Interview With Soona Samsami on Iran and NCRI
By Dan Rabkin
June 19, 2008

Global Politician
Soona Samsami, a leading Iranian women's rights and pro-democracy activist, joins me for an interview. She is the Executive Director of Women's Freedom Forum and was the U.S. Representative of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) until its U.S. offices were closed by the State Department in 2003.It was during Ms. Samsami's tenure that the NCRI was the first to expose to the world the true intentions and purposes of Iran's nuclear program by revealing the existence of a secret uranium enrichment facility in Natanz and a heavy water facility in Arak. Her work has appeared in numerous media outlets including the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, Fox News, CNN, the Los Angeles Times, the National Journal, C-SPAN, and the Boston Globe. Additionally, her advocacies have led to numerous actionable items for the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency and the U.N. Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons and violence against women in Iran. Daniel Rabkin interviewed her for the Global Politician.
Rabkin: Can you start off by telling us a bit about your background and your role in the Iranian opposition?
Samsami: I was born in the city of Isfahan, Iran and am a graduate of Michigan State University. Currently, I serve as the executive director of Women's Freedom Forum. WFF is an organization that has networks with women in Iran and Iraq that confront fundamentalism and champion women's rights. In line with that objective, I represented 15 exiled Iranian women's organizations in the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, China. In 1998, I was also appointed the U.S. representative of the National Council of Resistance of Iran. The NCRI is an assembly that works to establish a secular and democratic government in Iran.
Rabkin: Could you please comment on the plight of women inside of Iran today? Why do you think so many Western women's organizations stay silent on this crucial matter?
Samsami: First of all, I think the most important factor in the silence is the West's policy of appeasement towards the Iranian regime. This appeasement has prepared a climate where brutality is ignored and oppressors are legitimized. Secondly, the Iranian regime has exhausted enormous capital, in terms of both money and propaganda, to cover its tracks. Thirdly, the Islamic Republic has tried to frame the mistreatment of women within the context of Sharia law and by perverting cultural norms. Collectively, this has led to a misinformed international psyche on the true plight of Iran's women. The daily discrimination against women and the suffering of these women is, therefore, not heard in its totality within the Western women's movement. Islamic fundamentalism is a medieval phenomenon with monopolistic, suppressive, dogmatic, misogynous, and terrorist characteristics which works to preserve and expand the velayat-e-faqih (absolute rule of the clergy). A significant pillar of this school of thought is gender distinction and discrimination against women. Iran is a unique country because it is the first country where fundamentalists managed to attain absolute power and were able to institutionalize their perverted worldview in all social, political, and cultural spheres.
Rabkin: In your mind, what is the best way to bring real change to Iran?
Samsami: It is important to mention here that for 30 years the Iranian people have been protesting and demonstrating to do just that. In 2007 alone, there were some 5,000 demonstrations in Iran by students, workers, teachers, bus drivers, women, and others. All of this signifies enormous potential for democratic change within Iran. Presently, the least costly and most effective way to bring about change in Iran is to rely on the strength of the Iranian people and their organized resistance. Over 60% of university students in Iran are women. The Iranian resistance is also led by women and is capable of galvanizing the enormous potential of the Iranian people. This is the only way to ensure democratic change in Iran. In the past 100 years, there have been 3 popular uprisings against tyranny in Iran: We had the constitutional movement in 1906, and then the rise of the nationalist movement led by Dr. Mohammad Mossadeq who became Prime Minister in 1951, and finally the 1979 revolution which ousted the Shah and his secret police, SAVAK, but was unfortunately hijacked by Khomeini. Therefore, the Iranian people have experience and are capable of bringing about a democratic government today. Presently, and against all odds, over 3,400 members of the Iranian resistance live under the protection of coalition forces in Ashraf City, Iraq. They have been instrumental in exposing Tehran's destructive influence across the border. Ashraf residents continue to play a significant role in promoting reconciliation in Iraq and they continue to help in the formation of a front against Iranian extremism. I must mention that nearly 1,000 of these Ashraf residents are women. Their triumph against Iranian led terrorism continues to inspire the students in Iran that are rising against the regime. Sadly, misconceptions and erroneous analysis of the relevant circumstances by Western policy makers have led to a tendency towards either appeasement or war. The fact is that appeasement policies have facilitated Iran's nuclear weapons program. Others, on the other hand, think that they can bring about change in Iran by relying on foreign intervention. Both are wrong. In a speech delivered at the European Parliament, Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, President-elect of the NCRI, said that neither war nor appeasement of the regime in Iran is the answer. She called for a "third option" of "democratic change in Iran by the Iranian people and their organized resistance." As I just mentioned, appeasing the dictators essentially whitewashes their crimes and, indeed, even empowers them. Western nations' policies towards Iran have failed because they are centered on placating the regime. In 1997, when the State Department designated the main Iranian opposition group, the Mujahedin-e Khaq (MEK), as terrorist, it was done, as conceded by a senior Clinton Administration official, "as a goodwill gesture to the Iranian regime and its newly elected moderate president Mohammad Khatami." That misguided policy did not moderate Tehran's behavior. Instead, it heightened Tehran's drive to acquire nuclear weapons and eventually led to the rise of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president. If such a policy continues the outcome will further embolden Tehran in its pursuit of nuclear weapons and exporting Islamic extremism to the wider Middle East.
Rabkin: Why do you think the U.S. and Europe continue to keep the NCRI and MEK on the terror list? (In Europe the MEK is designated, while the NCRI is not; in the U.S. both are.)
Samsami: To answer your question, Dan, I need to point out a few facts.First, two competent European courts, the U.K.'s Proscribed Organisations Appeals Commission (POAC) and the E.U.'s Court of First Instance, have ruled that the terror listing of the MEK has no legal justification and should be annulled. Their findings have confirmed that the terror listing of Iran's largest opposition group has no legal or factual basis. Second, since 2003 Iranian opposition members living in Ashraf have been protected by coalition forces. A detailed 16-month investigation by several U.S. government agencies found no MEK member, living in Ashraf, to be in violation of American law. All Ashraf residents were granted protected persons status under the Fourth Geneva Convention. As I stated earlier, MEK members in Ashraf played a significant and constructive role in the battle against Iranian fundamentalist influence in Iraq. In addition to exposing Iran's nuclear weapons program, the MEK has made public valuable information on the violent activities of the Qods Force in Iraq as well. Many members of Congress, from both sides of the aisle, argue that if the 1997 designation of the MEK was meant to appease Khatami - to no avail - then the continued designation of the MEK is politically counterproductive because the appeasement policy has been a failure. These members of Congress believe that the State Department has yet to give up hope on this policy of appeasement and, due to that, continues to keep the MEK on the terror list, in addition to renewing its packages of incentives for the Iranian regime. History has provided plenty of guidance on the topic of appeasement. Before World War II, and as Churchill cautioned against appeasement of Hitler's regime, many, including Neville Chamberlain, advocated engagement with Germany. Britain ultimately signed an agreement with Hitler. This agreement allowed Hitler's expansionist machine to prepare before he violated the agreement and launched his aggression on Europe. The principal problem is still the incorrect and naive understanding of Tehran's malign intentions by the West, as well as its gravitation towards maintaining the status quo. This is happening despite proof of Tehran's unreformable and expansionist ideology as seen in the streets of Baghdad and Basra. In Iraq, and with regards to its nuclear weapons program, Iran has exploited the West's inability to adopt a decisive policy. Having said that, the limitations placed on the Iranian resistance, as a result of the terrorist designation, have acted as the main obstacle in facilitating democratic regime change in Iran. To correct this mistake, the State Department should adopt a neutral attitude towards the Iranian resistance.
Rabkin: I have spoken to many of your colleagues from the various organizations that make up the Iranian opposition. A few of them have said that while the Iranian people are vastly young, freedom-seeking, and pro-American, the NCRI and MEK are unpopular inside of Iran. Due to that, I was told that supporting the NCRI and MEK could end up backfiring. What are your thoughts on that argument?
Samsami: In November 2003, NCRI President-elect Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, who by the way has lost two sisters to the last two dictatorships in Iran, called for a referendum on regime change in Iran. Her proposition is the best way for changing the current regime of religious dictatorship.
The ballot box is the only criterion for legitimacy and would solve the multitude of issues that have arisen as a result of the mullahs' illegitimate rule. Unfortunately, the regime does not have the legitimacy or capacity to allow a referendum to take place. Otherwise, the people of Iran would have already answered your question. Mrs. Rajavi has repeatedly stated that the Iranian resistance only asks that the West take a neutral stance towards it and stay out of the people's path to democratic change in Iran. Neither the NCRI nor the MEK have asked for explicit U.S. backing. The central point is not support but interference. Current U.S. policy actively inhibits their activities against the mullahs via the terror listing - this is wrong. As your War with Iran II article correctly pointed out, hundreds of members of the U.S. Congress have called the NCRI a "legitimate resistance" working to overthrow the regime in Iran. The European Parliament has also echoed this sentiment.
When Ahmadinejad came to New York in 2006, some 20,000 NCRI supporters gathered in front of the U.N. to protest his presence on American soil. Over 50 media outlets covered this event. In June 2007, according to several media reports, as many as 50,000 Iranians gathered in Paris to express support for Mrs. Rajavi and the NCRI. This all shows that Iran has a viable, organized, and self sufficient resistance which has had 120,000 of its members executed. Thousands more are also imprisoned in the mullahs' prisons. The people of Iran have already attested to their popularity with blood and tears.
Rabkin: Realistically speaking, if the MEK and NCRI do get delisted from the terror record and are free to pursue their agenda against the mullahs, how would they bring about regime change?
Samsami: Excellent question Dan. Let's first look at this question from reverse. Blacklisting an organization is meant to demolish its structure, destroy or limit its activity, freeze its assets, and restrain its members from travel. In other words, the purpose of the designation of the PMOI/MEK, by the West, was to assure Tehran that its main legitimate opposition would be restrained from threatening its theocratic rule and establishing a secular democratic system in that country.  Let me remind everyone that in October 1997, the Los Angeles Times quoted a senior Clinton administration official who said that the designation of the PMOI/MEK was done as a "good will gesture" to the Iranian regime. This blacklisting legitimized the arrest and execution of hundreds of thousands of pro-democracy youth activists for their association with the PMOI/MEK within Iran. Additionally, millions of dollars of the resistance's assets were confiscated by governments curtailing the resistance's activities abroad. Even the NCRI's US assets were frozen. In other words, in designating the PMOI/MEK, the West essentially sided with the regime against its democratic opponents. But, despite the repression inside Iran and all of the restrictions imposed on it abroad, the resistance has never lost touch with the Iranian people. To this day, it serves as a counterforce to the regime's brute force. The movement has maintained its structure, its supporters inside Iran and abroad, and its networks in Iran, enabling it, for example, to expose the regime's secret nuclear program with intelligence from sources inside Iran. If it was able to accomplish all of this in shackles, imagine what it is capable of achieving unobstructed. And if you have any doubts about the resistance's ability to change this regime, just ask the ayatollahs! At any negotiation abroad, at any forum, in any circumstance, the first and foremost demand of Tehran's rulers is for harsh restrictions against the PMOI/MEK.
Delisting the MEK would send a strong message to the Iranian regime: Its bullying of the global community will no longer be tolerated. Delisting the MEK, the main engine for change in Iran over the past 3 decades, will also send a strong signal to Iranian youth, and the rest of the defiant population there, that their efforts to affect change are welcomed. Delisting the MEK will significantly empower that group and increase its potential which, already at this point, has created immense fear amongst the mullahs. Let me add a few additional points here:
As the international community's psyche increasingly finds Iran's rulers illegitimate, it must also recognize the legitimacy of its democratic alternative. Doing so will demoralize and weaken an important pillar of the regime's stability: The Revolutionary Guards.
Delisting the MEK and NCRI will also foretell the final end of the West's appeasement policies. The Iranian regime will also no longer be able to execute MEK members with impunity under the pretext of fighting "terrorism," when it is the world's top sponsor of real terrorism.
One must honestly ask this question: How can any opposition group, be it inside or outside of a democratic system, mount a nationwide campaign? Is it not true that it requires resources in terms of both money and people? Is it not true that it requires legitimacy and credibility in the eyes of the international community?
As I have noted earlier, the NCRI and MEK have both credibility and legitimacy with the Iranian people. Recognition of that legitimacy by the United States and Europe is what is needed now because that will enable the NCRI and MEK to intensify their efforts to bring change within and outside of Iran.  Earlier, I also mentioned that there were 5,000 protests within Iran in 2007. In addition to the regime's brutality, a lack of adequate organization can be blamed for the lack of an even more cohesive protest against the regime within Iran. The MEK, by all accounts, has this desperately needed organization.  Despite all of the limitations placed upon it, the MEK has been able to inform the international community about Iran's nuclear program. At the same time, the MEK works politically to inform Western policy makers about all of the problems the mullahs are causing around the world. The ability to know about Iran's most secret nuclear projects is a vivid example of the MEK's capabilities within Iran. The international response to that secret information, and the three U.N. Security Council resolutions because of it, all attest to the worldwide credibility the MEK has.
Rabkin: I understand that the MEK received some very good news recently. Could you please comment on the U.K. Court of Appeal's recent ruling in favor of the MEK?
Samsami: On May 7th, Britain's Court of Appeal affirmed a lower court ruling that ruled that the PMOI/MEK should not be listed as a terrorist organization. The three judges that make up the C.O.A. rejected an appeal by the government to that lower court ruling from last November. This ends a seven-year long legal battle and is an indication of the legitimacy of the resistance, and its activities that have been waged against the regime in Iran. After the ruling, Mrs. Rajavi said, "The ruling proves the terror label against the PMOI was unjust" and that "Western governments and the UK owe the Iranian people and the resistance an apology for this disgraceful labeling." On May 8th, the New York Times wrote: "To the extent that the PMOI has retained networks and supporters inside Iran since, at the latest, 2002," the judges said, using the abbreviation for the group's full name, "they have been directed to social protest, finance and intelligence gathering activities which would not fall within the definition of terrorism for the purposes of the 2000 Act." After all of that, a spokeswoman for the U.K. Home Office said, "the government would delist the MEK." The C.O.A. had seen all of the classified materials with respect to the MEK and ruled that there was no evidence that they had been involved in terrorism, and that the PMOI no longer satisfied any of the criteria for appearing on the blacklist.
It is important to note here that the petition to delist the MEK/PMOI was brought forward by 35 distinguished British politicians. With their support of the Iranian resistance, they have acted as the aware conscience of the people of Britain.  This ruling will hopefully have an effect on future U.S. policy as well. On May 7th, the Wall Street Journal quoted a U.S. official who said, "The MEK's listing will have to be reassessed during the current calendar year, as under State Department guidelines, the designations have five-year life spans." The official also added, "It's something we'll have to deal with." I believe that the United States should take into account the findings of the U.K. high court and indeed remove the MEK and NCRI from the U.S. list of terrorist organizations.  Encouraged by the ruling in the U.K., numerous members of Congress, who have on a number of occasions called for the removal of the MEK from the terror list, renewed their efforts to finally overturn the terror tag. Congressman Bob Filner said, "I support the decision of the British Court to recognize the legitimate nature of the MEK." Congressman Tom Tancredo also noted, "I am confident that if the U.S. State Department looks objectively at these same facts, they will come to the same conclusion." Such a delistment is the best way America can promote democracy in Iran and avoid the necessity of a military conflict.
Rabkin: As someone who is very familiar with the intricacies of Iran's nuclear weapons program, what kind of a timeline do you put on Iran going nuclear? What will be the consequences of an Iran with nuclear weapons?
Samsami: Following the release of the latest (November 2007) National Intelligence Estimate (claiming Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003), the NCRI issued a statement warning the international community about the regime's deceptions and concealment. The statement also noted that the regime "probably would use covert facilities - rather than its declared nuclear sites - for the production of highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon."  Remarkably, in February 2008, relying on intelligence from MEK sources in Iran, the NCRI revealed that Iran was in fact engaged in covert "uranium conversion and uranium enrichment activity." The information suggested that Iran was actively pursuing the production of nuclear warhead in an area called Khojir. Additionally, the NCRI report identified previously undeclared nuclear command and control sites. Collectively, these revelations point to an expedited Iranian nuclear project. Clearly, as long as this regime is in power, the threat of it obtaining nuclear weapons will be constant and imminent for the Iranian people and the world.
To answer your second question Dan, as the world's number one state-sponsor of terrorism, a nuclear armed Iran would be a disaster for mankind. Currently, Iran actively uses terrorism as leverage in conducting foreign policy. Armed with a nuclear arsenal, Iranian mullahs will waste no time in bullying their way to regional and international hegemony. Moreover, the Iranian people will have to continue to suffer under the ayatollahs' brutal rule for years to come. Increased international pressure on Iran is a positive development and should continue. However, as I have previously noted, the best way to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is to empower the Iranian people and their most organized resistance movement, in parallel with stepping up international pressure against the regime. Iranians know the mullahs best and are the only ones capable of uprooting this barbaric, extremist, and medieval regime.
Rabkin: You have said that neither appeasement nor war are good policies with respect to the Iranian regime. However, if there is actionable intelligence indicating that Iran is on the brink of acquiring nuclear weapons what should be done?
Samsami: As I have noted earlier, Iran's nuclear threat is imminent. We are already in the very critical time horizon you are referring to. This regime is an entrenched regime and can only be brought down by people who have roots within the fabric of Iranian society and have the capability to organize the people against the regime. The clock is ticking Dan. The United States and Europe cannot waste time. A policy of decisiveness and firmness towards the mullahs must be adopted. Additionally, they must reach out to the Iranian people and their leading opposition groups who are already calling for regime change.
Rabkin: Hopefully, the Iranian people and their opposition groups get the support they need to finally overturn their regime and send the mullahs to the bone yards of history. Ms. Samsami, thank you again for joining me.
Samsami: I hope so too Dan. It was my pleasure to join you today.
Dan Rabkin is a Middle Eastern affairs and national security analyst based in Toronto. He was awarded Canada's Governor General's Medal in 2005. He was also a short-listed national finalist for the Rhodes Scholarship. Dan's expertise lies in Middle Eastern and security affairs, but he is also knowledgeable about the situation in the former Soviet Union and speaks fluent Russian.
 

'Harassed' Iran student arrested
By Frances Harrison

June 20, 2008
BBC News
A female student in the Iranian city of Zanjan who alleged she was sexually harassed by a senior male lecturer - triggering a massive demonstration by her fellow students - has herself been arrested.
The nature of the charge against the woman - who said she was molested by the vice-chancellor of the university - is unclear, but the local prosecutor is reported to have said that publicising certain crimes is worse than the crimes themselves.
Thousands of students took control of the campus after the allegation came to light, staging a sit-in and catching hold of the official and handing him to authorities.
The situation has since been calmed after the authorities promised to suspend the accused official from his post and take action.
'Both accused'
The woman alleges that the vice-chancellor of the university, in the north-west of the country, harassed her after she went to discuss a problem with him. Her fellow students have said they have an audio recording of the lecturer sexually propositioning the girl. They have demanded that he be punished and that the university's board of directors resign.
Video of their seizing the vice-chancellor has since been posted on the YouTube website. Pictures of a sit-in to demand action have also been posted online.
But the situation calmed once the university authorities suspended the man and agreed to form a joint committee with students to look into the issue. The Fars news agency has reported that what they call "both accused" are in custody - by which they mean the alleged victim and perpetrator. Reporters have quoted the prosecutor saying people should be aware that if they go ahead and publicise crime there will be no more security in society.
In previous years there has been unrest in the universities spearheaded by reformist students, but so far the protests in Zanjan do not seem to have been overtly political.
This in a strictly segregated society where men and women are not supposed even to shake hands and women must hide their bodies from men they are not related to.
On June 12, the third anniversary of National Day of Solidarity of Iranian Women, nine women’s rights activists were arrested outside the Rahe Abrisham ( Silk Road ) Gallery just before the start of a small, peaceful assembly planned to commemorate the day.
Aida Saadat, Nahid Mirhaj, Nafiseh Azad, Nasrin Sotoodeh, Jelve Javaheri, Jila Baniyagoub, Sarah Loghmani and Farideh Ghaeb were arrested by Tehran security police, along with photographer and reporter Aliyeh Mohtalebzadeh. Of these nine women, five were journalists. All nine were released the following day in the early morning hours.
 

No Dignity, no Justice: New crackdown on women activists in Iran

By Elahe Amani

June 24, 2008

Women News Network

On the same day, a small group of women decided to go hiking on a local trail to commemorate the day. They were threatened, harassed and stopped by police forces. On the following day, Mahbobeh Karami, a member of the One Million Signatures Campaign demanding changes to Tehran’s discriminatory laws, was arrested. Her family has not heard from her since and can’t even find out to which detention center she was taken. June 12 is an important day in the history of Iranian women and the struggle for equality and human rights. It was on this day in 2005 that thousands of women gathered in front of Tehran University and demanded changes to the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Not since March 8, 1979, when 20,000 women gathered to object to a compulsory hijab, had women organized a large demonstration. In 2005, the failure of reformist policies, along with a historical opportunity, laid the groundwork for various women’s groups, networks and organizations within the movement to come together and protest violation of their rights.
June 12 has been chosen by Iranian women’s rights activists as the National Day of Solidarity in the struggle to change discriminatory laws against women and girls, and to change the societal structures that have denied full and equal citizenship to women. Many consider this day to be the day the women’s movement declared her independent existence and identity as a social movement, one which often has been marginalized by political parties.
In 2006, during a peaceful gathering on the first anniversary of the June 12 Day of Solidarity, 70 women activists were arrested, and many others were sentenced to up to six years in prison, all for demanding changes to discriminatory laws for divorce, polygamy, child custody, inheritance etc. The government of Iran claims that these activists are a threat to the country’s national security!
It has been reported that since June 12, 2006, women’s rights activist have been arrested 156 times, and collectively been sentenced to more than 30 years in prison, with a collective bail set at approximately $1.6 million. This is the price that Iranian women have to pay for demanding their rights.
Just in the last two months, during the crackdown on enforcing “Islamic Social Norms,” 1,098 women were arrested, accused of not fully observing the Islamic dress code. Women deemed inappropriately dressed are usually hauled to a moral detention center, where they must sign a written pledge not to repeat the offence, and are forced to await family members to bring them more modest clothing.
The Iranian people face many challenges in their daily life. Basic freedoms such as the right of assembly and freedom of speech and the press are shattered; there are more than 10 million people living under the poverty line; and the safety and security of women fighting for human rights is more fragile than ever: Women are being harassed and undignified in public for not observing the Islamic dress code; women’s rights activists are continually denied the right to freedom of association and assembly; and even meetings in private homes are often broken up by security forces.
Of course, this treatment is not limited to women’s activists only — other activists, be they labor, student, teachers, journalists or ordinary citizens who dare to demand their rights — are harassed, arrested and jailed regularly.
“The way the government is hounding them, and keeping some of them under surveillance, is an indication of its fear of the scale of this movement,” Reporters Without Borders said in a statement on June 13. It also reported that at least 14 websites that defend women’s rights were blocked by the authorities last month.
Iran is one of the world’s most repressive countries toward bloggers, and is on the Reporters Without Borders’ list of “Internet Enemies.” It was ranked 166th out of 169 countries in the latest World Press Freedom Index. Many of the bloggers and cyber social justice activists are women.
Shirin Ebadi, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003, said in a recent interview with The Guardian newspaper: “Since the world started focusing on the nuclear program, the human rights situation in Iran has worsened every day. The morality police interfere more in people’s everyday lives. They recently announced they would carry out inspections in private homes and companies. In Tehran, there was also a plan to target hooligans on the streets, but it led to a lot of innocent young people and women being arrested.”
But the struggle goes on.
Despite the continuous prosecution of Iranian women activist and human rights defenders, the Iranian women’s movement is one of the most inspiring women’s movement in the world today. Iran’s women continue to challenge fanatic interpretations of Islam, demanding secularism and reforms to strict patriarchal social norms and discriminatory laws in the constitution and leading the way for women in other Muslim majority societies. Ancient Greek historian Thucydides once said, “Justice will not come to Athens until those who are not injured are as indignant as those who are injured.” The support of Iranian men like student Amir Yaghoub-Ali, who was arrested and jailed for working on behalf of the One Million Signature campaign, and the solidarity of other progressive-minded people and organizations around the world that have supported the cause, are statements of the strength of a movement that will just keep moving forward.
As U.S.-Iran relations remain a hot political issue, and the threat of a military strike continues to receive media attention, we must not allow the recent history of Afghan women to repeat itself here. We must remember that in the mainstream U.S. media, there is a short time span between reconstructing the image of brave Iranian women and collateral damage. Learning from their Afghan sisters, Iranian women will never allow the West to make them the poster child for women’s oppression and the justification for a military strike that would “rescue” them from the atrocities of religious extremists in Iran.
Iranian women are bold and brave, confident and hopeful. Their desire for democracy, dignity, justice and respect for human rights will be achieved through the building of a movement inclusive of all men and women who believe in eradicating discriminatory laws, together and with the support of international forces that are taking a stand against militarization, globalization and religious fundamentalism.

Jailed Women Activists Go on Hunger Strike in Tehran's Evin Prison
By Niusha Boghrati
July 11, 2008

Worldpress.org correspondent
Once again, Evin Prison in Tehran, Iran, has drawn the attention of human rights activists; this time the notorious jail—infamous for housing political and social figures—is holding 10 women on hunger strike.
Almost one month has passed since the doors of ward 209 were shut on women's rights activist Mahboubeh Karami and nine other women; and the Iranian judiciary still has not presented the legal basis or accusations on which the detainees are being held.
"It has been weeks since I have officially accepted to defend the case of Ms. Karami, but I have not succeeded to visit my defendant yet. Nor am I aware of the charges against her," said Hooshang Poor Babaee, Karami's advocate lawyer.
On the fourth week of their detention, the 10 female inmates, exhausted by the grave conditions, began a hunger strike to protest the "illegal approach" of the judicial and prison officials.
In an interview with the United States-funded Persian-language Radio Farda, Sadigheh Masaebi, Mahboubeh's mother talked about the last conversation she had with her daughter: "'They are killing us here,' she [Karami] told me on phone. She said that her body is full of bruises, and the ten of them are crawling into each other in a tiny cell. She said that she and the nine other inmates are going on hunger strike from Sunday [July 6]."
Karami is 39. The ages of the other inmates range from 17 to 70, according to what Karami has told her mother.
The women were arrested during a protest against "economical corruption" in Tehran. But Karami has denied any involvement in the protest, and said her presence in the tumultuous area had been entirely coincidental. She said that she was passing through the area on a bus when the police and plainclothes officers stopped the vehicle and arrested them.
"'The police stopped the bus in front of the Mellat Park. Then they began hitting the windows with their batons and forced the driver to open the doors. They attacked a man in the bus. I could not keep silent and when I protested, they took me in too,'" Mahboubeh's mother quoted her daughter as saying.
Those demonstrating in Mellat Park were protesting the June 11 arrest of Abbas Palizdar, who had accused several senior Iranian officials of financial corruption in speeches he made at universities in Hamedan and Shiraz in May. He had been involved in a parliamentary Judicial Inquiry and Review Committee that had conducted an investigation into affairs of the judiciary. The protest had been organized by foreign-based opposition television channels that the Islamic Republic considers illegal and decadent.
Faced with intense pressure from the United States and its allies, which are pushing for political changes in the oil rich country, Iran said that such gatherings as well as the activities of those American-based stations are aimed at undermining the national security of the state; thus, it preserves for itself the right to confront them.
At a news conference on June 14, the head of the Tehran Judiciary, Ali Reza Avaie, confirmed that 200 people had been arrested during the protest. He said that those who were innocent or suspected of minor crimes would hear about the status of their cases within a week.
Mahboubeh Karami is a part of the One Million Signature Campaign, a women's rights movement in Iran that seeks to collect a million signatures to protest the discriminatory laws against women.
Although there has been a number of reforms in Iran's Islamic and judicial codes concerning women's rights, placing the country way ahead of other Muslim states, many political, social, and economic codes still in place, including the right of inheritance and marriage, are viewed as favoring men.
The Iranian authorities have never officially expressed opposition to the activities of this equal rights movement; nevertheless, tens of women's rights activists have been arrested on varying charges, such as undermining national security and promoting propaganda against the system.
According to one of Karami's fellow campaigners, who did not want to be identified, Karami's activities as a women's rights activist have led to complications because it's a case that could become a "golden" opportunity for the Islamic system: "Now they [the authorities] have found the chance to generalize this accidental arrest and try to link our independent movement to foreign sources. This is a good opportunity for them to intensify the crackdown."
The campaign said it refuses to accept any kind of foreign aid in their activities and believes that "change" is only possible through the forces inside Iran.
Women's rights is considered one of the many integral parts of the Islamic Shariah codes; thus, a major change to its religiously-drawn legal system will be viewed as a fundamental retreat on "holy moral values"—something that the ideological system of the Islamic Republic of Iran refuses to accept.
According to the Tehran-based Committee to Defend Human Rights in Iran, during the past year 31 women activists have been summoned to court, 41 activists have been detained, 9 have been sentenced to prison, ordered to pay fines, and given lashes (later suspended). Almost all of the Web sites promoting equal rights have been filtered and banned.
As for Karami, her case remains open even as the gates in the tall walls of the prison remain tightly closed on her and the nine other women, all of whom are now spending their days and nights going hungry in their plight.