mohammad Mossadegh, the Iranian Prime Minister whose battle with British oil interests would end in a U.S.-sponsored coup d'état that continues to haunt U.S.-Iran relations. In the 1960s, the title “Arabian Gulf” became central to propaganda efforts during the Pan-Arabism era aimed at exploiting ethnic divisions in the region to unite Arabs against non-Arabs, namely Iranians and Israelis. The term was later employed by Saddam Hussein to justify his aims at territorial expansion. Osama Bin Laden even adopted the phrase in an attempt to rally Arab populations by emphasizing ethnic rivalries in the Middle East.

We have serious concerns that Google is now playing into these efforts of geographic politicization. Unfortunately, this is not the first time Google has stirred controversy on this topic. In 2008, Google Earth began including the term “Arabian Gulf” in addition to Persian Gulf as the name for the body of water. NIAC and others called on you then to stop using this ethnically divisive propaganda term, but to no avail. Instead of following the example of organizations like the National Geographic Society, which in 2004 used term “Arabian Gulf” in its maps but recognized the error and corrected it, Google has apparently decided to allow its informational products to become politicized.

Google should rectify this situation and immediately include the proper name for the Persian Gulf in Google Maps and all of its informational products. The exclusion of the title of the Persian Gulf diminishes your applications as informational tools, and raises questions about the integrity and accuracy of information provided by Google.

We strongly urge you to stay true to Google’s mission – “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful” – without distorting or politicizing that information. We look forward to an explanation from you regarding the recent removal of the Persian Gulf name from Google Maps and call on you to immediately correct this mistake.

Sincerely,

[signature]

Share this with your friends: