Hat tip: Joe Millis

Iranian TV showed what it claimed was an Israeli passport issued to the alleged spy, Majid Jamali Fashi.

Ottolenghi writes:

I will leave it to others to decide whether Fashi’s execution was a fake. The passport certainly looks like a fake. This has less to do with the fact that the name and ID number of the passport holder have been erased and more with obvious flaws:

First of all, any passport issued since the mid-1990s by any country includes, at the bottom of its main page, a line with left-pointed arrows, much like in this picture. In an authentic passport, the line begins with the letter P followed by the three letter code of the country issuing the document (ISR for Israel), followed by the passport holder’s full name. In the snapshot, the line contains only arrows and no name – N.B. the name is not erased or blurred, it is simply not there.

Beyond this first surprising fault, the picture for Fashi is not suitable for passports – he is gazing away from the camera, whereas a passport head shot requires that the passport holder stare into the camera.

But there is something more – a small detail that Iranian state falsifiers–sloppy as ever–overlooked.

Fashi’s picture is very recent – yet the passport was issued, according to the snapshot, on 17 November 2003. Fashi’s biographical details tell us that he was 24 when he was hanged. If that is the case, he would have been 15-years-old – a teenager, with a much more boyish face with less facial hair than the picture shows.

For obvious reasons then, the year of birth of the passport holder is concealed as well.

Fashi might have been executed after all. But the attempt to turn him into a Mossad agent and gun-for-hire rests clearly on an orchestrated attempt by the regime to scapegoat someone who is innocent.

It seems that Britain, concerned by the possible impact on global oil prices, is trying to delay implementing a ban on providing protection and indemnity insurance for Iranian oil tankers, an important element in the sanctions against Iran’s nuclear programme.  When questioned by John Woodcock in the House of Commons on 15 May, William Hague did not deny this. The Shadow Foreign Secretary, Douglas Alexander, pressed him on this:

There were many words, but not many answers. Given the Foreign Secretary’s remarks, I think that oil prices are a material consideration in determining the timing on when Britain chooses to impose sanctions on Iran. I would be very grateful if the Minister could confirm where the balance of authority on this lies within Government and whether this is a decision being led by the Treasury or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office because many allies and many in the international community will have been troubled by the Foreign Secretary’s remarks. If some of the reports—they are only reports—are to be believed that Britain is one of the back markers and that this is being driven by a view from within the Treasury, that would be of great concern to Members on both sides of the House.

Meanwhile in the US Republicans have been delaying signing a new agreement on sanctions, aimed to close loopholes:

“Time is of the essence,” declared Robert Menendez (D-New Jersey), who has been championing the bill. “We must send to the Iranians a clear message that you cannot just forestall negotiations and have negotiations thinking that you are buying time. We must show them that notwithstanding their intentions to buy time, there are consequences.”

Republican Senator Rand Paul wanted to introduce an amendment to ensure that nothing in the bill “shall be construed as a declaration of war or an authorization of use of force against Iran or Syria.”

Potkin Azarmehr writes:

The notorious Friday Prayer leader of Tabriz, Mojtahed Shabastari, also the Supreme Leader’s representative in the E. Azerbijan province, a particularly monstrous cleric and one of the founders of the Islamic Republic has been tearing himself apart worrying about the Shiite population of Baku having to endure the shame of hosting the Eurovision concert followed by a gay parade.
….
Not only Iranian people are deprived from singing and dancing, Iran’s clerics are now also telling Iran’s neighbours that they can’t have fun either.

Here are some photos from a demonstration organized by Shabastari.

This sign says “Eurovision is not a music festival but a festival to promote decadence and homosexuality”:

This sign says “Mr. Aliyev [president of Azerbijan] instead of holding a gay parade, think about liberating Karabakh”:

Oh, and while they were at it:

…who must be to blame for it somehow.

The Council on Foreign Relations, one of the most respected international affairs organizations in the United States, now finds itself in the grip of an exceptionally embarrassing scandal. Ed Husain, a senior fellow for Middle Eastern Studies, recently generated an uproar among Middle East specialists with a bizarre series of tweets from a brief visit to Bahrain, in which he warmly supported the government while harshly condemning the opposition as stooges of Iran.

Displaying an astounding blindness to the aggressive violence and sectarian rhetoric of the government and its supporters, Husain painted the opposition as uniformly violent, sectarian Iranian agents. There is no evidence of this, as the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry noted in a report last year. Nonetheless, Husain accused the mainstream Shia opposition group Al-Wefaq of running a campaign of “intimidation” against other Shia. But all the evidence suggests that Al-Wefaq has been steadily losing support because of its moderation and refusal to call for the dissolution of the monarchy.

Husain promotes a ridiculous binary: “Bottom line on Bahrain: support the al-Khalifah monarchy with more reforms, or create a pro-Iran colony through [Shia cleric] Isa Qasim. Choose.” As evidence, he cites an extremely dubious story in the pro-Saudi and anti-Shia Kuwaiti paper Al-Seyassa claiming that hundreds of Iranian, Iraqi and Lebanese Shia agents have been assembled in Bahrain by the opposition to lead a terrorist campaign.

In reality, the mainstream Bahraini opposition appears to have been trying to keep Iran at arm’s length because it realizes that Bahrain—including its Shia population—is inextricably tied into the Arab Gulf political, social and economic system.

Husain explains his indefensibly uncritical embrace of the monarchy and its paranoid and unfounded rhetoric about the opposition by claiming, “There is a cold war raging across the Middle East between Iran and Saudi Arabia,” and “Bahrain [is] in the eye of the storm.”

The problem for Husain—and, by extension, the Council on Foreign Relations—is that while condemning the Bahraini opposition in the name of combating largely imaginary “Iranian influence,” Husain has simultaneously been among the strongest cheerleaders for Iran’s closest ally in the region: the Syrian dictatorship of President Bashar al-Assad. The Assad-Tehran axis is not a subject of speculation, debate or paranoid rhetoric. It’s an established fact, and by far the most important feature of any “cold war between Iran and Saudi Arabia,” if one views Middle Eastern strategic realities through that lens.

Indeed, Husain has acknowledged that “Assad is an Iranian stooge” but insists that he is popular among the majority of Syrians (based on totally debunked, absurd “polling data”), good for Western and Israeli security, and his continued rule “the least worst option” in Syria. His attitude is distilled in the amazing inversion of reality in his claim that “Assad’s supporters are just as brutal and vicious as the opposition.” This outrageously suggests the opposition rather than the government is the primary source and gold standard of the horrifying violence that has taken at least 9,000 Syrian lives over the past year.

The Council on Foreign Relations is employing a “Middle East specialist” who enthusiastically supports the minority Sunni ruling family of Bahrain because he uncritically accepts undocumented and dubious accusations that the members of the mainstream opposition are Iranian agents. And at the same time, he ardently defends what actually is a brutal “pro-Iran colony” run by the minority Alawite regime of Assad in Syria. So all of his rhetoric about “cold war” and “Iranian colonies” is so much disingenuous balderdash.

It seems that any sectarian minority government brutally suppressing a majority struggling for its freedom is irresistible catnip for Husain.

Husain, a British Muslim of Bangladeshi origin, launched his career by claiming to have been “an Islamist” and, at times, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. But at most he may have once been associated with a far different group, Hizb ut Tahrir. Though Hizb ut Tahrir denies he was ever a member, he may well have once been a street-level leaflet-distributer for them.

Much of his “Islamist” past seems at best highly exaggerated, if not fabricated, for shameless self-promotion. According to his own memoir, The Islamist, he developed a disturbing relationship with the Syrian secret police, which included identifying possible British Hizb members. His evident appreciation of multicultural polities held together by an atmosphere of fear and intimidation is also reflected in his advocacy that the British government systematically spy on all British Muslims, whether or not they are suspected of any wrongdoing.

The Council on Foreign Relations must act quickly to save itself from the ravages of a loose cannon wildly careening around the decks, repeatedly smashing into the hull of its own reputation. Whatever compelled them to hire such a transparent fraud, and to compound the insult by entitling his blog “The Arab Street,” they must at last recognize that their disastrous mistake needs to be corrected forthwith.

Hussein Ibish writes frequently about Middle Eastern affairs for numerous publications in the United States and the Arab world. He blogs at www.Ibishblog.com.

Tehran Bureau reports:

Government anxieties about social networking featured in a military parade held in the central-Iranian city of Isfahan on Tuesday to mark Iran’s Army Day.

In the course of the procession, military vehicles bore oversized placards labelled “instances of soft war”, the first of which was headed “damages of the Facebook internet site”.

It was followed by displays accusing western powers of “promoting bad hejab” (a reference to the sartorial choices of secular Iranian women), and encouraging “new addiction: shisha, cocaine, crack, and paan”. (Shisha is Iranian slang for crystal meth, and crack refers to the least pure form of heroin, rather than crack-cocaine).

But where was the beloved cardboard Khomeini?

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps last month announced that it had established a new, sealed-off communications network for its commanders called Basir (Perspective). According to an article in a Guard periodical, “The armed forces had no trust in the telecommunication equipment produced by other countries. So, an indigenous multilayer nationwide system was designed and built.”

As you may recall, last year Iranian state TV broke the shocking news that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg is a Zionist “who offered a prize for Israelis who kill Palestinians.”

I’m not a fan of Facebook, but if Iran’s rulers consider it such a threat, it deserves some respect.

Although Mansour Osanloo, the seriously ill leader of the Tehran bus workers’ union, was released by the Iranian regime in 2011 after years of imprisonment, news now comes of another outrage against trade union and human rights in the Islamic Republic.

The International Alliance in Support of Workers in Iran reports:

Reza Shahabi has now been sentenced to 6 years imprisonment by Judge Salavati in Branch 15 of Tehran’s “Islamic Revolutionary Court”, after being incarcerated and persecuted for more than 22 months.

This sentence includes a year’s prison sentence on charges of “propaganda activities against the system” and five years in prison on false charges of “conspiracy with the intention of acting against national security”. The false accusations under which Shahabi has been sentenced demonstrate the anti-working class nature of the judicial system. Reza Shahabi’s only crime is defending the rights of workers and his colleagues. Given the very serious situation, even the prison official’s coroner has prompted protests and warnings; every day of incarceration for Reza Shahabi is nothing but physical torture.

Also in this Judgment, Reza Shahabi, a bus worker, Executive Board member and Treasurer of the Syndicate of Workers of Tehran Vahed Bus Company, has been prohibited from all union activities for five years, which simply means an attempt to silence this active and noble human being.

Adding insult to injury to this anti-worker sentence, Reza Shahabi has also been sentenced to pay a fine of seven million Tomans into the state coffers. This is the sum of money collected from many workers (whose names are documented on websites), which was given by Reza, as a trustee to the families of imprisoned workers.

Can someone in the UK ask their MP to:

a) sponsor an Early Day Motion demanding the immediate release of Shahabi and all other imprisoned trade unionists in Iran; and

b) send it to MP George Galloway for his signature?

Let’s see how much distance Galloway is willing to put between himself and his anti-working class employers in the Iranian regime.

One can only fantasize about what Mansour Osanloo and Reza Shahabi would have to say to this great Champion of the People if they ever get the chance.

(Hat tip: LabourStart)

The woman above holding the little girl is Hajer Rostami Motlagh, mother of Neda Agha Soltan, the young girl who was killed in the post-election protests. Images of Neda Agha Soltan’s last breaths after she was shot became viral around the globe and she became a symbol of Iran’s Green Revolution.

The little girl on the right was born on the same day, Neda Agha Soltan was killed and her parents named her Neda. An amazing bond has developed between the two since the little Neda was introduced to Neda Agha Soltan’s mother.

Hopefully the little Neda will grow up in a free Iran and she will not fear protesting peacefully against her government. Hopefully she will live life to the full and enjoy all her abilities and talents.

I think I speak for everyone at HP when I say it’s a point of pride that someone in that thuggish regime has considered our humble blog dangerous (or at least annoying) enough to ban.

(On the other hand the Chinese authorities haven’t blocked us yet– which suggests we should be doing more to piss them off.)

As I understand it, Iranian Internet users play a constant cat-and-mouse game with the authorities, finding new ways to get around the firewall as old ways are blocked.

Anyway, according to this useful feature at viewdns.info, we are still being filtered out.

Thenextweb.com reports:

The latest figures from ViewDNS underline the poor state of access to the internet for citizens in Iran. The country is second only to Israel for the percentage of the population with Internet access in the Middle East, but strict moral values and a watchful eye over access to dissent or criticism means that around 27% of all internet sites are blocked.

ViewDNS took the top 100 sites in each category as listed in Alexa’s ‘Top Sites’ directory and tested access to these sites from an Internet connection in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

From the topic scope of websites that are blocked, it is not surprising that adult sites and the arts lead the way. Many, but not all sites of this nature are likely to conflict with Iran’s moral code.

In the news sector 32% of the world’s top news sites are blocked. Currently, BBC News, The Guardian, Fox News, The Huffington Post and the New York Post sites are blocked, but interestingly CNN, Reuters, The New York Times and Bloomberg are still accessible.

Harry’s Place has been accused of many things, but not (as far as I know) endangering moral values. So I’ll have to assume we’re being blocked for political reasons.

You can find out which other websites are blocked or viewable in Iran here. Feel free to share your findings in the comments.

The Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) has halted service for some two dozen Iranian banks that have been sanctioned by the European Union, including Iran’s central bank. SWIFT is the major means that banks worldwide use for cross-border payments.

The cutoff, effective March 17 at 4 p.m. London time (noon New York time), is a response to EU regulations issued yesterday that ban financial messaging services for entities subject to an EU asset freeze.
…..
Analysts said Swift’s move will complicate Iran’s ability to make and receive payments, including for its sales of crude oil, which account for more than half of the Iranian government’s revenues, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration and the International Monetary Fund.

“Booting Iranian banks out of Swift will impact oil payments at the margin, but the big impact will be on what Iran buys rather than what it sells,” Trevor Houser, an energy analyst and partner at Rhodium Group, a New York-based economic research firm, said in an interview yesterday.

Houser said Iran probably will “find workarounds for large, strategically important and government-facilitated oil payments. But small Iranian businesses that rely on interbank electronic transfers to pay for everything from food to electronics imports are going to have a hard time buying from abroad.”

Or is Israel’s finance minister right when he says that cutting off Iran from SWIFT could cause its economy to collapse?

If the comments of Iran’s former intelligence minister are any indication, the regime may be taking this latest move very seriously.

Reacting to reports about the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) decision to discontinue offering service to the Iranian banks, Ali Fallahian said on Saturday that closing SWIFT to Iran is “like closing international waterways,” Fars News Agency reported.

“If the United States or Europe considers it its right to ignore international laws to meet its own interests, Iran may also decide to respond in kind wherever possible,” he added.

The former intelligence minister also warned Western countries not to underestimate Iran’s ability to close the strategic Strait of Hormuz in reaction to the West’s escalating pressures.

So a question to any international banking and finance experts out there: How crippling a blow is this likely to be to the Iranian economy?