Aujourd’hui, nous savons que la lutte pour l’égalité, la justice, la paix, la démocratie, le sécularisme et le développement de la société n’est pas séparée de la lutte contre l’islam politique qui est le berceau de la misogynie dans le monde d’aujourd’hui. La journée internationale des femmes est un symbole des femmes en tant qu’associées à aux hommes. C’est un démenti aux discriminations religieuses, sur tôt celles de l’islam, qui considèrent les femmes moins dignes que les hommes. Ce jour est enraciné dans la lutte historique contre les jours noires de l’église européenne, c’est une demande de « liberté, égalité, fraternité » comme durant la Révolution française.

La journée internationale des femmes a emmené une nouvelle dimension pour des femmes dans les pays développés et en voie de développement. Mais l’islam politique international, à l’ambition croissante, est une nouvelle barrière sérieuse à la liberté des femmes. Aujourd’hui, en dépit des efforts coordonnés dans le monde, la communauté internationale à travers l’ONU ignore le destin des centaines de millions de femmes qui sont les victimes consentantes de la misogynie islamique.

Alors que le 8 mars était un symbole de laïcité contre l’église catholique, il devient maintenant plutôt une lutte mondiale contre la misogynie des mosquées islamiques. Aujourd’hui, l’ombre affreuse de l’islam politique déploie ses ailes au-dessus d’une grande partie du monde musulman.

Pour les femmes iraniennes un changement du régime islamique est un préalable à leur liberté et l’égalité de droits sociaux. Si nous voulons repousser les principes religieux qui mettent les femmes dans une position inférieure dans toutes les sociétés islamiques, nous devons faire disparaître le régime islamique en Iran qui est aujourd’hui le berceau de l’islamisme international.

Selon l’organisation mondiale de la santé, 85 à 115 millions de filles et des femmes ont subi des mutilations génitales. Ces pratiques archaïques sont toujours en cours dans beaucoup de pays musulmans malgré le fait qu’elles soient critiquées par la communauté internationale.

Dans certains pays musulmans, des femmes qui ont été violées sont parfois tuées par leurs propres familles pour préserver l’honneur de la famille. Des massacres de telle « honneur », en tant qu’un legs des traditions islamiques, ont été rapportés en Jordanie, au Pakistan, au Liban, en Syrie, en Irak et d’autres pays du Golfe Persique.

Le viol en tant que moyen d’humiliation, de pression, et de torture a été employé contre des femmes dans les prisons politiques iraniennes. Le viol des femmes « non musulmanes » avant leur exécution est systématique par les autorités islamiques.

Depuis 1979, une majorité toujours croissante de femmes iraniennes identifiées comme « mal voilées », souffrent quotidiennement de l’obligation du port du voile islamique. Depuis l’existence du régime islamique, pas un jour ne s’est écoulé sans attaque, agression physique, arrestation, jet d’acide, harcèlement et pression psychologiques sur les femmes.

La république islamique d’Iran a clairement indiqué que pour les femmes aucune autre sorte de vêtement n’est acceptable sauf le voile islamique– un vêtement long et sombre qui voile entièrement le corps.

La croissance écoeurante de la violence contre des femmes en Iran a rigoureusement limité les conditions d’accès au travail, à l’éducation, aux arts, au sport, au divertissement et à la liberté générale dans les toutes les branches de la vie sociale.

La raison pour laquelle l’islam insiste sur le port du hijab est pour éviter les contacts « inutiles » entre les femmes musulmane et les « non mahrams » (hommes hors du cercle de famille). Cette raison a formé un dogme qui consiste des « mahram »(membre masculins de famille) et « non mahram ». Ce dogme est à la base de ségrégation sexuelle ou bien l’apartheid de sexe. Sa « croix gammée » est le hijab islamique qui symbolise cet apartheid de ségrégation sexuelle–voire mes articles (Hijab Islamique) ainsi qu’en anglais, (Non-Mahram) et (Gendre Division).

Bien que certains musulmans « modérés » proclament que les femmes et les hommes ont l’égalité des droits, les faits quotidiens sont contraires. Les problèmes des influences religieuses, particulièrement dans les sociétés islamiques, n’ont pas été résolus depuis long temps.

Au fil des années, des conférences, des manifestations et des commémorations de toutes sortes se sont tenues pour réfléchir sur les progrès accomplis. Il est maintenant temps de réclamer ce qui n’a pas été fait. La journée internationale des femmes devrait être l’occasion de rassembler des efforts efficaces et communs contre la misogynie islamique qui demeure le principal obstacle à la réalisation des droits des femmes dans les pays musulmans.

Bien que la charte des Nations Unies propose l’égalité des sexes comme un des droits fondamentaux de l’homme, elle ne peut pas fixer des normes, des programmes, et des buts pour avancer le statut des femmes dans le monde musulman. Par exemple, l’ONU évite de condamner le voile obligatoire qui est le joug le plus symbolique de la misogynie par les régimes islamiques dans leurs pays.

LONU, signée en 1945, était le premier accord affirmant le principe d’égalité entre hommes et femmes. Cependant, la charte a été préparée avant l’arrivée de l’islam politique international. Aujourd’hui, la communauté internationale doit exiger l’ONU d’adopter de nouvelles résolutions défendant le statut des femmes dans les sociétés islamiques. Les femmes, souvent inconscientes, prises par les traditions de misogynie islamique ont besoin d’appui international. L’ONU doit maintenant réagir en vue des rapports sur la misogynie permanente contre les femmes nées accidentellement dans les pays, dits musulmans.

L’ONU qui a été capable de condamner l’Apartheid doit maintenant condamner l’apartheid sexuel des états islamiques en y imposant des sanctions adéquates. La violation des droits fondamentaux des femmes dans le monde islamique est un fait qui a été trop longtemps ignoré. La sauvegarde des droits des femmes est maintenant essentielle pour redonner un sens à cette journée commémorative.

Beaucoup d’exemples quotidiens de misogynie en Iran prouvent que la république islamique bafoue le statut des femmes en réduisant leur statut à un simple moyen de reproduction et l’objet de sexe. Ainsi avec de telles interprétations islamiques, la république islamique de façon démagogique et publicitaire a fait émerger des organisations féminines proches au régime misogyne. Ces organisations n’ont d’autre but que d’officialiser les comportements les plus abjects et les plus misogynes sous couvert du respect de l’islam.

La communauté internationale doit prendre des actions adéquates pour l’égalité des genres en condamnant tous les régimes et institutions islamiques qui sont responsables actifs et officiels de la misogynie. Au vingt et unième siècle, le monde ne peut pas accepter que les droits des femmes soient conditionnés par une doctrine misogyne. Il est temps de cesser d’ignorer une telle doctrine qui considère les femmes comme des « demi hommes » avec des « demi droits » sociaux !

La promotion de l’égalité des sexes est non seulement de la responsabilité des femmes, mais une responsabilité sociale de toutes les personnes démocrates et laïques. Les droits égaux de femmes dans une société moderne non seulement sont un indicateur de croissance nationale dans la vie sociale et économique, mais aussi un facteur du développement normal pour tous les individus de cette société.

Socio psychologiquement, la séparation des sexes crée des perversités et de l’agressivité. Elles sont le résultat de frustration sexuelle. Politiquement, une telle séparation est favorable pour les régimes totalitaires parc que selon W. Reich les effets secondaires démontrent sous l’aspect de l’obéissance aveugle qui historiquement caractérise toutes les sociétés opprimées.

Dédiions-nous cette journée international des femmes aux centaines de millions de femmes qui sont des victimes conscientes ou inconscientes de la misogynie islamique. Il y aura beaucoup à accomplir pour jeter les bases légales pour inviter la communauté internationale à se rappeler qu’il est de notre responsabilité de défendre les droits de l’homme dans l’égalité, la dignité, et la liberté pour les deux sexes.

As a proposal of the Socialist International, Women’s Day (IWD) was celebrated for the first time in many industrial nations in 1910, 03,08. March 8th was the day women demanded the right to vote and hold public offices, their right to work, vocational training, and an end to discrimination in jobs.

Since then, the International Women’s Day is commemorated on March 8 and is a national holiday in several countries around the world. It symbolises a long-standing struggle of women of all continents and ethnic, religious, cultural and social backgrounds.

IWD is a symbol of women as an integral part in the making of history. It symbolises a denial of all forms of religion- and culture-based gender-discriminations, which consider women less worthy than men. The day is rooted in the historical struggles against the Dark Ages of European Church and in the demand for “liberty, equality, fraternity” during the French Revolution.

IWD has today assumed a new global dimension for the establishment of women’s rights in developed and developing countries alike. Nevertheless, the growing international political Islam, strengthened by the Islamic Republic of Iran, is a serious barrier in the way of achieving this goal. Despite many coordinated efforts globally, the international community, including the United Nations, practically ignore the fate of hundreds of millions of Muslim women, who are conscious or unconscious victims of Islamic states or dominant Islamic traditions of misogyny.

According to the World Health Organisation, 85 to 115 million girls and women have undergone some form of female genital mutilation in many Islamic countries, including 28 African nations, despite the fact that it has been outlawed and condemned by the international community. More than 90% of women in Egypt are the victims of this barbaric genital mutilation.

While March 8th was historically a secular symbol against the dominance of Catholic Church in the West, it should now become a worldwide struggle against the misogyny of Islamic sates, traditions, and the influence of Islamic mosque all over the world. Today, the horrendous shadow of Islamic misogyny has spread its wings over a great sphere of the globe, where hundred of millions of women have fallen into its clutches. The house of this bird of prey is the occupied territory of Iran ocuupied by an anti Iranian clique of criminal Islamists whose bloody clutches are today a new sword of Islam to rape, torture, kill the “infidel” Iranian men and women.

In many Islamic countries, women, fallen victim to rapes, are often killed by their families to preserve family honour. Honour killings as a legacy of Islamic traditions have been reported in Jordan, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Turkey and other Persian Gulf countries. Rape as a means of humiliation, confession, and torture has been used against women in Iranian political prisons. Rape of girls before execution is systematically committed, interpreted as an Islamic principle that “it is a sin to kill a virgin”.

Since the installation of the Islamic regime in Iran (IRI) in 1979, a fast-growing majority of the Iranian women, identified as “bad-hijab” (mal-veiled), have been suffering from the atrocity of the IRI fanatics in their day-to-day life, and under President Ahmadinejad, from nationwide cruelly organised Islamic “Morality Police”.

Since 1979, physical assaults, arbitrary arrests, acid-throwing, harassment and psychological pressure have become the part and parcel of women’s life in Iran. The Islamic Republic of Iran has clearly specified that, for women, no other sort of dress is acceptable except the Islamic hijab. Hijab, as an Islamic code of female dress, was officially imposed under Mr. Mousavi’s era as prime minister short after the revolution.

The first public demonstration of Iranian women after the Iranian revolution was short-lived. On 7 March 1979, on the eve of the IWD, Khomeini decreed that all women employed by the government must wear the “chador” (an all-enveloping black veil), an extension of the four walls of home. Thousands of women filled the streets in protest. For three days, they marched and rallied; on the third day, they staged a sit-in protest at the Palace of Justice, demanding a legal guarantee for their right to choose what to wear and where to work, at home and in society at large.

Khomeini’s supporters, armed with knives, attacked the women; they cursed them, yelling “Wear your head or get your head rapped.” They stood at windows along the parade-route and exposed their genitals, saying, “This is what you want, you whores!”

These examples of women’s rights violations in Iran make it clear that the International Women’s Day is not tolerated by the misogynistic IRI. Quite contrary to the demagogical claim of some “reformists” of the regime that men and women enjoy equal rights, opportunities, and responsibilities in all aspects of life in Iran, a growing gap in the women’s rights from that of men always remains a cruel reality.

Over the years, conferences, demonstrations and commemorations have been held globally to reflect on the progress made in women’s right. It is now time to call for what has not been made. International Women’s Day should now be made a rallying point against Islamic misogyny, poised to damage the achievements gained in the history of women’s rights. Although the Charter of the United Nations proposes gender equality as a fundamental human right, the organisation is reluctant to create standards, programmes and goals for advancing the status of women equally worldwide. For example, the UN avoids condemning the enforcement of hijab on women in Iran.

Of course the UN Charter, signed in 1945, was the first agreement to affirm the principle of equality between women and men. However, the Charter was prepared before the advent of the international political Islam. Today, the global community is affected by political Islam. Consequently, the UN needs to adopt new resolutions to defend the rights of women in Islamic societies. Women in Islamic societies need international support. In the light of many conclusive reports of misogyny in Islamic countries, the UN must react effectively without delay.

The UN, which condemned the Apartheid regime fairly in the past, is now expected to condemn the gender apartheid of Islamic regimes in support of women’s full and equal right. It is time for the international community to challenge the misogynistic Islamists across the globe. Confrontation of the widespread violation of basic rights of women in the Islamic world has been long overdue but ignored. Safeguarding the women’s rights is now essential to regaining the sense of International Women’s Day.

Many daily examples of misogyny in Iran show that the IRI by imposing different status for men and women has reduced the women’s role to a means of procreation. Today, the struggle for equality, justice, peace, democracy, secularism, and development is not separated from the struggle against misogyny.

Concerned of backlash from women against ongoing misogyny and outside scrutiny, the Islamic regime responded by forming its own women’s group. This group produced a newspaper, “The Moslem Women” , the main task of which was to inculcate misogynistic norms and pseudo scientific arguments into mind of women. Through the twisted sense of women’s freedom and origin of women’s rights, its real role is to promote the regime’s misogynistic policy, especially for imposition of hijab on women. In this light, Mr. Abolhassan Banisadr, the first Iranian President, who had lived in France for 15 years, was asked by a television interviewer if it was true that women’s hair emits sexually enticing rays and if this is why Islam requires the veil. “Yes, it is true” was his reply.

The international community must reject and denounce these kinds of state-run women’s organisations in Iran. These “yellow” organisations are a greater threat than the governing male fanatics to the liberation of women. The real activists, working to defend women’s rights and to bring about real change in Iran, risk their safety: IRI authorities have been harassing, detaining and intimidating them in the last three decades.

In the 21st century, the international community should not accept that women’s rights be crippled by Islamic laws “Shari’a”, a 14-century-old legal code. It is time to outlaw Shari’a internationally, because it reduces women to second-class citizens in a male-dominated society. It is time for the global community to condemn any archaic belief system that is based on gender apartheid by officially reducing women to a subhuman entity.

Promotion of gender equality is not only a responsibility of women, but of all humanity. Not only is it an important factor for women’s participation in social and economic development, but also a necessity for a healthy development of the society as a whole. Gender discrimination creates frustrations, perversities and aggressiveness with blind obedience, all of which are typical traits of oppressed societies.

On this International Women’s Day, let us re-dedicate ourselves to the hundreds of millions of women who are conscious or unconscious victims of Islamic misogyny. Much should be accomplished to put into place legal foundations to urge the international community to remember that it is the responsibility of all of us to defend the democratic and secular right to live in dignity, freedom and gender equality.

Il est aussi dans l’intérêt de la communauté internationale d’aider le peuple iranien en lutte pour se débarrasser de la République Islamique. La fin de ce régime veut dire décapiter l’islam politique qui est un mouvement international du terrorisme islamique « jihadisme ». Dans ce but, il faut priver les mollahs des ressources nécessaires à leur disposition pour investir leur machine de guerre contre l’humanité.

Non, l’Iran n’a pas encore l’arme atomique. D’ailleurs ce sont les mollahs qui vont posséder cette arme du « jihad-fi-sabi-allah » (guerre pour la cause de Dieu), pas l’Iran, et dans le but de leur propre survie et l’expansion de leur islam politique. Par contre il y a d’autres moyens que depuis l’installation de la République islamique, les mollahs ne cessent d’y rêver.

L’Iran est le deuxième pays producteur de l’organisation des pays exportateurs de pétrole (OPEP), et avec des exportations de 2,7 l’Iran est le deuxième pays producteur de pétrole et le quatrième producteur mondial de pétrole brut, dont il a 138 milliards de barils en réserve, et il possède les deuxièmes stocks mondiaux de gaz, soit 28 000 milliards de mètres cubes, équivalant à 43 milliards de barils de pétrole.

Malgré ces ressources énormes, le pays est en ruine. Plus de 20% des Iraniens et plus de 40% des Iraniennes sont au chômage, 80% des chômeurs sont des jeunes, la société, ruinée par l’inflation rampante de 26% (selon la banque centrale).

Le régime islamique ne survit que par le pétrole qui représente plus des deux tiers de ses recettes budgétaires et de ses exportations. Pourtant le régime qui dépense des sommes colossales pour la technologie nucléaire et les achats militaires n’a pas mis en travail la raffinerie d’Abadan, longtemps la plus grande du monde, endommagée pendant la guerre Iran Irak. Faute de raffineries, n’étant plus en état d’exporter son pétrole, l’Iran doit importer 40% de son essence dont 36% par l’Inde.

Le président Obama a récemment renouvelé d’un an un décret pris en 1995 sous Bill Clinton interdisant toute implication américaine dans les affaires pétrolières iraniennes. Ce décret avait été pris à l’époque pour sanctionner le soutien apporté par l’Iran au terrorisme international selon les États-Unis, et sa quête d’armes de destruction massive. Il a été reconduit d’année en année par les présidents américains successifs. Le président Barack Obama a prolongé pour un an un embargo pétrolier sur l’Iran, parmi toutes les sanctions américaines et internationales imposées à la République islamique.

On est déçu de demander la même sanction de la part de la Russie et la Chine qui sont d’ailleurs des meilleurs partenaires des mollahs. Dans ces pays, il n y a pas une tradition de droits de l’homme qui puisse aujourd’hui influer sur les intérêts politiques et lucratifs. Mais l’Europe et l’Inde, la plus grande démocratie du monde, sont au centre de cette demande :

Le monde civilisé, surtout l’Inde et l’Europe, peut-il suivre l’exemple des Etats-Unis en abandonnant le commerce du pétrole et du gaz avec les mollahs ? Les firmes européennes (Total, ENI, Statoil…) font des commerces honteux avec ce régime illégitime. 15%, de la consommation gazière de l’Europe vient de l’Iran. L’Iran exporte environ 2,5 Mb/j de pétrole à destination du Japon, de la Chine, de la Corée du Sud, de Taïwan et principalement de l’Europe.

Les recettes des exportations de pétrole brut pourraient rapporter aux mollahs corrompus environ 90 milliards de dollars l’année précédente (mars 2008 -mars 2009). Elles font près de 80 % des recettes budgétaires, desquelles une grande part sera détournée des caisses de l’État par des mollahs et leurs sbires (le transfert des milliards de dollars par Mojtaba Khamenei, le fils du Guide Suprême, et d’autres dirigeants du régime, fut récemment un exemple dévoilé). Une autre grande part est consacrée pour la machine répressive.

Des sanctions supplémentaires, notamment dans les secteurs gazier et pétrolier prises à l’encontre de la république islamique peut considérablement accélérer la chute du régime impopulaire.

Le régime fait face aujourd’hui à des problèmes plus sérieux que la communauté internationale ne pense. Les iraniens montrent les signes d’une volonté qui peut aboutir à une prochaine révolution sociale. Dans cette première phase de révolution, qui est encore colorée par le mouvement vert de Moussavi, le peuple s’organise pour la lutte finale. Dans ce stade, Moussavi s’est imposé comme un “réformiste” face à ce vil Ahmadinejad qui incarne le régime détesté. Dans un stade ultérieur, le peuple devancera Moussavi, un fidèle d”imam” Khmeiny et de la constitutions islamique, en réfutant l’ensemble du régime y compris ce catalyseur, Moussavi lui- même.

Contrairement à ce que les médias à l’ouest décrivent, les protestations post électorales ne proviennent pas de Moussavi ou Karroubi, les candidats “réformistes” du même régime, mais d’une colère datée de trente années et accumulée sous le joug de l’islam politique. Derrière ces protestations, il y a une volonté de changement du régime, ce qui est fortement souhaitée par une grande majorité du peuple iranien, surtout les jeunes, qui en profitent de cette élection controversée pour viser l’ensemble du régime totalitaire de la République islamique.

Craignant un effondrement du régime par une révolution sociale, différentes factions du régime sont surprises par la mobilisation spontanée du peuple pour son droit à la liberté. Non seulement il dénonce ce coup d’État tramé par la faction d’Ahmadinejad, mais crient à travers le pays ” Mort au Dictateur!’”. Ce qui a créé une fissure dans les différentes factions du régime qui maintenant s’accusent d’être responsables pour tramer une » révolution de velours » contre le régime islamique.

Malgré une lutte féroce pour le pouvoir, toutes les factions ” réformistes’ du régime essaient de calmer des contestations populaires en les limitant à une remise en cause des résultats controversés de l’élection présidentielle de juin 2009. Cette tentative des “réformistes” s’est avérée à contrarier la révolution sociale. Enfin, si les tyrans parviennent à leurs fins et répriment ce jeune mouvement iranien, ils massacreront des milliers de gens et opprimeront d’avantage le peuple entier.

En ce qui concerne la communauté internationale, les mollahs approchent de la possession d’une arme nucléaire dont il est clair qu’elle sera une garantie de leur survie. Toutes les factions du régime sont fidèles à la constitution islamique, avec l’instance du Guide Suprême, et l’actuelle politique nucléaire. Elles se réclament des disciples d’ Ayatollah Khomeiny, le fondateur, du régime islamique — dès la prise du pouvoir en1979, Khomeiny réclama que son régime prenne en main tous les moyens pour exporter la révolution islamique dans le monde. Pour éliminer” les ennemies de l’Islam “, Khomeiny donna l’ordre (fatwa) de mort d’éliminer tous les opposants du régime. Des milliers de dissidents, intellectuels, infidèles ont étés arrêtés et exécutés, lorsque Moussavi fut le premier ministre 1981-88.

À but non lucratif, sans considère les intérêts mafieux des ” Oil Compagnies”, la communauté internationale a toute sa raison de soutenir aujourd’hui cette aspiration révolutionnaire, démocratique et laïque du peuple iranien et il n y a aucun risque que ce soutien soit contre-productif. La fin du régime islamique ouvre une nouvelle fenêtre à la paix et sécurité mondiales.

Souvent, les revenus pétroliers favorisent le prolongement des dictateurs et rois despotes, des cheiks corrompus, et des mollahs criminels. En deux mots, une élite parasite, qui n’a pas d’intérêt à faire avancer la modernité, la justice sociale et la démocratisation dans leur propres pays. Dans le cas des mollahs, leur régime a déjà perdu sa légitimité, s’il en avait un peu, son existence ne repose que sur ces forces militaires, milices fanatisées, et institutions répressives.

Toutes ces organisations répressives sont financées par les revenus du pétrole. Non seulement à l’intérieur du pays, mais les mollahs aussi dépensent une bonne portion des revenus pétroliers à financer le terrorisme de Hezbollah et Hamas, ainsi que d’autre foyers de terrorisme dans le monde entier. Les mollahs entraînent le pays sur une pente dangereuse pouvant aboutir à une confrontation armée avec les Etats-Unis ou d’autres pays de la région.

Since there is oil in Iran, there has been always a strong correlation between the structure of dictatorial power and oil. Not only government expenses, industry and services are heavily dependent on oil revenue, but also, on a larger scale, all repressive forces and institutions of dictatorial regimes rely on it. Oil production in Iran is not at all in the service of the country’s development, but mainly serves the interest of the corrupt ruling elite and, most importantly, the survival of their oppressive Islamist regime.

In the case of the IRI (Islamic Republic of Iran), oil is the greatest source of income for the state mafia and it enables the regime set up their repressive institutions, propaganda machine, thousands of plain clothes thugs to beat up angry people, apologists groups in the West, sell-away intellectuals from various factions, who propagate the regime’s legitimacy and its reformation from within, and terrorist groups to advance the regime’s agenda inside and outside the country. The regime also spends a part of this Iranian national resource to help the two Islamist terrorist groups, Hamas and Hezbollah, to prevent peaceful solutions in the region.

The U.N. Security Council resolutions and E.U. have already indicated the possibility of oil sanctions on the Iran, due to its nuclear ambitions and its strategy to export violence in the region. Added with them the ongoing brutalities after the recent electoral coup, the world must step up actions in a timely manner to impose sanction on Iran fuel supplies as the first step to shake off the regime. This action is now widely expected by both Iranians and the international community.

Although Iran is rich in oil resources and is the world’s fourth-largest oil exporter, Iran’s capacity to turn the resource into the gasoline and diesel fuel is limited and thus up to 40 percent of Iran’s gasoline is imported. Thanks to the IRI incompetence, the regime cannot expand refinery capacity to satisfy its domestic fuel requirements and thus heavily relies on imports.

The domestic consumption of gasoline is estimated 75 million litres a day, of which 36 million is imported from India. If the gasoline delivery is stopped, Iran’s domestic consummation, including that of the repressive machine of the regime, can be paralyzed within a week. Under such a situation, the heroic and able people of Iran can do the rest for making the regime history in Iran.

Besides the western oil companies like Royal Dutch Shell, French Total, Swiss Vitol, and British Petroleum: Indian large industry group ( Indian Reliance ) is another main partner of the Mullahs’ regime. The group is the long-standing culprit and buddies of Islamist regime. It supplies a great part of the needed gasoline, which helps the Mullah regime survive: it imports Iranian crude-oil, and exports refined gasoline to Iran.

The Group’s activities span exploration and production of oil and gas, petroleum refining and petrochemicals. Indian suppliers are the other constant partners of the IRI. According to official resources, Indian crude oil imports are circa 75% to meet its oil requirements. The cheap oil price, it is believed that Iranian oil is sold by mullahs below market, will sufficiently reduce costs for refinery.
Essar Oil, an Indian oil company, has now green light from Mullahs to import as much crude oil as desires from Iran. The company sells a part of the refined oil as gasoline with much higher price to Iran, what covers the purchase price.

In solidarity with the brave Iranian people’s struggle against the illegitimate regime of coup d’état and by stopping any oil trade with the IRI, India as the biggest democracy of the world, can play an honourable role by not playing bedfellow with the brutal Mullahs.

The oppressed Iranian people cannot expect the reminders of totalitarian regimes like Russian and Chinese states to stop trades with the totalitarian IRI. Instead, the free world and in its top the biggest democracy, India, are largely expected to show solidarity with the oppressed Iranian people. India can do its own reputation and the longing of the freedom-loving Iranian people a world of good by suspending its oil trade with the IRI and consequently siding with Iranian people in their struggle against the totalitarian Islamist regime which is today challenging by an increasing majority of people.

The lack of a strong and united democratic and secular movement in Iran has left the arena empty for the Islamic regime to further destruct our country, plunder our wealth and shed blood of our brothers and sisters. Millions of chests are now ready in the streets of Iran to challenge the army and thugs of this regime. Although bullets of panic-stricken Islamic mercenaries would suffocate any voice of protest, people are brave enough to resolutely claim their freedom despite risk of torture, rape and execution as “Mohareb” (heretic).

Unfortunately, the worst-ever condition of our people have not stimulated enough responsible reactions among democratic and secular activists on how to form a united movement to free the country from the plague of the Islamic regime.

Sadly, yet the people of Iran must wait; such a liberation movement has long been deemed illusory. It is, however, expected that this movement should be formed without further delay. It should learn from historical experiences of both our past and all peoples of the world, who’ve freed their countries. It should realistically use any tactical method and independently accept any international assistance to hasten the fall of the Mullah regime, because each day of parasitic life of this brutal regime costs our country lives and destruction.

The new democratic and secular movement must aim to instate democratic state in Iran, in which all political authorities will be directly elected by the people. Such authorities must be secular and democratic; their political background must be clean with no ties or sympathy for any religious or authoritarian form of government. Dictatorial regimes will have no place in the future of Iran. All authorities of free Iran must take oath to respect Human Rights and democracy unconditionally; they should be competent and independent. Our national interests should never be bargained by whims of any foreign power.

Our society is not a lab of another Islamic or extremist experiment. National leaders should be the fruit of Iranian people’s struggles for freedom from any kind of dictatorial regime. Our society is ripe enough not bow to any ideology, religion of submission, and domination of an elite class.

A democratic and secular movement now is needed to be present nationwide as people take to protests against the Islamic regime. Although this will spontaneously surface in the process of the ongoing revolution, an immediate formation of such a movement will hasten the revolution itself. Such an opposition movement should immediately present its programme that would be established after the fall of the regime. The programme must contain effective solutions to free Iran from the long yoke of backwardness and dictatorship.

The programme should expressly explain how it would create the stage for unconditional democracy, social justice, gender equality, question of Islamic hijab, development of national economy, rehabilitation of an Iranian identity, reviving of art and culture, negation of Islam as state religion, elimination of all religious institutions, removal of all religious influence from education, judiciary, calendar, language and all aspects of social life in a democratic and progressive process.

The new government, after overthrown of Mullah Regime, is expected to bring all criminals of the regime since its inception and all their collaborators before an international court for crime against humanity for the sake of establishment of justice and rehabilitation of victims of the regime. As such, the process should emphasise on the following tasks:

No Iranian woman is half that of a man, no Iranian can be punished for his political or religious belief. From now on, Iran will never possess dungeons, torture, and political prison. From now on, no Islamic law will be ever permitted to commit stoning, amputation of limb, lashing or any human humiliation.

By condemning the judiciary of a medieval belief system, which has been imposed on our country in a very violent and long process, it is time that our generation transcend our lesson to the next generations and those Iranians, who need practical proofs to quit the imposed cult of Islam.

As we know, the key powers are traditionally interested in economic gains. The EU still ignores the fact that their barrels of Iranian oil cost many lives extinguished by the criminal Islamic regime. We must demand an adequate policy from the EU. At the moment, we must forget Russia and China, because of their dictatorial past and present undemocratic states. In fact, these nations have never integrated Human Rights and ethics into their policy. The US, despite rhetoric of regime change under Bush administration and appeased policy of Obama administration, may ultimately feel satisfied with some phony reform by and within the regime. An Iranian democratic movement should not rely on agenda of any key foreign power; instead, it must try to influence their policies toward the illegitimate Mullah Regime.

Any foreign assistance or intervention in the liberation of Iran from the Mullah regime must be rejected; it must be achieved by an indigenous liberation movement by its own people with their raised fists, roars and blood.

In the ongoing critical conditions, and under pressure of a chain of crises, the ruling Iranian regime can be further divided into many cliques and factions. The ruling apparatus may even seek for handles with inner or outer interlocutors. A secular and democratic opposition should be vigilant against accepting any variants, which keep the Islamists or one of its factions in power. The least demand of our people is “no” to any model of the Islamic Regime.

Freedom-loving Iranians must also recognise the fact that the Islamic regime with nuclear weapons will have greater bargaining power to intensify its dictatorship; therefore, an opposition movement should take part in any international campaign against the regime’s nuclear ambition.

The ‘atomic conflict’ can be used to isolate the regime internationally. While condemning regime’s dangerous nuclear programme, we should also put the priority on the question of defending the basic rights of people, which cannot be guaranteed under this regime or one of its factions, led by phony “reformists”, namely Moussavi and Karrubi.

The regime is using the ‘nuclear conflict’ as a “national” right to rally popular support, but it masks the regime’s ambition to linger its totalitarian hold on power and parasitic existence. No stone must be left unturned to force the regime legally to give up it nuclear programme, when the country is expressly a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. While the nuclear issue does not deserve much highlight, it must also be recognised that nuclear weapons in the hands of a jihadi regime jeopardises the lives of our people.

Yet, military actions won’t solve the regime’s nuclear ambition; neither can economic sanction solve the real problem with this regime. Nevertheless, more than 40% of the domestic consumption of gasoline is now mainly imported from India. If this delivery can be temporarily stopped, the shortage of gasoline for domestic consumption will create a series of uncontrolled popular riots against the regime, which may render the regime paralysed and vulnerable. This will help the heroic people of Iran to dump the regime into the dustbin of history.

The Islamic regime of Iran must be internationally isolated; all diplomatic, cultural, and sport contacts with it must be suspended. All foreign accounts of the regime officials or organs must be frozen.

In short, a common platform for secular-democratic forces in Iran, however difficult, with aims to fulfill the following four major aspirations of most Iranian people:

1- Organising and leading Iranian people’s struggles to sweep away the Mullah regime and all its Islamic relics, institutions, and suppressive organs.
2- Forming a temporary government to organise a constitutional assembly for a new constitution. The new constitution is only legal when it is approved by the majority of people in a referendum supervised by international observers.
3- Preparing conditions as quickly as possible for a democratically elected parliament and government based on the right that people can elect and dismiss all key authorities.
4- Transferring power to the hands of the new government without monopolising or influencing the military or political apparatus.

In 1936, Reza Shah prohibited the veiling of women in public in Iran. The clergy vigorously protested; women of the mercantile middle class stayed home, refusing to appear „naked” in public. Lower middle class and rural women began to work outside the home, most of them in small textile shops. It is the labour of women and children, with their small fingers, which forms the backbone of the carpet industry in Iran.

Any benefits relating to housing or childcare which they receive are given not to them but to their husbands. Their working conditions are harsh, with long hours, low pay and inadequate maternity provisions.

In 1964, Mohammad Reza Shah gave women the right to vote. Family planning was introduced, with free contraceptives and legalised abortion. Clerical jobs in government ministries, banks and commercial offices were filled with women. Women from the middle class entered the professions.

In 1975, the Family Protection Act was passed. It gave women the right to divorce their husbands, required the husband to obtain the first wife’s consent before taking a second, and fixed the legal age of marriage at 16. It placed some restrictions on “sigheh” (temporary marriage), the custom where the husband enjoys all the privileges of marriage for a fixed period of time, usually a few days or hours. After being discarded, the woman generally becomes a prostitute. The Act was a genuine reform; but its impact was limited to those women who could afford to defy their husbands and fathers.

Also in 1975, the Shah spent $50 million to finance the Women’s Organisation of Iran, headed by his sister, Ashraf Pahlavi, a woman with a bad reputation. The Organisation sent students into the countryside in a literacy campaign modelled after the US Peace Corps.

Shah’s reforms of women’s right actually brought women into public life in Iran. For the upper and middle class, women’s partial emancipation was part of their adaptation to western behaviour. For the Shah, it was a way of challenging the authority of clergy, who repeatedly called for a return to Islamic values.

Ayatollah Khomeini, upon arriving in Paris in October, 1979, was asked by a reporter what the position of women would be in an Islamic society. He replied, “Women are free in the realm of education and in the professions, just as men are. Islam does not exclude women from social life but elevates them to a platform where they are not objectified, where they can assume responsibility in the structure of the Islamic government in accordance with their development”. Immediately upon coming to power, Khomeini declared the Family Protection Act null and void and announced a ban on abortion and contraceptives.

On March 7, 1979, on the eve of International Women’s Day, Khomeini decreed that all women employed by the government must wear the “chador” (an all-enveloping black veil), an extension of four walls of the home.

Thousands of women filled the streets in protest. For three days they marched and rallied; on the third day staged a sit-in at the Palace of Justice, demanding a legal guarantee for their right to choose what to wear and where to work, at home and in society at large.

Women’s demonstrations erupted in Kurdistan, Azarbijan and Isfahan as well. They chanted “At the dawn of freedom, there is no freedom.” The women were attacked by Khomeini’s supporters, armed with knives, who cursed them, yelling “Wear a head or get your head rapped.” They stood at windows along the parade route and exposed their genitals: “This is what you want, you whores!” The women’s male supporters linked arms and formed a protective barrier around them.

The demonstrations forced Khomeini to retreat; he claimed to have said only that women should be modestly dressed. Nevertheless, thousands of women were fired from their jobs in the beginning of 1979, accused of looking like “western dolls”.

On June 29, 1980, mandatory veiling was imposed. No exceptions are made for women of religions other than Islam.

March, 1979. On the eve of the referendum for the Islamic Republic, Khomeini reiterated his promises in order to lure voters to the polls. “Islam has considered women’s right to be higher than those of men. Women have the right to vote which is denied them in the West. Our women can vote and be elected. They are free in all aspects of their lives and can freely choose from most areas of employment. We promise you that in the Islamic government, every person will be free to achieve his or her rights.”

But what does freedom mean to the Islamic Republic? The first women to lose their jobs were the radio and television announcers, whose presence on the airwaves was considered immodest. Then women lawyers were forbidden to practice and dismissed from their jobs at the Justice Department. Their efforts to retain their positions met with failure. Thousands of workers were laid off in the industrial slowdown which followed the revolution, among them a disproportionate number of women. Children centres were closed down and the new labour laws did nothing to relieve their right.

October 2, 1979. A bill is passed, establishing a special civil court to handle matrimonial cases. It legalised polygamy and sigheh and lowers the marriage age for girls to 13 years. In fact, girls can be married at age of 9 with their father’s consent. Women can divorce their husbands only if they stipulate that possibility in a contract made prior to the marriage.

The school have been segregated by sexes, thus barring women from religious seminaries and technical colleges and halting the education of girls in villages.

The school books have been revised, showing veiled women in the home, raising children and cooking; Darwin’s theory of evolution has been expunged. The schools are used to hunt down critics of the regime; attempts are made to trick children into releasing incriminating information about their parents.

Women’s participation in sports has been crippled; they are forbidden to enter international contests and are required to wear voluminous clothing, even while swimming. Men and women are segregated at all times, at public stadiums, at the beach and etc.

Islamic morality demands an end to pleasure: wine, music, dancing, chess (for a few years) and backgammon, have been all banned. Women’s part in theatre and cinema stipulates that female actors wear Islamic veil.

Soon after the revolution, Mr. Bani Sadr, who has lived 15 years in France, was asked by a television interviewer if it was true that women’s hair emits sexually enticing rays and if this is why Islam requires the veil. “Yes, it is true,” was his reply.

In November 1979, a conference drew 2,500 women, who met by candlelight when the Tehran authorities cut off the electricity at their meeting place. A rally on International Women’s Day, 1980, drew a crowd of 7,000-8,000.

The regime has responded by forming its own women’s group, which produced a newspaper, “The Moslem Women,” which the main task was to inculcate misogynistic norms into mind of women.

The Constitution was announced on December 1, 1979. It regards motherhood as women’s reason for being. “Since the family is the unit of Islamic society, all relevant rules and regulations and planning should be done to facilitate its formation and to guard its continuity on the basis of Islamic laws.” (Article 10).

The Bill of Retribution, a criminal law passed in 1981, stipulated that women have half the value of men in the eyes of the law. In this Bill, a murderer may pay a sum of money, called blood money, to his victim’s family in order to escape punishment by death. If the murderer is a man and the victim is a woman, the woman’s family is required to pay half the man’s blood money if he is to receive the death sentence; this is because her life is equal to only half of his, so the family is required to pay for the other half. If they do not pay, the man can pay them the women’s blood money and be set free.

The Bill of Retribution was the platform to which Khomeini has elevated Iranian women.

Appeal to U.N. for Stopping Execution of Political Prisoners in Iran
To Mr. Ban Ki-Moon, the General Secretary of the United Nations
(Also to all freedom-loving people and all governments of the Free World)

Five prisoners are scheduled to be executed in Iran on charges of taking part in protests following the fraudulent presidential election in June. All freedom-loving people, free-world governments, and particularly the U.N. must intervene in this gross violation of human rights by the Iranian Islamic regime.

Following the fraudulent presidential election in Iranian, Tehran’s Revolutionary Court has recently sentenced five political activists to death, and their execution has been scheduled. With all due respect, we all freedom-loving Iranians expect you, the people and authorities of the free world, to call on the Iranian authorities to halt these death sentences.

Among those five activists, Mohammad Ali Zamani was sentenced to death on October 18. He is among the hundreds of detainees, who were brought before Tehran’s Revolutionary Court on June 12. In reality, Zamani was arrested before the presidential election for his membership to a monarchist circle. He was, thus, in prison during the election, as well as, during the post-election revolution in Iran. However, he has been sentenced to death on the charge of taking part in the post-election protests.

Three other prisoners waiting for their execution, namely Arash Rahmanpour, Hamed Rouhaninejad and Davoud Faricheh Mirardebili, were convicted of being members of a monarchist circle. The fifth prisoner, Nasser Abdolhosseini, awaiting execution, is sentenced to death for his connection with the People’s Mojahedin Organization. The accused, deprived of their right to defence, were forced to confess against themselves by repeating a fabricated readout of the judicial authorities.

Reports say that these scheduled executions can be a prelude to wide-ranging executions of political prisoners in the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI). The IRI has frequently committed such crimes, the 1988 massacre of political prisoners being a notorious example. It has been charged with genocide for killing several thousand political prisoners between June and September 1988, when all factions of the regime worked side by side.

Human rights violation has a long history in Iran. It has now turned critical after the sham June election. The Iranian regime uses various methods of torture (including psychological torture), torture of persons close to prisoners, rape, and drugging in order to crush their resistance. Human rights violation in Iran is widely documented; there are many pictorial evidences and video films showing violent actions of the IRI security forces toward peaceful demonstrators. Other reports refer to many cases of torture and mistreatment of political prisoners.

Given the biased and atrocious character of the Iranian judiciary, we solicit you for an immediate intervention by pressuring the Iranian regime to stop these scheduled executions. There is no way that the Iranian people can go to court and use lawful ways to contest these death sentences, because the Iranian judiciary is a tool of repression of Islamic regime. Mr. Secretary General, please express your concern about these planned executions by reminding the Iranian authorities that Iran is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

We also believe that the ongoing Iranian nuclear issue should not overshadow your concern about the human rights catastrophes in Iran. It is expected that your esteemed institution would send a human rights panel to scrutinize and control the violation of human rights in Iran.

Let us acknowledge that to form a unified Iranian opposition is not an easy job. While commitment to democratic principles or norms is an uphill task, incorporating Iranian opposition groups from the orthodox leftists to the right-wing monarchists into one single political opposition means, at least for the moment, a far-fetched utopia.

Such a unity, “La Resistance”, happened when France was occupied by Nazi Germany, but we are not yet at this point. Dictatorial regimes do not allow an effective societal commitment to civic education for political consciousness. Therefore, political opposition within such regimes does not have the same concept as in western democracies, which are inspired from Greek philosophy.

Aristotle and Plato consider politics as a concern with general issues touching the whole problems of community. This must search and satisfy the direct interests of community. This is the moral task of state to achieve ideas and action with “perfect goodness”.

This concept is unlikely to be adapted by an ideological or religious state whose tangible concern remains its ideological / religious doctrine. For a regime like the IRI and its factions, a social change is defined as a “sinful” alteration of social structures and thus not to envisage. This concept of politics is not new. It is long a part of our political unconsciousness.

It does not mean that we are doomed to such concepts; a unity of Iranian opposition may be achieved through conscious and cooperative efforts. In long-term, there is no other solution to get rid of the plague of the IRI, otherwise new generations will not forgive our fatalistic and egoistic attitudes. We hope to achieve unity, but let us suppose that an immediate modification of our political attitudes remains for the time being an ideal, rather than a reality.

No true Iranian can wait this ideal unity. People are now in the streets of Iran. They need solidarity and support. With or without leadership, they have chosen to struggle for survival. Their strong voices implicitly call for an end of the murderous IRI. Their political conscience has been long inhibited, but now is on the increase. They are combative and so cautious that nobody can highjack their forthcoming freedom. As seen, the end of communist and right-wing regimes has normally started with spontaneous and sporadic protest actions and finally ended up with popular movements. Leadership was gradually formed during the process when political conscience grew and claimed it. This is also true for our people. Their struggles will create their leadership.

Nothing is wrong to use the conflicts within the factions of a dying regime. In critical conditions any totalitarian regime will be divided into many factions. Some of them join people for any reason, while the rest continue their loyalty to the establishment because their bloody hands cannot be washed out anymore. Those who join people are welcome, as catalysts, not leaders. In exchange, they will profit from a general amnesty after the fall of the IRI. We should learn from opportunistic defectors of ex-communist countries. A number of them could become new state leaders after the end of communism and some went on to set up new mafia states in their newly unchained capitalist countries.

Normally, after a period of a revolutionary euphoria, people switch to apathy, especially new generations who are ignorant of their own political institutions and what they mean to them. This shortcoming can be used for regime’s “useful” opposition or factions to divert the movement.

In a free society, opposition performs various activities, but in a corrupted and unelected totalitarian regime like the IRI, the true opposition is uprooted. Therefore, the rule of revolution remains one of the ultimate solutions when nothing is effectively left. Obviously, the prerequisites of leadership abroad could be important, but not predetermined for the initial revolutionary acts. Furthermore all leaders are not endowed with the best qualities and experiences. People can be themselves better avant-gardes.

In a certain level of political awareness, people show their personality of a leadership. This means that among them, the best can be transformed into leading pioneers. Such pioneers are not pre-elected by opposition groups, but directly chosen by activists and militants of the movement. They will understand the problems that their co-fighters face and will find the best solutions on the spot. They will work with others in finding paths to practical goals. They know how to react anytime at their best interests within a framework of fixed duties.

What really contributes to their performance is not where their siege is. This may clandestinely move from one area to another, it can be in or out of the country; the aim is that it can affect its duties. For this aim, it must survive and be safe from destabilisation or an eventual forced confession before the totalitarian regime’s court.

This precaution is necessary because contrary to a “useful” opposition like Green Movement, an opposition leadership uses power and influence primarily in the pursuit of a regime change in Iran. By contrast, a useful opposition is normally formed by ex-cohorts of regime. They are primarily an instrumental obstacle to halt a regime change and secondly an office to bargain on personal objectives. Leaders of such an opposition may call themselves “servants” of people, but in practice more considerations are given to self, to own ideology or religion, over the interests of people. Such leaders because of lacking in social commitments are tolerated or not the targets of extreme brutalities of a totalitarian regime.

If the opposition cannot form an immediate unified opposition to lead a regime change in Iran, let’s use Green Movement as a catalyst. This movement is the last organ of this dying regime. Any faction of the regime is inevitably in a process of agony before the definitive dead of the whole body. On the ruin of this petrified body, a body of democratic and secular regime will come to life. Many people in Iran know and will collectively be aware of this end. So, they know that beyond Green Movement, there is an Islamic alternative to save the whole regime from the death.

The opposition must remind our people of this inevitable death. Then people will be on the right path to use IRI factions despite of absence of a secular and democratic leadership. People’s attitudes, slogans, perseverance show their will to bring an end to the whole Islamic regime. With the beginning of universities, students will further spread these views of secular and democratic values in the society and thus will hasten the dying process.

No matter the angle from which Green Movement opposes the regime, its leadership is not viewed as one that exerts unlimited influence on people. This is not the movement which makes protest occur that would not happen otherwise. It follows the protests to prevent them from uncontrolled radicalism. It does not intend the changes that people look for, but exercises its power to divert them. It does not look for Iran’s future, but attempt to further regress to the black era of murderous Khomeini.

In conclusion, with a black dossier on the shoulder, fanatics like Mousavi and Co. are not event-making heroes to re-deter-mines the course of our history. They are the last dying organ of the same Islamic regime and in the same time can be used as “green” catalysts.

As catalysts, the “green” leaders make chemical reaction happen without being a part of the new substance. A newborn body of democratic and secular regime in Iran substantially has no elements of the rotten IRI.

Among the high ranking authorities of the Islamic Republic of Iran, president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is notorious for his fierce rhetoric and personal immaturity or even abnormality. His nonsensical paroles, absurd comments, lack of rationality, revolting habits, and odd poises suggest his obvious abnormality.

In his speeches, he usually sinks himself into a hectic and incoherent stance in which his words go so beyond the limits of decorum that even some of his companions feel embarrassed about him — even the most inexperienced and insecure politicians rarely engage in spontaneous outbursts like he does, while he displays a skillful ability to deceive, manipulate, and con the unwary, while seeming perfectly sincere.

The self-proclaimed “street cleaner of the people” can raise a bogus enthusiasm among his followers. However, his words echo hatred, threats and terror against others. His words have made the entire world to raise its eyebrows. Even his supporters in the regime are shaking their heads in embarrassment. And yet, as loony as he may seem, it would be a grave mistake not to take him dangerously.

Ahamadinejad’s gaffes are well known. Some of his verbal blunders or odd phrases are more than just simple mistakes. At Columbia University of New York, last September, he claimed that there are no homosexuals living in Iran. For the word “homosexual”, he spewed a vulgar word, “hamjensbaz”, in Persian that brought his Iranian audience to a mocking laughter.

Then, in front of people who did not speak Arabic, Ahamadinejad began reciting verses from the Koran in Arabic, and continued on with a sermon of cheap sentiments, still in Arabic, for 20 embarrassing minutes that could make even an Arabic speaking audience question this man’s sanity.

While boasting his perspective as “an academic”, he proclaimed that the role of science is to serve Islam, and that any science not in the service of Islamic goals is corrupt. As he described it, “Science is the light, and scientists are to be pure and pious. Even if humanity achieves the highest level of physical and spiritual knowledge, as long as its scholars and scientists are not pure, then this knowledge cannot serve the interests of humanity.” Elaborating on this notion, he argued that a great majority of scientists are corrupt because they are serving corrupt governments that reject the pure and pious path of Islam.

He went so far as to claim, “The world powers’ rejection of Islam is a cause for the world’s woes”. As he put it, the second and more important factor is the disregard the world’s powers have towards morals, divine values, the teachings of prophets and the instructions of the Almighty God… Unfortunately, they have put themselves in the level and position of that very same God!”

Since the hard-line president cannot accept criticism, he mocks and proudly feels that everything is owed to him, and that he is entitled to publicly call his own internal critics “goats or traitors”, including those within his own conservative party in the government. In a speech on 12 November 2007 at Tehran’s Science and Technology University, he denounced those critics as “traitors” to Iran’s nuclear programme. He went so far as to even threaten to name and to shame these internal critics unless they end their pressures for a change in IRI’s] nuclear policy.

Prior to a “Holocaust denial conference” in December 2007, Ahamadinejad had initially denied in October 2005 that the Holocaust ever happened. His repeated comments suggesting that Israel be “wiped off the map” is stirring international ire, and they even caused some Iranian officials to play down his remarks, saying that Ahmadinejad did not mean to speak in such sharp terms.

Ahmadinejad’s bellicose and provocative remarks, at a moment when Iran is under increasing international pressure for its nuclear ambitions, suggest that the man does not care about military attack on iran. His threatening words mirror the similar methods of the unpopular IRI by creating the shadow of an external threat in order to keep control over its own people. Ahmadinejad serves the survival of the regime, no matter how weird he is, and no matter how he has failed to rally the majority of people. In the absence of democracy, he gains more blind adherents, more Islamist followers in the world, and more apologists for the regime.

Ahmadinejad is putting forward IRI’s vision for global Islamist domination. The vision of such a domination cannot coexist in any manner with peaceful rhetoric. Ahmadinejad’s words are the direct consequences of the regime’s world view, and as such, he is supported by the Leader of the IRI, ayatollah Ali Khameneh’i, the Hojattyeh-sect and some international Islamists, despite his weird attitudes and uncontrolled speeches.

The IRI cannot satisfy its people; therefore, it applies the policy of carrot and stick. The regime is reaching deep into a dusty bag of tricks to rally a part of people while frightening the rest. Ahmadinejad’s crying “wolf” simply threatens and terrorizes the frustrated people of Iran, not the armies of foreign powers. The IRI, which cannot offer the possibility of a decent and democratic life for the majority of its angry people, despite record high oil prices and almost 29 years of promises, needs to keep this hazardous man, at least, until the end of his first term in office.

Ahamdinejad not only serves the IRI‘s goals, he also speaks menacing words that could be served as an excuse for the Key powers to militarise the region, and for the Israeli government to play down its aggressive policy in the region. Ahmadinejad’s provocations serve one or both of them to stoke the argument and prepare the context for military conflict with Iran.

Mr. Ahmadinejad’s language is a symptom of his personality disorder, suggesting how deep he is preoccupied with his own fantasies. Normal politicians may correct their words, but an abnormal politician like Ahmadinejad would give an explanation that is devoid of intellectual or moral justification because it is enough for them that their words help them do what they want to do. Ahmadinejad has often argued that a great majority of scientists are corrupt because they are serving corrupt governments that reject the pure and pious path of Islam because he needs to seek refuge in his unreal world. He views himself the direct vassal of the Twelfth Imam, the Mahdi, of Shi’ites, for whom he prepares the reappearance after more than a thousand years of occultation. He propagates the idea that he is in permanent contact with him and receives advice from him.

Whatever one may think of Ahmadinejad, any perceived insanity or instability can be best explained by his unshakeable belief in the ethos of the Shiite sect– with a messianic idea of world catastrophe leading to the coming of the Twelfth Imam and Islamic rule over the world. If one analyses this religious belief, his words make perfect sense but only within the strict context of this belief system. When he believes the Mahdi protects him with a “halo of light”, then his words must mirror this belief.

The belief in the imminent return of the Mahdi has not only influenced Ahmadinejad’s words and attitudes, but also driven his foreign policy brinkmanship. According to him, “a historic war between the oppressor, non-Muslims, and the world of Islam” is under way, and the IRI is on the front lines. Thus, as Ahmadinejad told a closed-door session of the “Majles”(Iranian parliament) foreign policy and national security committee in January 2006, Iran must abandon its decade-and-a-haft-old policy of “detente” with the West in favour of confrontation.

Ahmadiniejad’s constantly deteriorating behaviour can be threatening even for his colleagues who can witness more signs of abnormality in his attitudes, language lapses, and ridiculous gestures. It is said that the way he behaves his colleagues leads to the repeated change of his ministers and staff. It is believe that Mr. Ahamsdinejad follows a psychiatric treatment, but he acts as if he were not aware of his personality disorder.

Psychopaths are social predators who may charm, manipulate, and ruthlessly plough their way through life. They have traits such as glibness, grandiosity, lack of guilt, and shallow emotions, as well as social deviance traits such as impulsiveness, lack of responsibility, and antisocial behaviour. Completely lacking in conscience and in feelings for others, Psychopaths are found in every segment of society, including in fields of religion and politics. Throughout history there have been many psychopaths, even with the norms of generally accepted behaviour, who brought obscurantism, wars and catastrophes for their people.

Institutional psychopaths, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Hitler imposed restraints on progress and evolution of their societies. Each considerably set back democracy, civil right, and free thoughts in their totalitarian states. And of course, they killed millions of people. Ahmadinejad seems to be in the same psychopathic stance to commit the same degree of harm against humanity if he were politically in their situation.

Information on Muhammad’s life are deduced from the Koran, the “Sirah” (biography of the Prophet), and some parts of the “Hadiths” (prophetic sayings and deeds), which are considered as “Sahih” (reliable). However, these give us sufficient information to pass a general judgment on the prophet of Islam and his alleged prophecy.

Nothing will be wrong if we suppose that Muhammad was a person with all social and cultural norms of his time. However, almost 100 “surahs” (chapters) of the Koran attempt to confirm the claim of Nabuwat; and as if all these surahs were not enough, Islamic scholars have additionally narrated different sayings over different periods and circumstances to endorse the belief on Nabuwat, but his prophecy has never been proven or unquestionably accepted by some famous scholars like Ibn Sina, Farabi, and Razi.

Before the alleged Nabuwat, according to many resources, Muhammad was a reliable caravan-businessman (Muhammad al-Amin), working for his elderly wealthy wife, Khadijah, as her caravan leader. Later on, as a self-appointed prophet in Mecca, he showed a messiah attitude sage, a poetic man with peculiar but harmless personality traits. After 10 years of prophetic career, he was forced to leave his hometown, Mecca. And his migration, known as “Hijrat”, to Medina in 622 had a far-reaching impact upon Islamic as well as world history. Like several alleged prophets of his time, his claim and fame of prophecy could’ve faded out right after his death in Mecca in the desert sands of Arabia; even the subcontinent of Arabia, let alone the whole world, would not know anything about him. But that was not the case—thanks to the Hijrat.

In Medina, he declared that God had sent him to guide mankind till the Day of Judgment, and turned Medina into his military enclave for realizing his so-called prophetic ambition through the force of arms. As a ‘prophet of swords’ of Allah, he suddenly turned to realizing his very personal ambitions; and he misused the alleged divine commands, supposedly from Allah, and the existing traditional norms of society to that end. He even went so far to violate ethical norms of his own religion to achieve his whims. As such, he had the privilege of having more wives than was permitted under his own Islamic law. He even had the controversial right to marry his daughter-in-law, Zainab, deemed as incest in Arab social ethics; and he forced his adopted son, Zaid, to divorce her so that he could marry her. As a husband, he had the advantage to arbitrarily treat his wives as he liked.

In his financial exploits, he allowed himself the right to rob caravans (for which other robbers would have been beheaded), or to impose humiliating “Jizya” (taxes) on “Dhimmis” (subjugated Christian and Jewish minorities living in Islam-ruled lands). He ordered the confiscation of lands and properties from “Dhimmis”, his enemies, as he wished. He openly claimed that, “the spoils of war, including the widows of killed enemies, were made lawful unto me”. He gave orders to murder many “infidels”.

According to Ali Dashti, who wanted to be an Islamic scholar but apostatised after reading about Muhammad’s life, while Muhammad surrounded Mecca in 630, a compromise of capitulation was achieved: Muhammad accepted a peaceful capitulation of Mecca in exchange for a general amnesty for the population, though excluding certain individuals like Ibn Abdullah, who was one of Muhammad’s early companions and wrote down manuscripts of the Koran for him. He apostatised and fled Medina as Muhammad tried to kill him for having divulged the man-made origin of the Koran. Upon the capitulation of Mecca, he was ordered to be executed, but was saved by the lobbying of his foster brother Uthman, the prophet’s son-in-law.

Although Muhammad accepted the peace treaty, on his return from Mecca to Medina, he attacked a group of Bedouins en route and so the treaty was voided. Apologetic historians claim that people of Mecca received Muhammad with opened arms, as did the Persians to escape tyranny of the “despotic” Sassanids. Many similar sayings by scholars like those of Ali Dashti leave us evidences at hand to raise a simple but taboo question to how such a person could have divine communication, let alone receive Nabuwat from God.

Two dynasties of Islamic Golden Age, namely the Umayyads and Abbasids, established an Islamic empire containing a vast part of the-then known world, thanks to their jihadi swordsmen. Iran was one of their first preys, fallen during Caliph Omar, and it continued to be occupied under Othman, Ali, and several more caliphs. Massacred, enslaved, and long humiliated, Iran continued to be officially occupied by Muslims for two centuries, before falling into the hands of Iranian Muslim dynasties.

Today, thanks to political Islam, Iranians are living under the rule of an Islamic regime. After the current acts of stoning, misogynistic crimes, amputation, religious persecution and many other barbaric acts, all committed by the name of Islam, the people of Iran are becoming increasingly curious to find out the real version of Islam, and especially the historical process that turned Iran Islamic. The people of Iran, as the 14-century-long victims of Islam, have now right to cast serious doubts on anything related to Islam, including its core pillar, the Nabuwat of Muhammad. Today an increasing section of Iranians cast doubt, or do not believe, in Muhammad’s Nabuwat.

Was Muhammad’s “alleged” first rendezvous with Gabriel, the God’s angel, at Mount Hira near Mecca all about a fictitious tale? Iranians are in a situation to ask themselves such timely questions.

Le régime islamique a sans ambages recours à des interrogations prolongées et douloureuses pour extirper de fausses confessions aux figures d’opposition « réformatrice », des militants politiques, des journalistes, et plusieurs centaines de manifestants. Selon des témoignages recueillis par l’organisation de défense des droits de l’Homme Human Rights Watch (HRW), “Les autorités iraniennes pratiquent des interrogatoires prolongés et violents, avec coups, privations de sommeil et menaces de torture, pour obtenir de fausses confessions”, affirme dans un communiqué l’organisation basée à New York, qui a recueilli les témoignages de plusieurs détenus.

Selon la HRW, ces aveux sont destinés à soutenir les accusations du régime affirmant que les manifestations sont appuyées par des puissances étrangères et visent à renverser le régime par une révolution veloutée — ce qui a été fait dans certains pays du bloc de l’Est. Les procès des opposants, forçant à faire de faux aveux sous la contrainte et la torture, visent aussi à sacrifier certains politiciens consommés—anciens ministres, vice-présidents, théoriciens — pour limiter les dégâts pour le régime. Il est évident que ces procès, semblables a ceux sous Staline, sont dérisoirement tramés.

Une prison des mollahs qui était peu connue jusqu’à il y a peu de temps s’appelle Kahrizak. Selon les journaux, elle fut en effet un entrepôt de fruits et de légume au sud de Téhéran et puis transformé en prison de fortune. Les cellules sont des containers métalliques avec un petit orifice pour aération qu’il faut se partager l’accès pour pouvoir prendre la respiration. Kahrizak a servi de camp de détention et frappe par la cruauté de ses geôliers. Les manifestants sont détenus par groupes de 40 à 60 personnes dans des cellules 30 mètres cubes. Les quelques rescapés ont fait état des supplices endurés par les prisonniers. Constamment roués de coups avec des bars de fer et des fouets métalliques sur les parties sensibles du corps, ils sont brûlés avec de l’eau bouillante qu’on déverse sur eux. Au moins une vingtaine de prisonniers ont péri sous la torture et viol dans cette prison où la barbarie a atteint son comble.

Parmi de nombreux témoins, un jeune manifestant a rapporté son témoignage à magazine Paris Match sur Kahrizak : ” On s’est retrouvés debout, serrés comme des sardines, dans des sortes de conteneurs par plus de 40 degrés, pendant deux jours, sans toilettes, sans eau ni nourriture, avec des rats. Quand nos gardiens Bassidji (la milice du régime) nous ont fait couler de l’eau à travers la porte, nous avons été obligés de laper le liquide comme des chiens. C’était dégueulasse : des saletés et surtout du sang. Car nous étions sanguinolents, battus avec des gourdins, le visage démoli. On a toutes les dents cassées. Moi je n’entends plus d’une oreille. Mais je suis mieux loti que des camarades qui sont morts.”

Selon Reza Yavari, un autre prisonnier libéré après la fermeture de Kahrizak : ” Dans notre cellule, des gens tombaient dans le coma. Quand l’un d’entre eux est mort, on a protesté, nos geôliers, des voyous du régime en civil (Lebas shakhsi) sont revenus, ont cassé les ampoules électriques, brandi le cadavre, braqué des torches sur nos visages : ” On va vous enculer, vous tuer, c’est les ordres !” Ils ont attrapé un jeune de 16-17 ans, l’ont cogné comme des fous, certains ont protesté, ils leur ont infligé le même traitement. Le lendemain matin, quatre d’entre nous avaient succombé. “

Jeunes personnes, hommes / femmes, ont subi des viols sexuels dans ce camp de détention, elles se comptaient plusieurs dont les témoignages ont été recueilles par l’organisation des droits de l’homme. Les conditions de torture et viol étaient tellement scandaleuses que le régime était obligé de fermer cette prison sous la pression de responsables du régime dont les enfants y ont péri après avoir été arrêtés dans les manifestations post-électorales.

Tout le monde en Iran est encore sous le choc. Le régime islamique de l’Iran qui a fait campagne contre des humiliations sexuelles subies par nombre d’Irakiens dans la désormais célèbre prison de Abou Gharib, utilise lui-même viol sexuel comme une méthode routine contre ses prisonniers politiques.

Depuis l’installation du régime islamique, viol est pratiqué non seulement pour humilier et torturer les prisonniers politiques mais aussi avant exécuter une jeune fille. Ce viol date des années 1980, lors des grandes purges des prisonniers politiques. À l’époque, sous le ” Fatwa ” (degré religieux) de Ayatollah Khomeiny, les geôliers du régime systématiquement violaient les jeunes prisonnières avant leur exécution. Le viol est justifié par une l’idée qu’il est interdit d’exécuter une jeune femme si elle est vierge. Par conséquent une cérémonie de ” mariage “est menée la nuit précédant l’exécution : la jeune fille est forcée d’avoir des rapports sexuels avec un gardien de prison, en clair elle est violée par son ” mari. “

Le viol des hommes par les geôliers est pourtant pour démoraliser, humilier et torturer afin de les forcer à la soumission. Dans la guerre que le régime islamique mène depuis 30 années à toutes les voix discordantes, les prisonniers d’opinion sont toujours les premières victimes du régime. Dans les trente dernières années, la somme totale des prisonniers politiques se compte par centaines des milliers dont quelques dizaines exécutés jusqu’à aujourd’hui.

À peine la colère des iraniens au sujet des élections frauduleuses atténuée, voilà qu’une affaire humiliante de viol et d’agression sexuelle vient à nouveau les secouer et rappeler à ceux qui doutent encore la triste réalité du peuple iranien sous le joug des mollahs.

Bien que les agressions sexuelles soient des pratiques courantes dans les prisons politiques et depuis l’installation de la république islamique en Iran, elles ont toujours été cachées par l’ensemble de la classe dirigeante, y compris les ” réformateurs “. Le viol des manifestants devient soudainement une arme politique dans les mains des “réformateurs ” contre le gouvernement ” illégitime ” de président Ahmadinejad. Il est clair que les candidats soi-disant réformateurs, Mr. Mousavi, le premier ministre des années 80 et mollah Karrubi, l’ancien président du parlement, ont été eux-mêmes impliqués dans tous les crimes du régime, y compris le viol systématiquement pratiqué dans ces années sanglantes.

Pourtant, comme une fuite en avant, Ahmadinejad, ce président ” illégitime ” qui ne représente qu’une poignée de mollahs corrompus, va se rendre le 23 Septembre prochain à l’ONU pour défendre la légitimité de son régime totalitaire. L’ONU, baptisée par le Général De Gaule, pour ses incompétences dans les années 60, ” le machin “, continue ses incompétences en hésitant à prendre des mesures adéquates contre le régime islamique qui a perdu toute légitimité à la maison, alors que le peuple iranien résiste au prix des viols, torture, et leurs vies.

Comme d’autres grandes civilisations en Syrie et en Egypte, la civilisation perse est aussitôt démantelée par les envahisseurs musulmans. Les villes peuplées qui symbolisaient cette civilisation ont été rasées ou détruites. Comme permis par leur religion et comme d’habitude, les musulmans massacrèrent les hommes ” non musulmans ” pillèrent leurs biens et asservirent leurs femmes et leurs enfants comme butins de guerre.

Ceux qui ne pouvaient pas s’échapper des massacres et de l’esclavage et qui ne pouvaient pas fuir devant les envahisseurs vers un autre pays de refuge comme l’Inde n’ont eu que deux choix : soit la conversion à l’Islam, soit le payement d’un impôt appelé “Jizya “, un tribut humiliant payé aux musulmans par les ” dhimmis ” (les citoyens non musulmans d’un territoire dirigé par les musulmans).

L’invasion fut désastreuse, l’ensemble du pays fut occupé en 650 par les musulmans qui cherchent à étendre leur ” Dar-al-islam ” (le territoire de l’islam) à tout prix. Pour cette ambition, les Perses devraient perdre leur identité nationale, leur langue, et leur religion — le zoroastrisme —. La population civile diminua à cause des massacres perpétuels et parce que une grande partie a dû fuir leur pays et parce que un grand nombre de femmes et d’enfants sont devenus des esclaves et déportés vers les marchés de l’Arabie pour être vendus comme d’autres butins de guerre.

L’Iran resta occupé par les Arabes musulmans durant deux siècles et finalement tomba sous les dynasties chiites pendant les cinq derniers siècles.

La ” chiisisation ” de l’Iran commença par la Dynastie Safavide au début du seizième siècle. Shah Esmai’l Safavide, le premier roi de la dynastie d’origine turkmène et lui-même un soufi militant, imposa violemment la conversion au Chiisme aux iraniens qui étaient majoritairement sunnites. Cette conversion est pour la création d’une identité nationale contre son rival sunnite de l’empire Ottoman qui menaçait son règne.

La scission du Chiisme du Sunnisme et puis les subdivisions á l’intérieur du Chiisme tiennent à la définition de la lignée des Imams. La plupart des Chiites sont duodécimains ou imâmites. Leur ” imâmat ” commence par Imam Ali et sa ligné se termine par le douzième, le Mahdi – l’imam caché.

Le Chiisme qui est un courant historiquement politique, intégriste et sectariste, conteste depuis son apparition le pouvoir politique en termes religieux, se penchant uniquement sur la tradition théocratique (pouvoir politique détenu par les religieux) de l’Etat musulman. Les Chiites ne reconnaissent pas les mêmes héritiers que les Sunnites après la mort du Prophète en 632 : pour les Chiites, c’est l’imam Ali, cousin et gendre du Prophète, qui est la figure tutélaire ; pour les Sunnites, c’est Abou Bakr, compagnon de Mohammed. S’ensuivent des différences liturgiques et doctrinales, mais surtout politiques.

Pour bourrer le crâne d’un peuple, le Shah Esmai’l envoie ses agents dans les pays arabes pour recruter des “Sayyeds” (descendants du Prophète Mohammad). En effet, ils ont dû faciliter les tâches pour l’administration répressive du Shah. C’est par les carnages du Shah Esmai’l et les prêches de ses complices Sayyeds que l’Iran devient subitement chiite. Un événement qui coûta la vie à des centaines de milliers d’Iraniens. Les Iraniens ” infidèles ” n’étaient pas cette fois massacrés par les musulmans de la péninsule d’Arabie mais convertis violemment par un roi iranien pour la cause de ses buts politiques et personnels.

Le Shah Esmai’l s’est considéré le représentant du ” Mahdi ” (le douzième Imam qui est disparu il y a mille ans et est attendu par les chiites pour faire régner la justice islamique sur la terre). Dans ce contexte, le monarque devient une figure semi divine, ce que tous les rois prétendaient être et ce jusqu’à l’émergence de la République Islamique, où cette prétention est baptisée ” Valy-e-Faqih ” (Leader Suprême).

C’est sous les Safavides que la culture de deuil se divulgua en Iran. Achoura est le jour où le troisième Imam Hussein, fils du premier Imam et quatrième Calife, Ali, avec ses soixante-douze compagnons, sont martyrisés par les troupes de Yazid, le maudit qui était Calife omeyyade en 680. Quelques siècles plus tard, sous les Safavides et les Qadjars, cet événement reprend une dimension symboliquement importante et même trop exagérée.

Pendant les dix premiers jours de Moharram, le mois de deuil, et spécialement le neuvième et le dixième jour certains Chiites se consacrent aux cérémonies de deuil en souvenir du martyre de l’Imam Hossein et de ses partisans à Kerbela il y a plus de treize siècles. Des cortèges d’hommes vêtus de noir déambulent dans les rues au son des tambours rythmés par le frappement des poitrines et des chaînes et précédés par des porte-drapeaux et des groupes de musique funèbre. Ils se tailladent même le crâne pour que jaillisse le sang : tout concourt à signifier le deuil et également à une culture de haine et violence. En même temps que la religion en Occident cède la place à la Renaissance, le Chiisme invente ces cérémonies de deuils.Sous les Qadjars, des nouvelles cérémonies religieuses émergent. Il s’agit de Ta’ziyeh qui s’inspire des événements du jour de l’Achoura, dont l’impression est trop forte dans la mentalité chiite. Le Ta’ziyeh est une représentation théâtrale de ces événements, accompagnée de lamentations et de récits de deuil. Bien que ces récits et les lamentations infinies ne soient que des prêches imaginaires des Mollahs chiites, c’est une occasion pour bourrer le crâne de ceux qui doivent prouver leur foi et leur attachement aux descendants du Prophète.

Sous les Qadjars, les Mollahs contrôlaient les institutions religieuses et culturelles comme des madressehs (écoles religieuses pour les garçons), la justice, celles qui bafouent les droits de liberté, l’égalité de femme, des arts et sciences modernes et traditionnellement l’identité préislamique de l’Iran.

Néanmoins, on témoigne d´une formation graduelle d’une nouvelle caste sociale en Iran qui n’est que celle des Sayyeds : ils portaient comme toujours des turbans noirs, ou parfois verts. Ils n’étaient que plusieurs centaines à l’époque des Safavides, recrutés des pays arabes, et aujourd’hui ils sont plusieurs millions dont la propagation disproportionnée montre qu’une grande majorité de Sayyeds devaient être des charlatans opportunistes qui se sont faufilés au rang des “descendants du Prophète” pour profiter de tous les avantages qui leur étaient offerts. Des descendants de Mohammad et à la fois des disciples d’Ali, gendre et cousin du Prophète Mohammed, inventent leur mythe de suprématie de sorte que le peuple soit l’éternel repenti, hanté par l’apostasie et ainsi devait oublier cette injustice et cette duperie.

Les Chiites ont longtemps été opprimés et maintenus sous l’étroit contrôle des Sunnites à travers le monde musulman. Dès son apparition, le Chiisme a été une secte de persécutés et d’exclus. Les Safavides préparèrent désormais un terrain favorable pour les faire venir en Iran. Les minorités chiites, souvent isolées au cœur des populations majoritairement sunnites, devinrent de nouveaux citoyens de l’Etat chiite, Vrai ou faux, parmi eux, beaucoup de Sayyeds avec un turban noir ou vert qui leur permettent d’avantage de former une nouvelle caste forte.

Sous la dynastie Qadjar (1786-1925) – également religieuse – qui succéda aux Safavides, puis sous le dernier Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (1925-1979), les Mollahs accrurent encore leur pouvoir sous seize ans du règne de Reza Shah, les Mollahs perdent relativement leur influence politique. Tandis qu’en Iran, mis à part cette courte période de Reza Shah, l’influence des Mollahs grandissait, au point que l’Ayatollah Khomeiny réclama l’instauration d’un régime islamique en 1979, alors, la troisième invasion d’islam commence. Le ” calife ” de cet islam chiite s’appelle ” Vely-e- Faqih ” c’est-à-dire un ” Ayatollah ” (titre religieux chiite) et leader politique à la fois avec la monopolisation totale du pouvoir.

Le désastre sur un peuple déraciné se triple : moins de quatorze siècles après l’invasion des musulmans arabes à Qadessieh et moins de cinq siècles après la ” chiitisation ” sanglante des Safavides, et depuis 1979, les islamistes s’imposent en chantant leur triomphe d’ Allah Akbar (le dieu est grand) à travers le pays dévasté.

Plus qu’une religion politique et moins qu’un ordre éthique, plus qu’un ordre social et moins qu’une une foi de liberté – aussi divisé que le sont généralement les conflits politiques, plus diversifié que ne l’est généralement une religion – l’islam, ou plutôt les ” islams ” existent dans le monde d’arriéré et se développent démographiquement dans le monde moderne, et leurs préceptes intéressent aussi bien la vie privée que la vie publique des musulmans.

Aujourd’hui, les Mollahs chiites au pouvoir en Iran se prennent pour les leaders de tous les musulmans. Ils prônent un retour aux sources de la Charia et à l’âge d’or du Prophète Mohammad. La société idéale des Mollahs est une communauté musulmane, Umma. A l’âge d’or, elle devait se composer des hommes barbus, des femmes encagées dans leur chador noir et des hordes ardentes ivres de rites médiévales. Pour cela tout est permis, même la guerre sainte, le Jihad.

De ce fait, les Mollahs chiites considèrent leur régime comme Etat de tous les musulmans), méprisants des sectes a l’intérieur de l’islam et des choix politiques des musulmans. C’est par la barbarie (théoriquement écrite dans la constitution de la République Islamique) que les Mollahs osent s’imposer.

Aujourd’hui comme au temps de la première invasion des musulmans arabes de l’ancienne Perse, et puis des massacres des Sunnites iraniens sous le règne de dynastie Safavide, l’application intégrale de l’islam et ses lois, la Chariah, à tous les aspects de la vie quotidienne et politique est imposé contre les femmes, les jeunes, les intellectuels, les minorités religieuses et ethniques, et tous ceux qui ne demandent que le droit de vivre d’une manière libre et laïque en Iran.

After the conquest of ancient Persia by the Arab Muslims in 644, tens of thousands, probably, millions of Iranian female were raped, enslaved, and transported away as war-booty to be sold in slave-markets of Arab-Islamic territories. The Persian word ‘Tajovoz’ does not only mean ‘rape’ by which a man seized or stole a wife, but also means destruction and occupation of one’s environment by invaders. In a belief system that a passive nine-year-old girl can be raped by her ‘husband’, rape, as an extension of such a patriarchal societal control over females, was introduced by the Arab Muslims as the most hideous, shameful, and submissive element in the culture of occupied Iran. Since the occupation by Arab Muslims, Iranian women, who once equated with their male compatriots, have been since viewed as male-possessions, first of their fathers, then of their husbands. In case of rape in Islamised Persia, they were subjected to blame and shame more than their rapists.

Rape of Female Prisoners

Shortly after the 1979 revolution, many intellectuals, political activists, and sympathisers of the leftist opposition were arrested, and many of them were summarily executed. Virgin prisoners were generally raped before being executed. The reason is that according to the Islamic regime’s interpretation of Islamic laws, killing of a virgin woman is prohibited, because a virgin’s soul goes to Heaven, not to Hell, after death. To solve the dilemma, the night before the execution, the virgin is married by one of the guards, and the marriage is consummated overnight, before carrying out the execution. Apart from such rape, the interrogators of the Mullah regime routinely use rape as a tool of torture to obtain information, confession, or, simply, to humiliate the prisoner.

Rape of Male prisoners

The rape of a male victim typically consists of forced penetration of the anus by a penis or other object as has been reported by some Iranian rape-victims. Because of traditional self-censor, male-rape has until recently remained unreported in Iran. It is believed that a man in a patriarchal culture should be masculine, strong and able to protect himself. Therefore, nothing can be worse, more shameful, for a proud man than being forcibly raped. Young men, who have survived the post-election rapes, are now suffering from rigorous psychological injuries. Rape of male prisoners in the Mullahs’ jails has caused serious damage to inner organs of the victims and depression to them. Since male victims feel shame to identify themselves, they avoid medical treatment unless the victim is seriously injured.

It is believed that religious permission of rape, including male-rape, of ‘opponents of the Islamic regime’ has been recently given by Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi, the monitor and spiritual guru of president Ahmadinejad. Islamic authorities usually deny that rape is being committed in their prisons, fearing strong reaction from the public, both inside and outside.

In an interview at the Jamkaran gathering after the revelation of rape in the Mullah’s prisons, Mesbah Yazdi was asked: “Can an interrogator rape the prisoner in order to obtain a confession?” He answered: “The necessary precaution is for the interrogator to perform a ritual washing first and say prayers while raping the prisoner. If the prisoner is female, it is permissible to rape through the vagina or anus. It is better not to have a witness present. If it is a male prisoner, then it’s acceptable for someone else to watch while the rape is committed.”

Zahra Bani Yaghoub, Azar Al Cana’an, and Roya Toloui are among the female prisoners, who were raped and murdered in past years under the same Islamic regime. Additionally, at least two recent teen female victims of the post-election oppression in Iran, Taraneh Mousavi and Saeedeh Pour Agha’i, were documented by the media as being burnt in an attempt to cover up the hideous crime.

To shed light on the Mesbakh Yazdi’s permission of rape, it is believed that in numerous offensive raids, called ‘Ghazawat’, early Muslims, under the Prophet, attacked ‘infidel’ tribes; they killed men, robbed their properties, and took whichever females they wanted, raped them, and then brought them to their tribe as their slave-possession. Tolerance of such brutalities in Islam may not be universally believed by Muslims and might be regarded as myth. However, these are the mindsets of the brutal Islamic regime that rules Iran and commits such horrendous crimes.

In an ultimate psychological analysis of rape, rapists seem to come from a subculture of violence, whose values may be different from those of the mainstream. A rapist is often a poorly educated man from the lower socioeconomic strata, who had criminal records. Therefore such a man may be demonstrating his toughness and masculinity in a more violent and antisocial manner, but in the case of a rapist of the Mullahs’ prisons, this is not the dominant factor.

Rapists of the Mullahs’ prisons are not necessarily the psychopathic and antisocial torturers, but most likely ‘pious’ Muslims, married men, and even can be kind fathers. They just follow the ‘divine’ guidance of the Islamic regime, and do not consider those rapes as crimes, and do not feel remorse after the assault. These sexual ‘offenders’ are not accountable for their sexual assaults, because rape is allowed or tolerated by Islamic clerics of the regime.

Rape in the Mullahs’ prisons is not an individual decision of an interrogator, as one may commonly believe; it is a systematic process based on a belief system, and for promoting a political agenda. In the Mullahs’ prisons, rapes are often planned. The primary motive for rape is not sexual. They regard and believe in rape as a routine duty, due to its prescription by Islamic clerics of high stature like Ayatollah Mesbakh Yazdi, and its acceptance by the entire Mullah regime. With that in mind, their act of rape is not merely a question of psycho-criminality, but a justified crime.

This year, the commemoration coincides with the beginning of a revolutionary atmosphere which statred in and out of Iran after the recent controvesial election. This simple election became an occasion of a long-oppressed people to raise their fists against the plague of the IRI. The popular movement now turns to be a freedom movement with a grandious perspective to free Iran from the bloody clutches of Mullahs.

Despite all dreadful risk, people in Iran now cry radical slogans like “Marg Bar Diktator!” (Death to the dictator!), hinting at Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader. This is a clear signal of targeting the whole regime. It is under such circumstances a national duty of Iranians abroad to reflect the freedom desire of in Iranians. Let’s all freedom-loving Iranians abroad massively commemoratethe 18-Tir by demonstrating and crying slogans targeting at the whole totalitarain IRI at this day.

Non, l’Iran n’a pas encore l’arme atomique. D’ailleurs ce sont les mollahs qui vont posséder cette arme du « jihad-fi-sabi-allah » (guerre pour la cause de Dieu), pas l’Iran, et dans le but de leur propre survie et l’expansion de leur Islam politique. Par contre il y a d’autres moyens que depuis l’installation de la République islamique, les mollahs ne cessent d’y rêver.

L’Iran est le deuxième pays producteur de l’Organisation des pays exportateurs de pétrole (OPEP), et avec des exportations de 2,7 l’Iran est le deuxième pays producteur de pétrole et le quatrième producteur mondial de pétrole brut, dont il a 138 milliards de barils en réserve, et il possède les deuxièmes stocks mondiaux de gaz, soit 28 000 milliards de mètres cubes, équivalant à 43 milliards de barils de pétrole.

Malgré ces ressources énormes, le pays est en ruine. Plus de 20% des Iraniens et plus de 40% des Iraniennes sont au chômage, 80% des chômeurs sont des jeunes, la société, ruinée par l’inflation rampante de 26% (selon la banque centrale).

Le régime islamique ne survit que par le pétrole qui représente plus des deux tiers de ses recettes budgétaires et de ses exportations. Pourtant le régime qui dépense des sommes colossales pour la technologie nucléaire et les achats militaires n’a pas mis en travail la raffinerie d’Abadan, longtemps la plus grande du monde, endommagée pendant la guerre Iran Irak. Faute de raffineries, n’étant plus en état d’exporter son pétrole, l’Iran doit importer 40% de son essence dont 36% par l’Inde.

Le président Obama a récemment renouvelé d’un an un décret pris en 1995 sous Bill Clinton interdisant toute implication américaine dans les affaires pétrolières iraniennes. Ce décret avait été pris à l’époque pour sanctionner le soutien apporté par l’Iran au terrorisme international selon les États-Unis, et sa quête d’armes de destruction massive. Il a été reconduit d’année en année par les présidents américains successifs. Le président Barack Obama a prolongé pour un an un embargo pétrolier sur l’Iran, parmi toutes les sanctions américaines et internationales imposées à la République islamique.

On est déçu de demander la même sanction de la part de la Russie et la Chine qui sont d’ailleurs des meilleurs partenaires des mollahs. Dans ces pays, il n y a pas une tradition de droits de l’homme qui puisse aujourd’hui influer sur les intérêts politiques et lucratifs. Mais l’Europe et l’Inde, la plus grande démocratie du monde, sont au centre de cette demande :

Le monde civilisé, surtout l’Inde et l’Europe, peut-il suivre l’exemple des Etats-Unis en abandonnant le commerce du pétrole et du gaz avec les mollahs ? Les firmes européennes (Total, ENI, Statoil…) font des commerces honteux avec ce régime illégitime. 15%, de la consommation gazière de l’Europe vient de l’Iran. L’Iran exporte environ 2,5 Mb/j de pétrole à destination du Japon, de la Chine, de la Corée du Sud, de Taïwan et principalement de l’Europe.

Les recettes des exportations de pétrole brut pourraient rapporter aux mollahs corrompus environ 90 milliards de dollars cette année (mars 2008 -mars 2009). Elles font près de 80 % des recettes budgétaires, desquelles une grande part sera détournée des caisses de l’État par des mollahs et leurs sbires (le transfert des milliards de dollars par Mojtaba Khamenei, le fils du Guide Suprême, fut récemment gelé en Angleterre), une autre grande part est consacrée pour la machine répressive.

Des sanctions supplémentaires, notamment dans les secteurs gazier et pétrolier prises à l’encontre de la république islamique peut considérablement accélérer la chute du régime impopulaire.

Le régime fait face aujourd’hui à des problèmes plus sérieux que la communauté internationale ne pense. Les iraniens montrent les signes d’une volonté qui peut aboutir à une prochaine révolution sociale. Dans cette première phase de révolution, qui est encore colorée par le mouvement vert de Moussavi, le peuple s’organise pour la lutte finale. Dans ce stade, Moussavi s’est imposé comme un « réformiste » face à ce vil Ahmadinejad qui incarne le régime détesté. Dans un stade ultérieur, le peuple devancera Moussavi en réfutant l’ensemble du régime y compris ce catalyseur, Moussavi lui- même.

Contrairement à ce que les médias à l’ouest décrivent, les protestations post électorales ne proviennent pas de Moussavi ou Karroubi, les candidats “réformistes” du même régime, mais d’une colère datée de trente années et accumulée sous le joug des mollahs. Derrière ces protestations prudentes, il y a une volonté de changement du régime, ce qui est fortement souhaitée par une grande majorité du peuple iranien, surtout les jeunes, qui en profitent de cette élection controversée pour viser l’ensemble du régime totalitaire de la République islamique.

Craignant un effondrement du régime par une révolution sociale, différentes factions du régime sont surprises par la mobilisation spontanée du peuple pour son droit à la liberté. Non seulement il dénonce ce coup d’État tramé par la faction d’Ahmadinejad, mais crient à travers le pays « Mort à la République islamique ! ». Ce qui a créé une fissure dans les différentes factions du régime qui maintenant s’accusent d’être responsables pour tramer une » révolution de velours » contre le régime islamique.

Malgré une lutte féroce pour le pouvoir, toutes les factions « réformistes » du régime essaient de calmer des contestations populaires en la limitant à une remise en cause des résultats controversés de l’élection en faveur de Moussavi ou Karroubi. Cette tentative s’est avérée à contrarier la révolution sociale. Enfin, si les tyrans parviennent à leurs fins et répriment ce jeune mouvement iranien, ils massacreront des milliers de gens et opprimeront d’avantage le peuple entier.

En ce qui concerne la communauté internationale, les mollahs approchent de la possession d’une arme nucléaire dont il est clair qu’elle sera une garantie de leur survie. Toutes les factions du régime sont fidèles à la constitution islamique, avec l’instance du Guide Suprême, et l’actuelle politique nucléaire. Elles se réclament des disciples d’ Ayatollah Khomeiny, le fondateur, du régime islamique — dès la prise du pouvoir en1979, Khomeiny réclama que son régime prenne en main tous les moyens pour exporter la révolution islamique dans le monde. Pour éliminer « les ennemies de l’Islam » Khomeiny donna l’ordre (fatwa de mort) d’éliminer tous les « ennemies de l’Islam). Des milliers de dissidents, intellectuels, « infidèles » (Bahaïs), ont étés arrêtés et exécutés, ainsi lorsque Moussavi fut le premier ministre 1981-88.

À but non lucratif, sans considère les intérêts mafieux des « Oil Companies », la communauté internationale a toute sa raison de soutenir aujourd’hui cette aspiration démocratique et laïque du peuple iranien et il n y a aucun risque que ce soutien soit contre-productif. La fin du régime islamique ouvre une nouvelle fenêtre à la paix et sécurité mondiales.

Souvent, les revenus pétroliers favorisent le prolongement des dictateurs, des cheiks corrompus, des mollahs criminels. En deux mots, une élite parasite, qui n’a pas d’intérêt à faire avancer la modernité, la justice sociale et la démocratisation dans leur pays. Dans le cas des mollahs, leur régime a déjà perdu sa légitimité, s’il en avait un peu, son existence ne repose que sur ces forces militaires, milices fanatisées, et institutions répressives.

Toutes ces organisations répressives sont financées par les revenus du pétrole. Non seulement à l’intérieur du pays, mais les mollahs aussi dépensent une bonne portion des revenus pétroliers à financer le terrorisme de Hezbollah et Hamas, ainsi que d’autre foyers de terrorisme dans le monde entier. Les mollahs entraînent le pays sur une pente dangereuse pouvant aboutir à une confrontation armée avec les Etats-Unis ou d’autres pays de la région.

In the case of the IRI, oil is the greatest income of state mafia which makes the regime possible to set up their repressive institutions, propaganda machine, thousands of plain clothes thugs to beat up angry people, apologists in the West, sold intellectuals from various factions of the regime who propagate that any the regime is both legitimate and can be reformed within its constitution, and terrorist groups to advance the IRI agenda in and out of the country. The regime also spends a part of this Iranian national resource to help the two Islamist terrorist groups, Hamas, Hezbollah to prevent peaceful solutions in the region.

The U.N. Security Council resolutions and EU have already mentioned the possibility of oil sanctions on the IRI due to its nuclear ambitions and its strategy to export violence in the region. In the light of such resolutions and added to them the ongoing brutalities after the coup, the world must timely step up: sanction on fuel supplies to Iran is the first step to shake off the regime and is now widely expected by both Iranians and the international community.

The domestic consume of gasoline is estimated 75 million litres a day, of which 36 million is imported from India. If the gasoline delivery is stopped, Iran’s domestic consummation, including that of the repressive machine, of the regime, can be paralysed within a week. In such a case the heroic people of Iran can better do the rest to send the whole regime in the dustbin of history.

India supplies a great part of the needed gasoline which helps the Mullahs’ regime to survive– it imports Iranian crude oil and exports to Iran gasoline after refining. In a perspective of an international solidarity with the oppressed people of Iran in struggle against the illegitimate regime of coup d’état, India as the biggest democracy of the world can play an important factor to side with the freedom-loving people of Iran in their struggle against the totalitarian IRI in Iran.

Pour mieux connaître la colère et nature réservée des émeutes, il faut d’ailleurs connaître les quatre candidats présidentiels et leur lien avec le régime islamique :

Tous les quatre candidats ont été validés par le Conseil des gardiens parmi quelques centaines de candidats–le Conseil gardiens est une instance ultra conservatrice qui valide ou rejette des candidatures de toutes les élections selon le degré de loyauté des candidats au régime et à l’Islam. Voici un bref portrait de ces candidats du conseil.

Le candidat conservateur, Président Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, 52 ans, l’ancien maire de Téhéran, est un des dirigeants les plus controversés du régime. Il est connu pour ces idées anti-sémites, sectaires, et sur tout pour sa floue des paroles incontrôlables et souvent humiliantes. Il bénéficie d’un soutien du guide suprême, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, pour un deuxième mandat–le guide suprême religieux dit le dernier mot sur toutes les affaires du pays. Ce pouvoir absolu est inscrit dans la constitution de la République islamique.

Dans les années 1980, Ahmadinejad travaillait au département de la « sécurité interne » des gardiens de la révolution et y a gagné sa notoriété d’interrogateur et de tortionnaire cruel. D’après la révélation du site Baztab « Ahmadinejad aurait travaillé pendant quelques temps comme bourreau à la prison d’Evine où des milliers de prisonniers politiques ont été exécutés dans les purges sanglantes des années 1980 lorsque Moussavi était alors le premier ministre.

Le deuxième candidat dans le camp conservateur, Mohsen Rezaï, était pendant la guerre Iran Irak, le chef du redoutable Corps des Gardiens de la Révolution l’armée idéologique du régime– qui d’ailleurs vient d’avertir le peuple en colère qu’ils seraient confrontés à une riposte “décisive et révolutionnaire” de leur part s’ils continuaient leurs manifestations.

Le troisième candidat était Mir Hossein Moussavi, Il est l’un des deux candidats « réformateurs » du régime islamique. Il était le premier ministre de 1981-1988. Son ministère d’information fut alors engagé dans le massacre des prisonniers politiques durant de l’année 1988 suite à un « fatwa » (ordre religieux) de mort ordonné par Ayatollah Khomeiny. Plus de 30,000 prisonniers politiques avaient alors été exécutés en moins de quelques mois dans les prisons à travers le pays. Moussavi est un islamiste obscur, un ancien « fou de Dieu », et un disciple de Khomeiny.

Le quatrième candidat était Mollah Mehdi Karoubi, l’ex-président du parlement sous Khatami. Tant Moussavi que Karoubi se déclarent être « réformateurs ». Tout en sachant que le régime n’est pas réformable, ils ont l’intention de garantir la survie du régime islamique à leurs façons présentées dans leurs programmes électoraux.

Compte tenue du fait que les élections en Iran ne sont pas libres et seulement sont destinées qu’à consolider le système et à régler le partage du pouvoir entre les factions du régime, et du fait que ces quatre candidats ne représentent que les intérêts du même régime, l’opposition iranienne qui principalement se compose de gauche laïque et démocratique (sauf le Parti Toudeh, pro Moussavi), des monarchistes, et de la principale opposition islamique au régime, Modjahedines du Peuple, ont appelé au boycott à cette » mascarade élection ». Selon certaines sources, quelque trente pourcent des iraniens ont boycotté l’élection.

Qui a voté des candidats « réformateurs » :

–Ceux qu’en souhaitant désespérément enlever au vil Ahmadinejad le pouvoir à n’importe quel prix.
–Ceux qui encore rêvent des reformes à l’intérieur du régime. Ce groupe voit en Moussavi les rêves pour un Iran plus laïque et plus libre.
–Ceux qui prennent un de ces candidats, sur tout Moussavi, pour un catalyseur des changements plus profonds.

Tant les électeurs des « réformateurs » que ceux qui ont boycotté l’élection, croient que cette élection est planifiée. Par conséquence, son résultat non seulement provoque une guerre de pouvoir au sein du régime, mais permet au peuple en colère d’utiliser ce conflit interne du régime comme une excuse pour exprimer leur colère. Aussi les candidats « réformateurs », de leur tour, en profitent de la colère du peuple pour gagner une bonne part de gâteau dans ce jeu de pouvoir.

D’autre part, le régime sait qu’une montée des luttes anti-régime risque d’être incontrôlable. Dans ce cas, Il est évident qu’un compromis soit possible entre Moussavi / Karoubi d’une part et le reste du régime d’autre part. En cas d’un tel compromis, le mouvement populaire qui est maintenant en train de s’épanouir n’a que deux perspectives possibles: soit il sera brutalement maté par le régime une foi réunis, soit il doit se préparer pour une lutte longue conter l’ensemble du régime.

Selon toutes les indications, les émeutes prennent de l’ampleur et cela malgré une forte présence des forces anti-émeutes plus une milita pro régime dans les rues, il y a même des rumeurs que le régime a renforcé ces forces en recrutant le Hezbollah libanais ainsi qu’une milita chiite de l’Irak.

Chaque jour qui passe, elles portent un coup décisif. Les protestations post-électorales deviennent un mouvement de protestation contre le système clérical, les manifestants à travers le pays maintenant scandent « mort au dictateur » visant le Guide suprême, Ali khamenei.

Les médias étrangers se sont trompés en attribuant ces vagues de colère à la seule l’ampleur de la fraude lors de la présidentielle en Iran, ce qui n’est rien de nouveau et existait depuis l’installation du régime. Ce mouvement à long terme serra non plus attaché aux valeurs islamiques de Moussavi / Karoubi. Le peuple sait qu’il est devant un régime qui ne tolère pas la moindre opposition sur tout de la part des « non Musulmans ». Pour cette raison les manifestants sont encore prudents, pourtant il y des manifestantes qui manifestement jettent leur foulard, la plupart des manifestants sont rasés et ne sont pas habillés comme les partisans du régime, ces jeunes manifestants est une jeunesse bien éduquée et consciente. Il suffit de voir leur apparence et d’entendre leurs slogans pour comprendre leurs désires pour des changements laïques et démocratiques.

D’une manière générale, la colère populaire dépasse les résultats électoraux, Elle montre plutôt que cette élection planifiée ne soit qu’une étincelle qui a libéré une éruption de colère parmi toutes les couches sociales d’une nation qui palpite depuis trente ans sous le joug des mollahs.

Bien que ces vagues d’émeutes ne puissent pas ébranler le régime et qu’il soit peu probable qu’il soit disparu du jour au lendemain, elles portent l’espoir de devenir un mouvement national, démocratique, et laïque en Iran. Les jeunes luttes qui viennent de commencer ont encore un caractère spontané, mais elles peuvent s’aboutir à un mouvement révolutionnaire. Elles s’annoncent un début de la fin du régime totalitaire des mollahs en Iran.

• The first category belongs to a Muslim population who voted for Mousavi or Karoubi by conviction; they still capitalise their hope in reforms within the Islamic Republic of Iran.

• The second one is those who voted for one of the “reformists” as a “catalyst” to ease the way for a secular and democratic regime. They voted for them as the lesser evils, hoping to have one of them pave the way toward freedom and secularism in the future.

• And the third category belongs to the Iranians who boycotted the election and want an immediate democratic and secular regime on the ruins of the IRI.

Without bringing up the value of democracy and secularism, without denouncing the 30-year-old IRI human rights violations, the first category is a hollow bubble which disappears soon or must be transformed, materialised, and polarised into a national freedom movement close to the ideals of the second, and especially the third category.

Now, according to the news coming from the ongoing anti-regime protests in and outside the country, the second category is joining the third one to the point that the Iranian youth do not want to risk their lives for the survival of such a regime under any form. They start casting doubt on the legitimacy of the regime and will join the third category which wants a total elimination of the IRI.

By asserting that the first category is not hostile to IRI survival, the regime will try to find a compromise with Mousavi or Karoubi to halt uncontrolled development of the movement. This is also an option which is desired by Mullahs’ international partners and all IRI lobby groups in the West which, among others, broker the IRI state mafia with the western Oil Companies and military investors.

The regime is highly prudent; therefore, it reinforces its troops on the streets. The IRI tries to separate “reformists” from the “agents of foreign enemies” or in fact from the second and third categories which are rapidly increasing. Khamenei openly threatened them in front of three hundred followers and plainclothes at the last Friday prayers, telling them to join the establishment before it is too late.

What concerns all secular and democrats is that we should avoid any mistrust and confusion which may result in an unnecessary rupture of these three different categories; it will be vital to focus on the unity of our nation in their fair struggles against the plague of the IRI as long as unity is possible; only thus will the first two categories get closer to the third category and so make regime change possible.

Only thanks to the unity, a possible desertion of state troops and their solidarity with their people can be expected. It would not matter to which category people belong.

This spontaneous movement improves and like any spontaneous movement it needs tactical phases to achieve its strategy.

It was originally quoted from some staff of Interior Ministry that a second round would have been needed to determine the victor between Mousavi and Kahrubi, who according to them received respectfully the first and second place, while Ahmadinejad would have already been out of the race.

Nationwide from Monday on, millions of disappointed people have taken part in the post-election demonstrations carrying banners which said ‘Where’s my vote?” They protest against the “coup” plotted by the hardliners, supported by Ayatollah Ali khamenei, the Supreme Leader. Nationwide clashes erupted as riot police and regime’s militia attacked demonstrators and universities in Iran. Several demonstrators have been reported killed and many activists arrested. Riot police continues to clamp down on a growing demonstration by supporters of the “reformist” candidates. Despite regime’s repression, fresh waves of protests are nationwide reported and are thought to continue.

Prior to the 2009 Iran’s presidential election, a voting campaign was widely organised by the IRI and propagated by pro-IRI’s media both in and outside the country to bring as much people as possible to the urns to vote for one of the Mullahs’ candidates. A massive participation was announced by the regime as a proof positive that the IRI is “legitimate”. As Khamenei has constantly said, each vote is above all a “yes” to the Islamic regime.

In the West, with the help of IRI’s lobby groups, exported journalists, resident Islamists, state mafia close to different candidates, this demagogical campaign was to portray a legitimate and reformable image of the IRI.

A part of Iranian secular opposition, hoping that their vote to a “reformist” candidate would be considered as a “no” to Khamenei and his favourable candidate, President Ahmadinejad, fell into the regimes’ trap and voted Mousavi or Kahroubi as the lesser evils in a naive attempt to run President Ahmadinejad out of office.

In actuality, since the inception of the IRI, there have never been fair elections in Iran. Firstly, all candidates are pre-selected by the Guardians Council, a watchdog institution that has the power to reject any candidates. Secondly, all elections have been rigged and fraudulent so far that among the pre-selected candidates by the Guardians Council, the regime capriciously picks one out of the urns.

To look into the background of these four presidential candidates, we see their direct involvement in the crimes, repressive institutions, and the key government positions in the last thirty years of Mullahs ‘regime:

Apart from President Ahmadinejad, who is notorious for his thuggish behaviour and his black background in the repressive institutions of the regime, the other candidates have not a better past.

Mohsen Rezaie was head of the Revolutionary Guards for over 10 years, Mehdi Kahroubi was a former parliamentary speaker, Mir Hossein Mousavi was PM for 8 years during Khomeini’s leadership. During this time, thousands of dissidents were summarily executed. As a Hezbollah and a disciple of Khomeini and a PM of Ali Khameini, Mousavi’s hands were washed in the blood of many Iranians. The 1988 massacre of political prisoners which war ordered by Khomeini was helped by his Ministry of Information. During the Iran-Iraq War, his regime sent thousands of Iranians children onto the mine in the war zone.

After the 1979 revolution, new waves of people’s struggles against the ruling dictatorship have already started in Iran. They will gradually take form during the process of struggle; they are in their nature different from the issues of “reformist” opposition. Most people, even those who voted for the lesser evils, are not really concerned about power struggles within the Islamic regime. They want an end of the whole Islamic regime.

Most Iranians, especially the youth, want a separation of religion from state; they wish a secular and democratic state. Hence, if they intensify their today’s struggles, they will gradually separate their ranks of struggles from the power struggle-related rallies of “reformist” opposition. Of course these rallies may not take a long time and will extinguish as soon as an inner compromise has been acheived, but the longer these take, the more polarised and organised the real opposition to the whole regime will be, to the point that they not only cry “death to dictator”– hinting the Supreme Leader, Khamenei, — but also will directly target the whole regime by shouting across the whole country “death to the IRI”. The polarisation of our society does not forcibly mean a class issues; it assumes above all a freedom from the plague of the IRI and consequently a transformation of the power to people’s representatives.

Of course many of people working for the IRI– those who do not have people’s blood on their hands–are welcome to join the ranks of people, but this is only possible if people’s struggles turns into a solid and continuous freedom movement. We can not expect a Mullahs’ pre-selected president– Mousavi or Ahmadinejad alike– to join the camp of people because a freedom movement targets the whole Islamic regime by rejecting any form of political Islam.

In terms of their loyalty to the Supreme Leader and Islam as an ideology of state, there is no difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi, but let us see in the case of an odd twist of irony, if Mousavi wants to consolidate people’s position, he is constitutionally not in the position to do so. Under the cover of an Islamic regime, no president has such a power to clean up Mullahs and pave the path for a real democracy in Iran– presidential position is constitutionally so powerless that no president can challenge the Supreme Leader. The Islamic Constitution lets little power for the president vis-à-vis the absolute power of the Supreme Leader who rules over powers of both executive, legislative, and judiciary.

The question nowadays is how Iranian people can one day acquire their full freedom and what steps must be tactically taken initially. We should give our people respect for the courageous struggles they are presently showing with the empty hands against one of the most brutal regime of our history. In a long-term into the future, it is advised that our heroic people with the kind of self-organisation, self-esteem, courage, and patience needed for a regime change in Iran, must firstly consolidate their ranks before any premature rupture with the ranks of better organised “reformist” opposition.

It is evident and quite predictable that to halt the vibrancy of people’s struggles, there is a possible compromise in the air between a “reformist” president candidate like Mousavi and the Supreme Leader. In such a case, whoever the next president, the regime will spread its bloody clutches for other four or eight years. If the Iranians who want a regime change give up their ongoing struggles, they will dig their own graves. Therefore, these people must use the current protest actions to recruit, organise, and plan their further and final freedom-struggles.

Gaps between people and any faction of the regime, including Mousavi, emerge and persist as long as the Islamic regime exists. Most of the gaps in daily attitudes of people can be flagrantly perceived. This is what substantially explains the lack of an Islamic influence in our new generation who desire a secular Iran. This ideal is of course ignored by the regime and its “reformist” candidates.

Different segments of Iranian society are aware that under the IRI all Islamic inequalities are justified in so far as they are the consequences of three decades of repression in Iran–Man vs. woman, “sayyed” (Muhammad’s descendants) vs. non-sayyed, Muslim vs. non-Muslim, insider vs. outsider, etc.

Although, the younger generation suffers from a tangible lack of leadership, they have experienced with their flesh and blood the plague of the Islamic regime. They know that the IRI is essentially incompatible to be reformed and the main problem of Iran is the IRI entirely, not a scapegoat of it called today “hardliners” or else.

Because of a 14-century domination of an intolerant belief system over all aspects of Iranian social life, subjects like Islam and the related issues have not been discussed by Iranian intellectuals. There has been a fear among people to talk about these matters. Therefore, issues like secularism, democracy, modernity, social justice, gender equality, independence from foreign domination of “Islamo-Arab” culture, have not been serious civic issues of the past generations.

Today, thanks to the plague of Mullahs’ regime, the youth generation are more aware of such issues and this awareness creates the main gap between the Islamic regime, which in people’s consciousness represents an inspiration of a new “Islamo-Arab” invasion, and the Iranian civic society in struggles for freedom, democracy, and secularism.

Since then, the International Women’s Day is commemorated and is a national holiday in several countries around the world. It symbolises a long struggle of all women on all continents, with different ethnics, religions, cultures and social classes, who have been deprived from the equal right with men.

International Women’s Day is a symbol of women as integral partner-makers of history. It is a denial of all form of religious gender discrimination considering women less worthy than men, as stipulated by Islam.

International Women’s Day is a symbol of women as integral partner-makers of history. It is a denial of all form of religious gender discrimination considering women less worthy than men. The day is rooted in the historical struggle against the Dark Ages of European Church, a demand for “liberty, equality, fraternity” during the French Revolution.

The International Women’s Day has assumed a new global dimension for women in developed and developing countries alike. Nevertheless, the growing international political Islam, which has been strengthened by the Islamic Republic of Iran, is a new serious barrier in the way. Today, despite many coordinated efforts in the world, the international community along with the United Nations practically ignore the fate of hundreds of millions of women who are conscious or unconscious victims of Islamic misogyny. Today, we know that struggle for equality, justice, peace, democracy, secularism, and development is not separated from the struggle against misogyny.

While 8 March was historically a secular symbol against the dominance of Catholic Church in the West, it should now become a worldwide struggle against the current misogyny of Islamic Mosque. Today, the horrendous shadow of Islamomisogyny has spread its wings over a great sphere of our world, where hundred of millions of women are to fall into its clutches.

According to the World Health Organization, 85 million to 115 million girls and women have undergone some form of female genital mutilation; this practice is carried out in many Islamic countries, including 28 African nations, despite the fact that it is outlawed and condemned by the international community. More than 90% of women in Egypt are the victims of this barbaric practice.

In a number of countries, women who have been raped are sometimes killed by their own families to preserve the family’s honour. Honour killings as a legacy of Islamic traditions have been reported in Jordan, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Turkey and other Persian Gulf countries.

Rape as a means of humiliation and confession and torture has been used against women in Iranian political prisons. Rape of girls before execution is systematically committed, interpreted as an Islamic principle; “it is a sin to kill a virgin”.

Since 1979, the installation of the Islamic regime in Iran, a very fast growing majority of the Iranian women identified as “bad- hijab” (mal-veiled) are, in their day-to-day lives suffering from the atrocity of IRI’s fanatics and recently from the organised Islamic “Morality Police”.

Since 1979, not a day has passed without attack, physical assault, arrest, acid throwing, harassment and psychological pressure of women in Iran. The Islamic Republic of Iran has clearly specified that, for women, no other sort of dress is acceptable except the Islamic hijab.

The first public demonstration of Iranian women was short lived after the Iranian revolution. On 7 March 1979, on the eve of International Women’s Day, Khomeini decreed that all women employed by the government must wear the “chador” (an all-enveloping black veil), an extension of four walls of the home.

Thousands of women filled the streets in protest. For three days they marched and rallied; on the third day staged a sit-in at the Palace of Justice, demanding a legal guarantee for their right to choose what to wear and where to work, at home and in society at large.

The women were attacked by Khomeini’s supporters, armed with knives, who cursed them, yelling “Wear your head or get your head rapped.” They stood at windows along the parade route and exposed their genitals: “This is what you want, you whores!”

And the last time Iranian women celebrated International Women’s Day was peacefully in front of Iranian parliament on 8, March, 2007. Morality Police attacked a gathering of some 700 women’s rights activists and hit them, while security forces arrested a number of them.

The above examples of women’s rights in Iran show that International Women’s Day is not tolerated by the misogynistic IRI. Furthermore, contrary to some reformists of the regime, who claim that women and men have equal rights, opportunities and responsibilities in all aspects of life, a gap always remains between Islam and the reality of women’s rights. Many obstacles from the traditional influences cannot be removed in the framework of Islam.

Over the years, conferences, demonstrations and commemorations have been held to reflect on progress made. It is now time to call for what has not been made. International Women’s Day should be now an occasion to a rallying point for effective efforts against Islamomisogyny, which looms to damage the achievements gained in the history of women’s rights.

Although the Charter of the United Nations proposes gender equality as a fundamental human right, the Organisation cannot create standards, programmes and goals to equally advance the status of women worldwide. For example the UN avoids condemning the forced hijab in Iran.

Of course the Charter of the UN, signed in 1945, was the first agreement to affirm the principle of equality between women and men. However, the Charter was prepared before the advent of the international political Islam. Today, the international community is affected by political Islam and consequently demands the UN to adopt new resolutions defending the status of women in the Islamic societies. Women in the Islamic societies need international support. The UN, in accordance with the conclusive account of many misogynistic reports, must now effectively react.

The UN, which fairly condemned the Apartheid regime before, is now expected to condemn the gender apartheid of Islamic regimes by supporting for women’s full and equal right. It is time to internationally challenge the misogynous Islamists across the world. Violation of basic rights of women in the Islamic world is an issue that has been long overdue but ignored. Safeguarding of the women’s rights is now essential to regaining the sense of International Women’s Day.

Many daily misogynistic examples in Iran show that the IRI by imposing different status for men and women reduced the women’s role to a mean of reproduction. Since the regime is aware of women’s backlash against the ongoing misogyny, it has demagogically managed that Islamic women’s organisations mushroomed up in the society. Through the tortured sense of women’s freedom and origin of women’s rights, their real role is to propagate the IRI’s misogynistic policy, especially to impose Islamic hijab on Iranian women.

Soon after the revolution, Mr. Abolhassan Banisadr, the first Iranian President, who has lived 15 years in France, was asked by a television interviewer if it was true that women’s hair emits sexually enticing rays and if this is why Islam requires the veil. “Yes, it is true”, was his reply.

The regime responded by forming its own women’s group, which produced a newspaper, “The Moslem Women,” which the main task was to inculcate misogynistic norms and pseudo scientific arguments into mind of women.

The international community must reject and denounce these kinds of state-run women’s organisations in Iran. These “yellow” organisations are even more hated than the male fanatics who govern– real activists working to defend women’s rights risk their safety to bring about real changes. IRI’s authorities have been harassing, detaining and intimidating them in the last three decades.

In the 21st. century, the international community should not accept that women’s rights be crippled by shari’a, a series of 14-century old Islamic laws. It is time to internationally outlaw shari’a because it considers women as the second-class citizens of a male dominated society. It is time to worldwide condemn archaic values of a belief system that reduces women to as half-human with half-right in today’s society.

Promotion of gender equality is not only women’s responsibility, but a social responsibility of all humanity. Not only it is an important participation and an indicator of social and economic national growth, but more effectively, and based on some psychological, can also result into a factor of normal development of the society. Gender separation creates frustrations, perversities and aggressiveness with blind obedience, the typical attitudes appeared in the oppressed societies.

On this International Women’s Day, let us re-dedicate ourselves to the hundreds of millions of women who are conscious or unconscious victims of Islamomisogyny. Much should be accomplished to put into place legal foundations to urge the international community to remember that it is the responsibility of all of us to defend the right to live in dignity, freedom and gender equality.

After the Iranian revolution (the most popular leftist movement of contemporary Iranian history), Marxist-Leninist “OIPFG” (People’s Organisation of Fedayeen Guerrillas) is a typical example of such stigma. Needless to say, there were leftist intellectuals and small groups who did not bow to the supremacy of Khomeini. The word “left or leftist” only designates (in this article) the pro Soviet political bodies, called Tudeh Party and a faction of OIPFG, called Majority. They were both orchestrated by the Kremlin to unconditionally support the “anti-American” IRI. Majority was created due to a split in 1980 within the OIPFG. The other part of this organisation, called Minority, continued fighting along with several other leftist groups against the “bourgeois” IRI—all this opposition was systematically and gradually slaughtered, dispelled, or dismantled by the regime.

The OIPFG was founded by some young educated or student revolutionaries at the end of 1960’s. It proclaimed its struggle in 1971, when a group of armed Fedayeens captured a rural police station called “Siahkal”. Regarding the absolute dictatorship of the Shah’s regime, they believed that acquiring freedom and social justice can only occur within armed struggles of the revolutionary vanguard, which in turn will end up with a mass revolution. Other “non-violent” ways were considered complaisant and ineffective, both due to the failed experiences of Tudeh Party and Front National (a large pro- Mossadegh spectrum). Thus these two main opposition groups were not able to mobilise people against the Shah’s absolute dictatorship – at that time, terms like terrorism, adventurism, petit bourgeois utopia, etc. were not labels of such armed movements.

Considering the international unrest of 1960’s, France and Germany were overwhelmed by student demonstrations in May 1968, almost causing a revolutionary situation in France. Numerous left-wing groups emerged in Germany, Italy, France and other western countries. Armed groups like IRA in North Ireland and ETA in Basque were involved in armed struggles. Revolutionary activities in Latin America attracted popular support in European youth. Their struggles were considered a “heroic” exercise of people’s freedom. Even European states (especially those headed by Socialist or Social Democratic parties) had to consider the sympathy of their intelligentsia for such revolutionary and anti American movements. Castro’s idea of “bullets, not ballots, were the way to achieve power” had political sense. Régis Debray became Mitterrand’s adviser for Latin America. He was a co-fighter of Che Guevara in Bolivia in 1967 and a revolutionary author whose book” Revolution in Revolution” inspired the Fedayeens.

Needless to say armed struggles then were spared from any connotation of terrorism or political Islam. A great number of Western youth with leftist or alternative worldview had sympathy for Palestine Liberation Front and hence used to wear a Palestinian scarf as a popular sign of their solidarity with Palestinian militants. The Front represented more than a passing similarity to the today’s appealing Islamists of Hamas and Hezbollah.

Although the socio-economic conditions that favoured armed struggles in Latin America were not similar to those of an Islamic society like Iran, Fedayeens’ armed struggle was largely inspired from the revolutionary experiences in Latin America. They theorised that armed struggles would promote a mass revolution in Iran, as happened in Cuba. There is no single page of history from the early founders of Fedayeens dealing with Islam and its role in such a revolution. In their analyses, an important social factor like Islam is completely absent.

Contrary to some priests in Latin America, Mullahs in Iran could never reconcile with collectivism, socialism and materialism of the left. From Safavid Dynasty to the Shah (except under 16-year Reza Shah‘s reign), The Iranian clergy or Mullahs have always created a common bond with monarchy. This alliance was later used by colonial powers to keep the status quo. A 16-year period under Reza Shah aside, Mullahs have been growing their socio-political power since the compelling “Shiitisation” of Iran by the Safavids in 16’s century. In the 60’s, Ayatollah Khomeini opposed the Shah’s land reform and right of voting to women, and hence he led an Islamic movement opposing Shah’s “un-Islamic reforms.”

Neither Tudeh party, a pro-USSR party, nor Marxist-Leninist OIPFG, could introduce Marx’s “Religion is people’s opiate” into their social analyses–instead, they considered “anti-imperialist” Muslim movements as their strategic allies. No wonder that after the Iranian revolution, both ex-rivals (the Tudeh Party and a majority of Central Committee non-pro Soviet OIPFG’ called Majority, despite their deepening friction) came together to unconditionally support “anti imperialist” Khomeini and his Islamist movement– until these two “profane atheists”, like other leftists, succumbed under Khomeini’s Islamic sword in 1982.

Their blind support of the Islamic regime reached a treacherous level of collaboration with the repressive organisations and right-wing paramilitary thugs of the regime– who were nationwide identifying and arresting “agents of imperialism”. Many thousands of these “agents”, including a number of minors, were executed. In reality a great number of the victims were teens or young people, who were murdered for demanding basic democracy.

Working class, that these pseudo- leftists pretended to support, lost the little rights they had won during the revolution and in vain attempted to keep after the revolution. Their new independent trade unions were banned and replaced by Islamic societies formed by the Ministry of Labour. Their profit share and bonuses which were established under the Shah were nullified. The right of strike was rejected. Wages stayed low, many factories were shut down; and their workers were fired without any unemployment benefit. Because of protests, many workers were arrested, jailed, and executed by the Islamic regime, whereas this spectrum of left continued supporting the Mullahs’ regime.

For this body of the Iranian left, terms like human rights, individual freedom, women’s rights did not belong to their preoccupation. There have been divisions based on class, ideology, and any class related antagonistic factors. In this perspective, they argued that domestic capitalists consistently represented the interests of Imperialists, but the role of Mullahs and its traditional ties with feudalism and traditional capitalism has been selectively ignored. In his famous book (History of Thirty Years), Bijan Jazani, a founder of Marxist-Leninist OIPFG, gave an overwhelmingly credit to Ayatollah Khomeini, as a “revolutionary” Mullah of “petite bourgeoisie”. The 14 century-old Islamic laws, Sharia, under Khomeini’s “Velayt-e-Faghih” (God’s state which was described in Khomeini’s book was amazingly ignored by the left from then on). Khomeini had these fascist, misogynist, and anti- socialist ideas before the 1979 revolution, but he was accepted and praised by a spectrum of the left as a symbol of struggle against the Shah. To conclude, Islam as a divisive or a monolithic factor was not taken by the left into consideration.

By contrast, religion has been used by colonial or key powers as a dam to discourage democracy and modernity. Although, to some extent in the Middle East and North Africa, Islamic movements were a factor of unity, but they were tolerated by colonialists to prevent democratic alternatives. The Islamist movements had no effective solutions for the objective problems. The state of economic dependence, with or without Islamic solutions, cannot be removed. There can always be commercial monopolies, supported by colonial powers. The only solution to guarantee economic independence is rapid development under a democratic and secular state–otherwise Islamic states like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, or Iran, economically remain (dependent) client states of foreign powers.

Colonial powers have respected and even propagated religion in Iran, as a means of conspiracy. Shiite Mullahs in Iran, like Christian missionaries in Africa, are known for being protégés of the British colonial administrators; they both have been preaching to bring people closer to God, but not closer to freedom and progress. Colonialism would keep their colonies the most undeveloped, the most illiterate, and superstitious. Such backward attitudes are at hand through religion. Plundering and looting of the colonies, without such social preconditions, could not be easily committed in the history of colonialism.

In the Islamic colonies, the missionary’s role was in fact replaced by the Islamic Ulama, which could be adjusted better with the long-term colonial aims. The colonial officials did not intervene in matters pertaining to Islam or Islamic traditional practices. However, the separation of religion from the practical affairs of government and law was a colonists’ wish. It was, in itself, interference in matters pertaining to Islam. In the case of Iran, it is believed that all through the 20th century, the British Empire had to deal with a number of influential clergy to mutually help each other’s influence. The peak of this mutual help was the 1953 coup which was planned by US / UK against the Iranian PM, Dr. Mossadegh, who by nationalising the Iranian oil industry, was challenging the British oil interests in Iran. They utilised the most thuggish and reactionary Muslim elements of the “Bazaar” (traditional business, closed to the clergy), and the leading clergy to help the coup. Dr. Mossadegh is the only democratic PM of the Iranian recent history and because of this coup the US / UK reinstalled the Shah as a despot.

Even after the first successful Iranian constitutional revolution in Middle East history, Iran could not free itself from the influence of Mullahs. Soon, the written constitution that predicted power in an elective authority lost its sense. With the support of the Mullahs, the power remained as a divine gift in the hands of kings who were considered since the Safavids “representatives of Hidden Twelfth Imam, the Mahdi, on earth” and since his occultation, Mullahs were considered the only interpreters of the Imam.

Despite division of Iran into “spheres of interest” between England and Russia, Iran was not officially colonised, but the country lost a natural way of progress, democracy, secularism, and independence. As documented in F. William Engdahl’s book A Century of War – Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, Britain’s interest in the Middle East was piqued when her leaders realised that oil would replace coal as the energy source of the future. At the turn of the century Britain had no first-hand access to oil and was dependant upon America, Russia or Mexico for her supplies. This was quickly understood as an unacceptable situation and through intrigues involving British spy Sidney Reilly and Australian geologist and engineer William Knox d’Arcy, Britain was able to secure drilling rights to Persian oil from Persian monarch Reza Khan. D’Arcy paid what amounted to $20,000 cash for rights to tap Persian oil until 1961, with a 16% royalty from all sales going to the Shah. The British company that Reilly persuaded d’Arcy to ally with then became known as the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, a forerunner of the mighty British Petroleum. To put an end to this plundering, Iranian oil was nationalised by the Iranian popular PM Dr. Mossadegh. Two years later in 1953, Mossadegh was overthrown by a US / British coup and, with the help of the leading clergy led by mighty Ayatollah Kashani—an influential Mullah, who had already sworn to let topple the democratically elected government of Mossadegh.

More than the institutions, like army, the civil service and the judiciary, which have systematically been set up in the colonies, British colonialism needed religion to better control the vast territories they had acquired during the nineteenth century. Sects and cults furthermore were created. Sectarian conflicts were incited. All these measures paved the way for keeping the state of economic dependence, event after their physical departure. An example of such a “decolonisation” is the independence of India in 1947, which turned into a division of the Indian subcontinent into two and then three countries based on religious conflicts. This finally gave birth to an Islamic state in Pakistan under President Ayub Khan at the end of 1960.

The establishment of communist states in the 20th century was for some Muslim activists like MEK (People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran) a pole of anti-colonialism, a political alliance to bolster an anti-West, whereas for Shiite Mullahs (like Khomeini), “communism is the atheism” and hence was demonised as a “Kufr” (profanity). The emergence of Marxism was seen by Islamic movements, especially by the Iranian Mullahs, as an alien demon to fight and keep away from the mental and physical presence of Shiite society. Although Islamist political entities have Stalinist methods of organisation, they are more characterised by their anti-communist than anti-West. After all, the legacy of communism reminds them that the problem of atheist culture will be more dangerous than the western colonialism. Communism has always remained the main challenge to any Islamic political body in the favour of the colonial power of British Empire or US hegemony.

This anti-socialist character of Islamic movements in general and particularly that of Shiite Mullahs in Iran was the missing link, which could not connect a big spectrum of Iranian left with the reality. They fell into the Khomeini’s tramp, what finally cost them thousands of lives besides a bad reputation.

In general, where the religious values are dominant, gender – discrimination remains influential at all levels in society. Semitic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), not differently from the primitive or undeveloped cultures, adamantly conserve their gender-biases. In this article, I try to make clear that gender – inequalities in Islam go beyond the above characters of other Semitic religions.

As I described in a previous article (Non-Mahram), the main reason of gender-inequalities in Islam has roots in a traditional division of society into two groups of “mahram” and “non-mahram.”-the maharam group contains the non-marriageable members of family, whereas non-mahram refers to the rest of society.

The two sources of Islam, namely the Koran and “Hadith” (sayings of the Prophet) have not fixed a dress code deeming an Islamic standard of clothing for women. Gender – related restrictions, by which many devout Muslims abide, have been largely exaggerated by influential Muslim fanatics and hence coerce women to abide by an Islamic dress to cover their body from the eyes of a non-mahram.

Besides Islamic hijab, in relation to the dogma of non-mahram, a series of social norms and attitudes has been emerged. For example, a Persian ,moral, word like “Khirat”, as routine as might be, has no real equivalence in modern languages. It defines a man’s moral right to defend the taboo red lines around the body of his mahram circle (mother, sister, wife…)–this “moral right” may even lead to honour crimes in Islamic communities.

Non-mahram is a very influential dogma in the Islamic societies. It forms character formation at the level of a collective culture from which we can retrace the footsteps even in Islamic architecture– palaces, mosques, madreseh (traditional school), all of which are based on a division of mahrams from non-mahrams or gender-segregation. Also, non-mahram’s taboo values have left red lines in the Iranian post Islamic art, literature and especially in the sex segregation of school system.

Because Shah Isma’il Safavid decided to impose Shiite sect on Iranian people at the beginning of 16th century, he had to import Shiite Mullahs from Arab countries to help the process of Shiitisation. Facing his rival of the Sunnite Ottoman Empire, the process was for the Shah existentially important. As a state religion, Shiism was violently established with the spiritual guidance of the imported Mullahs– who allegedly were the descendants of the Prophet Muhammad.

Since these influential Mullahs enjoyed living among the urban population and became an elite class under both the Safavid and Qajar dynasties, their Sharia-based teachings of Islam affected directly urban women, rather than rural women. Therefore, rural and tribal life in Iran remained relatively intact from the invasion of non-mahram side-effects.

As Nikki R. Keddi, author of Modern Iran, described, in Iran and the Middle East, nomadic tribeswomen do most of the tribe’s physical labour. They are unveiled and are less segregated than urban women. Rural women also do hard physical work and “reports from the nineteen century indicate that they were mostly unveiled. Veiling has been mainly an urban (and hence minority) phenomenon.” As mentioned, the separation of men and women is not a tradition of Iranian culture, but a product of Islamic-based ruling states.

Under the dynasties of Safavid and Qajar, Iran was as late to introduce modern and secular education as gender equality. Educational system was monopolised by clerical power. Teaching was Islamic, limited at lower levels on reading, writing, and learning the Koran and religion. At the end of Qajar dynasty, “madreseh” (a higher school to teach Arabic and the basics) only received gender-segregation.

Nikki.R. Keddi continued, “Many functions that in modern states are governmental were carried out in Qajar Iran, as in most traditional Muslim societies, by the ulama (Islamic scholars). These included all levels of education, most forms of judicial and legal activity, and social and charitable services.” A combination of social attitudes, values and cognitive behaviour system are made of this long period of religiosity which still influences today’s mind-set of most Iranians. Today, for the IRI, a return to this archaic educational gender- system is vital to prevent any secular and democratic understanding of world view.

Based on the morale of non-mahram-relations, premarital love between a man and a woman passes the level of decency. Despite many love stories and romantic literature in Iranian history, love is considered as a non-compatible feeling with the Islamic culture. In this context, marriage is arranged by the families rather than be based on mutual love and harmony of the two partners. Love and harmony may appear after the marriage.

Arranged marriage with no premarital love and harmony gave birth to “Sigheh” (temporary marriage). Sigheh flourishes in Shiite pilgrimage centres where mullahs could be intermediaries; the affair is often regarded as “legalised prostitution.” It temporally removes the non-mahran barrier between the two non-mahrams.

The idea of sin associated with love is not completely different from other established Semitic religions. This idea implies that women have by nature desire to be looked at, adored and cherished, while men are disposed to non-mahram women and hence a tool of gender-segregation like hijab is necessary.

Here, love is rather associated with sin and lust than wisdom and emotion. No wonder that a pious follower of Jesus–a priest or bishop–would not share his life and emotion with a woman. Legitimate love seems the one for the Truth and Devotion with a spiritual path. This is the level of lifetime love to God. This ambiguous love is often guided by a force greater than a feeling of letting go. Such a love is presented in the Iranian post Islamic mystics, and lyric poetry. Love for a non-mahram, especially a woman’s love to a non-mahram, is regarded in orthodox Islam similar to an act of indecency.

Although, woman’s rights in Islamic societies are more limited through the restrictions of non-mahram, no other Semitic religion permits a woman to be ordained a religious higher rank as a ” Mujthaid” (a qualified Shiite religious scholar to interpretation of scriptures), an “Alim” (an Islamic scholar, mainly in Sunnite Islam), a Rabin for Jews, or a priest for Christians. These remain in the domain of men. The Catholic Church refuses to even talk about ordinary women as priests. Many Protestant traditions and denominations have done the same, believes Jim Seers in his book, The Religion Book. However, no other religion considers women excluded from their “non-mahram” environment.

For many Iranians and most foreign observers, especially the Western analysts, who know little about the concept and influence of non-mahram’s dogma, a vision of an Islamic society has been mechanically amalgamated with Islamic hijab. They do not understand the deeper phenomenon beyond hijab which in my views it must be classified as a simple tool separating non-mahrams. Division of society based on the two alien groups of mahrams and non-mahrams imposes restricted gender – segregation, whose Islamic hijab is simply a by-product.

In my opinion, the non-mahram’s dogma is a moral-based philosophy of gender – segregation in any Islamic societies, whose symbolic emblem produces different forms of hijab according to the original culture and socio- economic conditions. Although, Islamic hijab is today a blockade to woman’s freedom and gender-equality, as long as we cannot recognise its roots, we will not be in the right position to free women from this traditional yoke. If we tackle the problem correctly, then we will be able to influence the entire attitude structure of our society to remove all the roots of inequality from which our women suffer, including Islamic hijab.

Non-mahram’s dogma remains today the main barrier against woman’s rights for freedom and equality. An identifiable change in peoples’ values with the criteria of non-mahram must start with recognition of this dogma, which is so complex that easily can go beyond any obvious understanding.

The long-term effects of reluctance and apathy of Iranian intelligentsia toward gender – issues deprived our women from any serious support. Today the ruling Mullahs invade people’s minds with the norms, values, and criteria of their misogyny. No doubt that more restrictions of Gender- segregation in public life will be institutionalised in Iran.

To solve this ethnic problem, Georgia decided to unite the two separated parts of South and North Ossetia, but region was never part of post-Soviet Georgia.

As long as Georgia was a part of the Soviet Union, all ethnic conflicts within the Soviet zone of “interests”, were not international issues. Yet, the issue emerged à la une after the dissolution of the USSR, when first in 1995 the two regions — Abkhazia and South Ossetia — became involved in conflicts with local separatists supported by Moscow. The issue ended in a de facto independence of South Ossetia from Georgia.

Yet, with a pro-US president in office, Georgia launched an assault earlier this month with artillery and rocket attacks on the separatists. Russia immediately reacted and showed the sharp claws of a polar bear. A much larger Russian army quickly crushed the Georgian assault. It is believed that the United States knew or even encouraged the Georgian attack. With the support of the US, Georgia hoped to annex the region.

If this conflict is to be resolved, only an international institution like the UN must intervene, not the US or NATO.

The US should now stay away from a new regional conflict, which is thousands of kilometers away from Washington. Because of its bad reputation in Iraq, stirring up internal problems in other countries, and its hunger for national resources of other countries, the Bush Administration does not have any lesson to teach to this part of the world with a totally different history and socio-economic background. Furthermore, there is nothing like “weapons of mass destruction” in this area.

In actuality, it is time to solve international problems through firm and reliable UN resolutions, rather than the bogus actions of world super-powers. It is obvious that the US, being the only power today with hegemonic desires, could generate further tension. The world is not going to sit and watch those self-baptised Yankee liberators in the Bush Administration try to impose their long outdated principles of “democracy” and “freedom”.

The world has not forgotten that in 1961 the US and USSR came to the brink of nuclear war when the USSR was determined to set up atomic missiles in the US’ backyard in Cuba. The Soviet move was in retaliation against US basing nuclear missiles in Turkey. Now we have the US — via NATO — again trying to further its military alliance in the Caucasuses.

It is not unreasonable to expect that Russia, rather than allowing events to continue down that road again, would act swiftly in self defence — probably in the same way the US would react. I wonder what the Russians would do if a similar thing happened in their backyard. While they are still a major powerful and have the legacy of once being the strongest military superpower, they would say and do almost anything and get away with it.

There is no evidence that Russia intends to occupy Georgia, overthrow its government and install a puppet government. The Western media has not been reporting properly and honestly about the issue, rather they are exaggerating the conflict just like during the Cold War. Georgia is not Poland of 1939-40, divided by a German-Soviet pact, nor have we the same monsters like Hitler and Stalin in the East and West.

There is a much stronger ground for Germany and France, with their relatively better tradition of democracy and a lesser ambition of hegemony, to act as intermediaries to help bring about a ceasefire and reduce tensions until both sides with the help of the UN can achieve the best resolution. Despite failure to form a united stance on how to respond to Russia’s military action in South Ossetia, Germany and France, because of their close relations with Russia, can play an important role to impede further escalation of violence.

The relatively harsher third set of sanctions started by the EU’s recent freezing of the assets of Iran’s Bank Melli and imposing travel prohibitions on some IRI’s seniors, scientists and military officials.

“Bank Melli Iran, which is fully owned by the state, is the country’s largest commercial bank, with about 45,000 employees and 3,000 branches worldwide, and total assets of €38 billion ($59 billion). Its branches in Russia and in the United Arab Emirates continue to process transactions, including, as is rumoured, those originating in Europe”, reported der Spiegel in a recent article.

The pressure exerted by the US had a little effect in recent years. “In 2007, German exports to Iran declined to only $5.0 billion–from €3.35 billion to $3.23 billion”, continued der Spiegel. The IRI has already turned to trading partners in Russia and China and other Asian countries, which have no qualms about taking over IRI’s nuclear ambitions. “According to data supplied by Germany’s Federal Office for Foreign Trade, China has almost doubled its trade volume with Iran since 2005, from $10 billion (€6.5 billion) to $18.5 billion (€11.9 billion)”, quoted by Spiegel.

According to the same article of Spiegel, Pakistan and India have also expanded their economic relations with the regime, and trade with the Arab nations across the Persian Gulf has much increased. Furthermore, many countries in Asia and Europe, but also the United States, have managed to get around the sanctions by working with middlemen and companies close to the IRI, mostly in the Persian Gulf region. It seems that such sanctions do not put an end to business dealings with the IRI and the new sanctions do not seem to convince the IRI to abandon its nuclear ambitions.

On the other hand, the EU may look for compromises with the IRI to maintain their bilateral economic relations. We know that despite constant IRI’s catastrophic records of Human Rights since the Iranian revolution, the EU’s share of Iran’s total imports is over 40%. EU trade with Iran has even expanded since Iran’s secret nuclear programme was exposed. IRI’s sponsored terrorism and nuclear programme have been ignored a long time by the EU while partly helped by Russia.

The fact is that Mullahs continue to ignore sanctions with little consequence for the regime even though Iran’s economy is stagnating. Consumer prices are raising rapidly, unemployment approaches 30 percent and Ahmadinejad has not redistributed oil profits to the poor as promised, but the regime continues to invest in terrorism, nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

Following the first US war against Iraq in 1991, the United Nations imposed sanctions on the country for 13 years, and yet Saddam refused to give up. The sanctions did not significantly weaken Saddam, but brought about more poverty, medical deficiency and infantile mortality for the population. Such sanctions can have the same impacts on Iranian civil population. Sanctions on the basic needs like foods or medicines very likely favour an oasis for the State Mafia to grow, as it was the case during the Iran-Iraq War.

Recently, 100 Israeli planes flew 1,400 kilometres out over the Mediterranean as part of a military manoeuvre. In the flight, they covered exactly the same distance they would have to cover in an attack on the Iranian uranium enrichment plant in Natanz. The IRI reposted with its test-fired missiles whose range puts Israel within reach. As result, an eventual air strike on Iran will considerably damage the Iranian national infrastructures and will slaughter many innocents, while the regime very likely manages to survive.

The IRI has dispersed its nuclear plants and facilities all over the country and among the civil population to use civil people as human shields against any air strike. Therefore, any so-called surgical air strike launched by Israel or the US will certainly kill thousands of innocent people. Both military intervention and blind economic sanctions will damage people and the national infrastructures rather than the regime’s power structure. The IRI does not care to pay a high price for its refusal to stop enriching uranium to appease the ongoing tension and will continue to claim its “reactors are purely for civilian purposes.”

But what is the alternative? Will international sanctions produce any desired effects? Is there any chance to solve the dilemma with the defiant IRI? Can the group of six result into a breakthrough? Is a military intervention the final solution? The answer to all of them remains negative. As long as the UN does not directly punish the plague of IRI, not people who already suffer from this totalitarian regime, a real solution is not available.

The UN can consider various regimes sanctions on the IRI:

– to ensure the end of unacceptable apathy for the crimes committed by the IRI, those UN resolutions can be issued that clearly highlight IRI’s human right violations in the last 29 years.

–the UN’s highest court, which has once cleared a number of Serbian authorities of direct responsibility for genocide in the 1990s Bosnian war, is now expected to clear many IRI’s crimes, especially the genocide of political prisoners in the summer of 1988 with the same principles that the Nuremburg Court applied to Nazi genocide criminals.

–the UN can demand the UN members to freeze all assets of IRI’s seniors and their related institutions, foundations, Islamic centres, economic organisations, media, and lobby groups in the world.

–the UN should rule out any military or economic sanctions on Iran. Blind economic sanctions or an eventual military attack on Iran serve mainly the agenda of IRI’s hardliners. In this perspective, apart from military goods and industry and eventually oil, trade of other goods with Iran must not be suspended.

In fact, all of these above regimes sanctions produce significant psychological effect to encourage and justify fair struggles of the oppressed people of Iran against the totalitarian IRI.

The UN may also regard oil embargo on the IRI:
–oil embargo, instead of military or economic sanctions, can be an effective alternative. It prevents the regime to reinforce all its repressive forces and organs to further repress Iranian people and jeopardise the international peace.

–IRI’s export of crude oil or import of refined oil from India pass through the Strait of Hormuz, where a UN mandated marine force can stop the transport.

According to Iran’s Oil Ministry, the country needs to import up to 15 million litres of gasoline a day for domestic consume. Before rationing was imposed, the domestic consume was estimated 75 million litres a day of gasoline, of which about 36 million was imported. In the case of only gasoline embargo, Iran’s consummation can be hardly affected.

IRI’s revenue of oil is 70%. A great proportion of this national revenue is not invested to improve the cause of people. Oil in the hands of Mullahs fuels corruption and repression rather than boosts development for people. In short, oil income does not play an important role to people’s daily life; in fact, both rate of inflation and unemployment increases while line of poverty permanently sinks. By contrast, Islamic foundations and institutions mushrooms quickly with oil income, oil is mainly a high resource of financing the repressive hundreds of thousands of pasdars, Basijis, masked hooligans, bearded or veiled militias, thugs of “Morality Police … Plus IRI’s financing measures for international Islamist terrorism.

Although, Iran is the world’s fourth-largest crude oil exporter, it lacks refining capacity to meet all domestic demand for gasoline. Backward Mullahs are not to refine oil therefore rationing was introduced in an effort to curb consumption and cut the rising cost of importing fuel. India imports Iranian crude oil and after refining it exports it to Iran.

The idea of oil embargo, as a weapon of struggle against the tyranny, can be regarded effective. Without oil income, the regime can collapse. The strike of Iranian National Oil Company was a main factor of Shah’s collapse; it can also topple the IRI.

Sales of oil for arms in the hands of Basijis, Pasdars, or Hezbollahs in Lebanon to safeguard the savage IRI only serve the agenda of Mullahs. Mullahs do not care about the extraction and abuse of Iranian national wealth. They raise the production of oil to fulfil their agenda. Through oil embargo, unexploited oil will remain an intact source for a free Iran after the fall of the totalitarian IRI. It will help the country to repair the damage done by this regime and will guarantee prosperity and development of the national economy after the Mullahs’ regime.

We know that interconnected global economies vitally depend on oil. The industrialised world is the main consumers of fuel. Despite the deep economical interconnections, they are not always in harmony. The EU because of its intensive trade with Iran is rather opposed to such an oil embargo on the IRI. The EU remained cooperative with Iran after the Iranian revolution. IRI’s sponsored terrorism, and nuclear programme, did not seem to play an important role for the EU. EU’s share of Iran’s total imports has now increased to 45%. EU trade with Iran has even expanded since Iran’s secret nuclear programme was exposed. The EU imports 40% Iran’s oil—the rest goes to Japan, China and other Asian countries.

The Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), to which Iran belongs, can raise output; oil embargo on the IRI can not be a factor that the whole world economy goes into recession.

Mullahs know the risk of an oil embargo; they try to abuse the relatively expensive oil price, to export as much as they can, even below the market price. They have ordered last year oil tankers from South Korea to increase their transport fleet and consequently oil transportation capacity to 11 million tons by 2010.

Roughly 20% of oil revenues go directly to the pocket of the people in the form of payment for subsidies or employees of the governmental organisations (about 3 million). Oil is the lowest income of these people under the smashing inflation. The mullahs are the real brokers of oil. Oil is a mafia wealth of corrupt Rafsanjani-clan and his likes. They can fuel any propaganda machine to abate the tension felt at home and mask any real cause for which people suffer from. So, oil income goes on the account of repressive organs, propaganda machine, and terrorist organisations in the world.

The IRI is precarious, unpopular mullahs hold onto power by all means of repression. If the oil revenue were suddenly to drop, the repressive regime would lose its steady income and would have serious problems to invest its repressive machine to repress domestic population and finance international terrorism.

If oil sanction, as a new weapon of sanction, is imposed as a result of IRI’s nuclear row with the West, and it can render the IRI more vulnerable, it is also at the same time a lack of resource in the hand of the Mullahs to finance their repressive organs and a fair occasion for Iranian people to challenge the plague of the IRI, some Iranian analysts believe.

The IRI cannot be reduced to a simple dictatorial system. It is an extremely brutal totalitarian system, emulated from the archaic models of a clan society of Arab pagans. IRI’s criminal records go beyond of any standard of today’s imagination, i.e., with one Khomeini’s fatwa, several thousands political prisoners, some of them minors, were killed in summer 88.
Since the inception of the regime, hundreds of thousands of Iranians have been jailed, tortured, strained to repent, or summarily executed. Millions of Iranians have been forced to leave the country looking asylum in the West.

The brutal face of Mullahs’ regime is camouflaged by the censured of state run media. Furthermore, in the light of any Göbbels-like propaganda system of totalitarian regimes, a crowd of sold intellectuals, paid journalists and Islamic media-networks do the job to create an international apathy towards the depth of Iranian people’s plight.

The best reason to impose an oil embargo on the regime is the lack of any other realistic alternative from the UN. Even as the collateral damage from such trade embargo can be immense, including harming those countries that impose it, the other choice is economic sanctions, if not war.

The exact numbers of executions of 88 and the conditions of executions have never been revealed by the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) or by both the media and factions of the regime. Neither have been the cruel dimensions of these crimes mentioned or reported by IRI’s lobby groups in the West which primordially are defending IRI’s parasitic survival.

Different rates are speculated by both IRI’s deserters and rescuers. It varies from at least 4485 names published in the opposition media up to 30000 executions, as estimated by others.

Iran’s political prisoners were simply asked two questions each, “Do you believe in Allah?”, “Are you prepared to renounce your political organisation?” The prisoners had no idea about the consequences of their replies. In fact a ‘No’ to any of the above questions led automatically to immediate execution. Furthermore, according to some survivors most of the victim, repentant or not, got killed because the regime did not take them seriously and didn’t believe in their answers at the first place.

Although, many of those prisoners had already finished their prison sentences, they were further kept in captivity. Some of them were even recaptured after being once released. The prisoners were from all segments of society–included teenagers, whole families, men and women. The prisoners were from all segments of society–included teenagers, whole families, men and women.

During the months of August and September, all prison visits were cancelled; families were told not to bring any medicine or food for their loved ones. During this time the killing inside Iran’s prisons continued. The slaughter was well-organised and ruthless.

All day long, prisoners were loaded on forklift trucks and hanged from cranes and beams in groups of six at half-hourly intervals. Others were killed by firing squad. Those not executed were subjected to horrific torture.

The killing was an act of unprecedented violence in the course of Iranian recent history, unprecedented in form, content and intensity”, wrote the historian Ervand Abrahamian in his book on Iranian prisons Tortured Confessions.

The executed were buried in unmarked mass graves on the outskirts of the towns. In Tehran, one mass burial was accidentally discovered by an Armenian priest who had become curious as to why stray dogs kept digging there for bones. Most victims were young sympathisers of the left organisations and MOK. Many of them were arrested in their teens for reading or distributing an opposition pamphlet or a banned newspaper. The executions followed summary trials and soon included all other political prisoners–leftist and democratic opposition. Many were 12 to 14 years old when arrested.

The IRI’s version of Islam justifies both categories of “Enemy of Islam” interpreted as “Molhed” (atheists), term used against communists and “Monafegh” (hypocrite), term used for, Muslim, Mojahedins. It not only implicitly justifies Muslims’ jihad against non-believers, but to some extent, also killings within a Muslim community, where different interests and power-thirsty ambitions can lead to killing of any outsider “Enemy of Islam.”

These two categories (Molhed and Monafegh) of “Enemy of Islam” Nevertheless, the massacre had also roots in the early years of the IRI, when the newly established Shiite dictatorship began nationwide to crackdown on the leftist, democratic and secular opposition groups. Soon after the 1979 revolution, the paramilitary thugs of Hezbollah regularly attacked, sabotaged and intimidated opposition groups and ravaged their sieges and media.

Many newspapers were shut down, women were humiliated, minorities and ethnics were discriminated, and Friday prayer sermons turned into a place to spew venoms and hatred against any voice calling for gender equality, social justice, democracy, Identity of Persian or pre-Islamic civilisation, separation of religion from state and the values of secularism.

In the twentieth year of the massacre, we all freedom-loving Iranians along with the families who lost their loved children in summer 88 demand the UN to officially condemn this massacre. It is in the nature of the IRI and obvious evidence that such massacres can repeatedly be committed in Iran as soon as the IRI exists.

The international judicial authorities are requested to summon the murderers of this genocide before an international tribune to be tried. Such a process will not exceed their rights. Such a tribunal is similar to the case of the Nuremberg Court which rightfully brought the Nazi criminals before the justice because of their crimes against humanity.