Will we ever learn? via our brooding friend.

Please note: this is not an accusation. I am not asserting this story is "truth" or "fact." Rather, it is an important cautionary tale, which bears repeating each time our well-intentioned enthusiasms start to get out of hand. It is not an indictment of the enthusiasms but of the carelessness with which they are all too often exercised, or -- to my way of thinking even less forgivable -- of our woefully short attention span.

---

{update Feb 27 1:10PM EST} by nadezhda

As one of the prime (and grateful) beneficiaries of the recent "dominant link hierarchy" subversion initiatives, we have many new visitors today for whom this story may be new -- so here's some background.

For sometime we've been following Iran's ever-growing assault on the internet generally, and blogging in particular, as a mode of expression and connection. We have been especially concerned with the fate of Iranian bloggers, and we have tried to showcase efforts to support them.

We were outraged and saddened to learn of the extremely lengthy prison sentence just imposed on one of them, referred to in the story above. How horrid If the severity of the sentence did indeed have much to do with the public disclosure of his identity on the American-funded radio station! And now we learn via Reporters without Bordersthat another Iranian blogger has been convicted.

We've added a Committee to Protect Bloggers sidebar, designed and kindly contributed to the blogosphere by SarahAnne. as an ongoing reminder. The Committee is insisting that it is truly international and will focus on the human rights dimensions, not push the agendas of specific groups or countries. On the broader issues of the future direction of the global information society, this site sponsored by Reporters without Borders is beginning to focus on cyberdissidents and bloggers specifically.

Regardless of your position on "regime change" (how or whether), we ought to be able to join with the work of grassroots organizations like these -- they're trying to make a difference for the individuals who are caught up in the repression of speech and for the principles of open societies and freedom of association everywhere that the blogosphere symbolizes.

Personally, I think the broader issue of blogging as a new means of freedom of association and expression will be, in the long run, far more important as a global social and political trend in the 21st century than any "competition" between blogging and the commercial news media. Just my 2 cents.

Some major reasons for brooding

Von at Obsidian Wings has a fascinating and vigorous thread going over how/whether to debate the use of torture, all triggered by the Gonzales hearings and the new legal memo from the Justice Dept's Office of the Legal Counsel. But in Iran, bloggers are facing this dilemma personally in fact, not in theory. This extremely unsettling news from Iran via Hoder and Reporters Without Borders , has set me to more than just brooding, but to absolutely fulminating.

For the past several months, those of us who follow goings on in Iran have watched as the Iranian internal security and judiciary apparatus has been moving against individuals connected to blogging and internet services. They've been after the techies as often as anyone. The pressure has ratcheted up, with reports in December of not only arrests but also compelled "confessions" and torture. This Jan 6 2005 press release from Reporters Without Borders summarizes what's been happening. The page also has links to their previous articles on the situation.

In the past several days, the authorities now seem to have moved on to a full-fledged assault to shut down the entire infrastructure that supports the Persian social network that has built up on the internet. Since the theocrats attempt to monitor and control the most ordinary freedoms of speech, thought and association we take so for granted, the internet has been a rare open space available to Iranians. This is attested by the very high internet usage figures in Iran. For example, one commenter on a Joi Ito thread about the problem noted that Persians are the #3 demographic in Orkut. The reassertion of power by the hard-liners is extending to this space that expresses, by its very existence, a profound threat to what they stand for.

Hoder passes along the following disturbing report, as of Jan 6, which suggests that rather than trying to regulate the internet for disturbing content, the theocrats are trying to shut down the important social network spaces the internet creates.

Friends in Iran, journalists and technicians, are saying that judiciary officials have ordered all major ISP to filter all blogging services including PersianBlog, BlogSpot, Blogger, BlogSky, and even BlogRolling.

They have also ordered to filter Orkut, Yahoo Personals and some other popular dating and social networking websites.

For ISPs this means a big loss, since much of their recent sales have been because of people writing and reading blogs and surfing Orkut. So the government is effectively eliminating small and private ISPs by bankrupting them, whiteout [sic] paying a political price for it.

He goes on to list some of the actions that might be taken. In addition to technical means of circumventing the authorities, he says:

While still relevant and potentially effective, I believe they are not enough now.

The EU and the US must seriously consider demanding for an end to the Internet censorship during their negotiations with the Iranian government.

We also have to look for ways to beam Internet direcly to Iranian users in Tehran and other big cities via cheap satellite connections.

I call this "open access" and it's actually one of the projects a few friends and I are working on: to use millions of satellite dishes in Iranian houses to access the net, without interference of local ISPs.

According to BloggersWithoutBorders, it seems that Joi Ito, who asked a question about the availability of typepad and live journal and was answered by Hoder in an update to his post, has had his own site just banned, so there may be problems with following up with Hoder directly through his blog. Joi's blog has a growing thread of comments and trackbacks.

Today is just not the day for me to feel that "write your Congressman" is going to do much good -- with their attention absorbed in the current torture debate in the US, I find it difficult to imagine they'll get too wound up about what's going on in Iran. Or if they do get riled, it's going to be in a transparently hypocritical fashion that matches partisan agendas. This is, unfortunately, what happens when we allow our moral bearings to get knocked akilter, and what Lech Walesa meant a few weeks ago when he was quoted by the WSJ as saying:

[The Americans] are a military and economic superpower but not morally or politically anymore. This is a tragedy for us.

Ah well. After I've simmered down, I'll brood on whether some other useful action might be undertaken.

A minor bit of laughter

Which brings me to our favorite brooding friend who, I am pleased to see, has reappeared in a splendid new year's edition, and brings us a taste of Persian humor that's LOL and, pun intended, deliciously funny .

I find I owe him an apology for being a tad cryptic in my end-of-the-year greetings. I told him to hum a sentimental little song without telling him the tune! For shame, since it's been covered by truly all of the greats, although primarily with the English lyrics by Johnny Mercer rather than the French original.

This is an update of the earlier post and comments about the the absurd Treasury regulations effectively banning works by authors from countries under US sanctions (e.g. Iran, Cuba, Sudan) from being published in the US. The regulations are being challenged in US court by Nobel Prize winner and Iranian human rights lawyer Shirin Ebadi.

This article in the Seattle Times from Dec 8 provides fuller info and some clarification. Apparently it is possible to obtain an exemption via one's literary agent and publisher applying for a license to engage in the business of turning a manuscript into a published work. So in that sense, the regulations aren't quite as draconian as they initially appeared, although we are dealing with licensing speech, which is generally frowned upon in US law (she says in her mildest understatement).

According to the article, however, the situation is almost worse than originally presented. Treasury has for all intents and purposes overruled a legislative provision enacted several years ago to exempt publications from the application of the Trading with the Enemy Act. The system Treasury has come up with sounds like a catch-22 for political dissidents worthy of both Yosarian and the Red Queen. (HT folkbum at LiberalStreetFighter.com)

---

Not an update exactly. But related.

The position of the US government on Iranian authors is especially repugnant in light of the situation in which dissident authors, especially journalists, are finding themselves today in Iran. US attempts to isolate the regime through restricting flow of information and ideas are unlikely to have any effect on the mullahs, will deny Americans the ability to understand and support those opposing the regime, and as often as not wind up limiting our ability to help them.

Iranian woman journalist freed on bail, hospitalised

TEHERAN (AFP) Dec 11 An Iranian woman arrested in a judicial crackdown on reformist journalists was freed on bail but needed hospital treatment due to her detention, her husband told AFP on Saturday.

According to Ahmad Beigloo, journalist Fereshteh Ghazi “was kept in solitary confinement for 38 days and had to be checked into hospital as she was not in a good physical or mental shape”.

The woman was arrested over her articles on women’s rights published on Internet sites. She was released on bail of 500 million rials (about 57,000 dollars).

In recent months, Iran’s hardline judiciary has arrested a number of pro-reform journalists accused of publishing propaganda against the regime, acting against national security, disturbing public opinion and insulting religious sanctities.

Four jailed reformist journalists, three of them recently released, have written letters of repentance, saying they were ”brainwashed” by foreigners and “counter-revolutionaries”.

Two weeks ago the European Union lodged a formal protest with Iranian authorities over the arrest and harassment of journalists, staff of non-governmental organizations and members of religious minorities.

To follow up on the "confessions," from AFP Dec 14:

Iran’s reformist government admitted yesterday that it was concerned over how the hardline judiciary managed to exact written apologies and confessions from several detained dissident journalists.

“People making statements that go against their convictions cannot win the confidence of public opinion and raise questions,” government spokesman Abdollah Ramazanzadeh told journalists.

Just because the neanderthal judiciary and their goons are beneath despicable doesn't mean we should punish Iranian authors. Nor, I should add, is it causus belli for going to war against those same neanderthals.

Browsing around the internets, I came across RAND's page of commentary on Iran. Just scanning the headlines is kind of funny, in a not-so-funny kind of way:

In Iran, the U.S. Can't Stay on the Sidelines — Dec. 02, 2004

Nuclear Accord Could Open Door To Re-engagement With Tehran — Nov. 19, 2004

Talk It Out on Iran Before It's Too Late — Aug. 27, 2004

Engage, Don't Isolate, Iran — June 27, 2004

Time to Deal With Iran — May 6, 2004

Waste your breath much, RAND?

Today was another missed opportunity: for the 20th year in a row, the U.S. rejected Iran's bid to enter the WTO. The irony, of course, is that the new ideas and rule sets (Westoxification!) that come with WTO accession are what Iran's corrupt, repressive ruling mullahs fear most. They won't be able to handle the rate of rapid social change that will come along. Opening up Iran's closed society is how you get the regime change clock ticking faster. But instead of presenting a united front with Europe on the nuclear question, while loudly offering Iran a chance to connect up to the world community, we're inadvertantly strengthening hardline groups like the IRGC while foolishly pinning our hopes on a disorganized gaggle of royalist exiles, Marxists, and the same crowd that duped us for missiles in the 80s, it seems.

Alas.

Maybe it's not such a bad idea after all that the next Secretary of State is an old Kremlinoligist. November has been an active month for Russia-watching, some good news, some not so good news.

Main areas of interest in this clippings collection:

1. A second term for President Bush -- views from Moscow
2. Black Gold - Russia has more... and then some
3. The evolving structure of Russia's political economy, and the dilemma of low growth and investment outside the energy sector
4. The CIS and the Near-Abroad -- Russia's posture in its sphere of influence, and the West's responses
5. NATO -- areas of collaboration and friction
6. Nuclear weapons and treaties
7. Chechnya

   more »

then think how much a map can tell. Sometimes it's helpful to put oneself in the position of others whose behavior you would like to influence -- even if they are implacable foes.

Surely the Times best-sellers on business strategy agree that somewhere in the top 5 "to-do" list is "know the competition." So mightn't you feel a bit antsy if you were sitting in Tehran?

Courtesy Needlenose.

[UPDATE 11-25-04] The Brooding Persian points us to this useful perspective, provided by the next National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley:

Even critics must acknowledge that the security arrangements developed after World War II, largely dependent upon nuclear weapons, were successful in giving us a Europe that has been free for fifty years from the major warfare that twice afflicted the continent in the first half of this century. Under the protection of nuclear deterrence, Europe has pursued a policy of economic and political integration that has put to rest age-old antagonisms and centuries of conflict between countries such as France and Germany. Nuclear deterrence also helped to hold off a Communist Soviet Union until the internal contradictions of that regime brought it down. In summary, "morality" must be judged in part by its effects, and if judged by these results, nuclear deterrence was a highly moral and responsible national security policy.

I generally enjoy the prose stylings of Atrios, James Wolcott, Kevin Drum, and even Steve Gilliard on occasion.

But, like Matthew Yglesias, I think they really ought to keep their opinions to themselves until they've actually read The Persian Puzzle: The Conflict Betweeen Iran and America. Having just finished the book, I think it's wrong to suggest that Pollack has simply gone through The Threatening Storm replacing q's with n's. If anything, the book is meant to forestall a foolish course of action such as a military invasion (he's got a section aptly named "The Case Against Invading Iran") or a covert regime destabilization campaign (there's another section called "The Ghost of Kim Roosevelt").

Pollack's nuanced case is duly replete with qualifiers and caveats, but the bottom line is that, as "our least bad option," he favors a "Triple Track" approach consisting of the following elements:

• Hold Open the Prospect of the Grand Bargain
  
• A True Carrot-and-Stick Approach
  
• Preparing for a New Containment Regime
  

He says on p. 385:

[J]ust because the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons does not quite justify the extraordinary price of an invasion does not mean that it is not a threat or that it would not justify other actions by the United States that might not be as costly as an invasion but could still require considerable sacrifices. Foreign policy is rarely an all-or-nothing activity--that either a threat is great enough to justify paying any price, including invasion or nuclear strikes, or else it is not a threat at all and therefore does not justify paying any price. Most foreign policy problems fall somewhere in between, and the Iranian nuclear threat still falls toward the higher end of the spectrum.

Failing to succeed would meaning learning to live with a nuclear Iran, which would be pretty bad but not the end of the world.

I should warn potential readers that the book is quite sloppy in parts, probably the result of a headlong rush to publication. Pollack often appears to directly contradict himself within the same paragraph.

For instance, on p. 16, amid a discussion of 19th century Iranian history:

Entire Iranian industries were thus wiped out by foreign competition, impoverishing Persia's middle class and artisanry. At various points, European creditors pressed the shah to sell off Crown lands to repay debts, increasing the power of the landlords at the expense of the central government and further diminishing royal revenues in the future. Moreover, these new duties brought the shahs increasingly into competition with Iran's rising middle class, composed largely of merchants and business (called bazaaris because their place of business was the bazaar, meaning "market" in Persian) who were being penalized for the government's financial mistakes. (my bolding)

Try making sense of that.

That's only a minor example of Pollack's discombobulating prose-- the big picture is equally muddled. Iran has been mostly helpful in Iran and Iraq, he says, but Iran has reverted to its bad old ways from the 1990s. Khatami has lost his mojo and the hardliners from that time period are back in charge, but the current regime "does not have a history of reckless behavior." It's been nearly impossible to get the Europeans, Japanese, and Chinese to go along with punishing Iran for its bad behavior, but it will be possible to get the Europeans, Japanese, and Chinese to go along with a multilateral sanctions regime. Strangely, there's no mention of Iranian support for Muqtada Sadr or most of the other predations described in US News, although Pollack does cite one November 2003 attack by Iranian guerillas on a Fallujah police station as an example of bad behavior. Sadr's name doesn't even appear in the index. If Pollack believes the swirling accusations about Iran's involvement in the insurgency to be false, he should have made some effort to debunk them rather than letting them stand. I was also troubled by Pollack's use of Wikipedia as a source on the 1973 Oil Crisis (aren't there books on that subject?), and I imagine I could find other problems if I cared to look. Not to mention the fact that Pollack has never been to Iran, and doesn't speak any Farsi.

My bottom line: I can't recommend this book unless you know little about Iran, don't follow the news, and can't bother to read the James Fallows piece or Pollack's burgeoning list of editorials on the subject. But don't believe the knee-jerk reactions from left blogistan, either. Pollack should have done a better job, but this isn't Threatening Storm II.

chez Nadezhda has received its first suggestions for additions to the menu as well as some thoughts on entertainment offerings. The Brooding Persian has thoughtfully shared a couple of items he thought Oscar in particular would find of interest.

I expect the culinary specialites aren't in MC MasterChef's current repetoire, but we'll consult with him about including a dish or two as occasional plats du jour on the carte. As for the entertainment, we hadn't been planning to build a facility capable of handling entertainment on quite such a scale, but perhaps we could include an events calendar to let guests know when entertainers of interest will be appearing near them.

Just in case anyone was wondering, "Bush will still pursue 'agressive foreign policy'" according to Colin Powell in an interview with the FT. (State Dept transcript here.)

“The president is not going to trim his sails or pull back,” Mr Powell told the Financial Times on Monday. “It's a continuation of his principles, his policies, his beliefs.” In his first interview since the presidential election last Tuesday, Mr Powell stressed Mr Bush had won a mandate to pursue a foreign policy that was in the US national interest.

That policy would also be in the interest of friends and alliances, and while it would be “multilateral in nature”, the US would act alone where necessary.   more »

After reading this very creative James Fallows piece (subscriber only) detailing a mock wargaming exercise concerning Iran's nuclear weapons program, I can understand why some folks might be attracted to the idea of a velvet revolution as a solution to America's Iran problem.

The Atlantic assembled a group consisting of some usual suspects: retired USAF Colonel Sam Gardiner (who penned a typo-laden expose of the Pentagon's GWII psy-ops), Reuel Marc Gerecht (everyone's favorite former spy--sorry, Robert Baer fans), David Kay (of "We were almost all wrong" fame), Kenneth Pollack (author of the new book, Oops I screwed up on Iraq, howsabout Iran?), and a few other guys I'd never heard of.

Playing the role of CENTCOM (and sometimes the CIA), Gardiner gave an extensive PowerPoint presentation (one that would certainly give Edward Tufte fits of apoplexy) to kick off the game.

The article itself is tough to summarize, so I've taken the, ahem, liberty, of excerpting some of the slides for the benefit of our loyal readers here. (The slides, by the way, are also riddled with typos).    more »