Iran Remains Committed to NPT, Despite Bluster from MPs, While U.S. Ignores Treaty Obligations

 Bilateral meeting between Iranian Delegation and IAEA Directorate, July 12, 2011

(Photo Credit: Dean Calma / IAEA)

On April 8, 2013, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, an Iranian parliamentarian who heads the Majlis Security and Foreign Policy committee, said, "It's not acceptable that Iran respects NPT [the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty] but the U.S. and the West ignore NPT's Article 6 — reducing nuclear weapons — and Article 4 — right to enrichment. Therefore, there is no reason for Iran to remain an NPT member under such circumstances."

Alaeddin Boroujerdi

Such a statement is nothing new from Iranian lawmakers, often occurring after frustrating and fruitless negotiations or in anticipation of illegal sanctions imposed on Iran over its nuclear program.

Nevertheless, despite such rhetoric from parliamentarians, the Iranian Foreign Ministry has again affirmed its continued commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and it safeguard agreement with the IAEA.

In response to a recent statement by the five permanent, nuclear-armed members of the United Nations Security Council which claimed the Iranian nuclear program constituted a "serious challenge" to the treaty and called for the establishment of a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone in the Middle East, on Saturday April 20, 2013, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast reiterated Iran's role as a steadfast signatory of NPT.

He said, "Iran has continued its completely peaceful nuclear program under the permanent monitoring of the IAEA inspectors," adding, "We are a committed member of the agency. We were one of the countries which signed the NPT first. We comply with our commitments under the treaty."

"The Iranian foreign ministry official also noted that the country will continue its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)," reported the Iranian Students' News Agency (ISNA).

During his annual Nowruz speech last month in Mashhad, Iranian leader Ali Khamenei reiterated that Iran has "never [been] opposed to the supervision and regulations of the International Atomic Energy Agency."  Indeed, Iran has never been found to have violated the NPT.

Additionally, on Monday April 22, 2013, Iran and the 119 other members of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) urged the total elimination of nuclear weapons, under the auspices of the NPT and its attendant obligations.  Similar statements have been routinely made by the organization, which represents the vast majority of the world's nations.

In a statement delivered by Mohammad-Reza Sajjadi, Iran's UN envoy to Geneva, NAM - which is currently chaired by Iran - "described Israel and its nuclear program as the main threat to regional peace and security and condemned Tel Aviv's move to develop its arsenals. It also urged a ban on nuclear cooperation with the regime," according to Iran's PressTV.  The United States, while at times paying lip-service to the notion of a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone in the Middle East, has constantly condemned and blocked any move in that direction, solely in order to protect Israel's hegemonic nuclear monopoly in the region.

"The statement said that possession, use or threat to use nuclear weapons all violated the UN Charter and international law, adding total elimination of nukes was the only guarantee against the use or threat to use such arms," and also stressed NAM's support for "talks on the conclusion of a global, binding, unconditional, unbiased and irrevocable convention that would compel nuclear-armed countries to give assurances to non-nuclear states that they would not use or threat to use such weapons against them."

In a clear rebuke to the attempts to abrogate the inalienable national right to a civilian nuclear energy program, the statement also "backed the development of peaceful nuclear activities and the countries' right to use civilian nuclear technology."

The same day, Thomas Countryman, U.S. Assistant Secretary for International Security and Nonproliferation, accused Iran's wholly legal, monitored and safeguarded nuclear program of being the single greatest threat to the legitimacy of the NPT the world has ever known.

Meanwhile, earlier this month, The Center for Public Integrity (CPI) reported that the "Obama administration will propose a deep cut in funding for nuclear nonproliferation programs at the Energy Department largely so it can boost the department's spending to modernize its stockpile of nuclear weapons."

Under Obama's new budget, nuclear weapons funding is being "both accelerated and expanded," and includes a 7% increase (roughly $500 million) is spending on explicitly military capabilities, including "modernization efforts for bomber-based and missile-based warheads."  Meanwhile, funding for non-proliferation and nuclear weapons reduction is being slashed by 20%.

"The new weapons-related spending would expand efforts to upgrade the W76, W88, W78, and B-61 warheads," reported CPI, efforts that explicitly contradict Obama's own pledges to move towards total global disarmament of nuclear weapons.

The Guardian's Julian Borger detailed the plan yesterday, explaining that "nearly 200 B61 gravity bombs stockpiled in Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Turkey would be given new tail fins that would turn them into guided weapons that could be delivered by stealth F35 fighter-bombers."

"This will be a significant upgrade of the US nuclear capability in Europe," Hans Kristensen, a nuclear weapons expert at the Federation of Nuclear Scientists, told Borger. "It flies directly in the face of the pledges Obama made in 2010 that he would not deploy new weapons."

In its Nuclear Posture Review in 2010," The Guardian adds, the United States "undertook to do reduce the role and numbers of its nuclear weapons, in part by not developing new nuclear warheads, and pledging it would not 'support new military missions or provide for new military capabilities'."

Not only this, but the very same Nuclear Posture Review also stated clearly that a nuclear first-strike against Iran, a non-nuclear weapons state, would not be ruled out. Such a statement directly contravenes both the spirit and letter of the NPT itself.

In October 2009, during his very first year in office, Barack Obama was inexplicably awarded the Nobel Peace Prize primarily for his "vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons."  Clearly, while Obama and his envoys continue to make a big show of saving the world from Iran's non-existent nuclear arsenal, the U.S. not only protects Israel's massive stockpile of atomic warheads but continues to upgrade and threaten the world with its own.

*****

Hey, Remember That Iran War the U.S. Never Fought? Well, Newsday Does.

The latest entry in the media's frequent confusion between Iraq and Iran, the Long Island-based newspaper Newsday posted the above headline today.  Ok, fine, it's just a typo.

The article, which reports on the reaction of American veterans of the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan to the tragic and gruesome injuries suffered by victims of Monday's Boston Marathon bombing, never refers to Iraq accidentally as Iran, making clear that the error was an editorial one when headlining and posting the piece.  Odd, though, that such a clear and obvious error was not immediately corrected.  Hours after it's posting, the headline remains intact.

The URL for the article similarly contains the word "Iran" instead of "Iraq."

*****

UPDATE:

April 23, 2013 - After about a day and a half, Newsday has finally corrected their Iraq/Iran typo, noting:

A previous version of this story mistakenly referred to Iran, instead of Iraq, in the headline.

The article's URL has also been updated.

*****

Mourning With America from Boston to Baghdad

(America Loves Iraq/Facebook)

“I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states…We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.”

- Martin Luther King, Jr., "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," April 16, 1963

Nearly 50 years to the day after Dr. King wrote his passionate plea for unity, justice and nonviolence from his prison cell in Alabama, on the afternoon of Monday April 15, 2013, two homemade bombs were detonated near the finish line of the Boston Marathon. The blasts murdered three people – including an eight-year-old boy – and injured at least 150 more.

The very same day, a "wave of bombings across Iraq…killed at least 33 people and wounded more than 160 others," reported Al Jazeera, the most deadly of which occurred in Baghdad, Fallujah, and Kirkuk. A suicide bomber killed another 32 people in a popular Baghdad internet cafe today. A number of car bomb attacks also took place in Somalia, Pakistan, and Bahrain this week.

“Dear our brothers and sisters in Boston, sorry for what happened
 to you. Violence is killing our children wherever it happens,” reads
the caption for this photo. It is signed “Redha & Omar, Children
of Iraq.” (Sami Rasouli/Facebook)

The news of the Boston bombing spread around the world within minutes. Condemnation of the appalling act was immediate, sympathy and solidarity ubiquitous. Meanwhile, hardly anyone heard about the attacks, let alone the myriad deaths, in Iraq and elsewhere.

By Tuesday, a remarkable and arresting photo emerged online, posted first by the Facebook group "America Loves Iraq." The photo, provided by the peace and human rights organization, Muslim Peacemaker Teams (MPT), shows two young Iraqi boys holding a handwritten sign reading "We Mourn With Boston" in both English and Arabic. A similarly powerful photograph was posted the same day by MTC founder and director Sami Rasouli.

In response, Kevin Gosztola of Firedoglake's Dissenter blog wrote, "The two boys understand far too well what it is like in the immediate aftermath of a terror attack," noting the countless "acts of violence" their country has experienced in their young lifetimes "as a result of terrorism and US forces waging war and occupation." He adds:

The boys not only stand in solidarity with the victims of the Boston explosions, but they also empathize because this is what they’ve experienced. Part of this message is being shared with Americans because they want them to know they understand the pain Americans are going through.

Associated Press reporter Laura Jakes, who served as the wire service's Baghdad bureau chief from 2009 to 2012, wrote this week that "the blood-splattered streets and frantic screams of confused bystanders could have been in Baghdad on any given day. But it was Boston, in an affluent area surrounded by world-class security forces, where deadly roadside bombings aren't supposed to happen."

"In Iraq," Jakes explained, "roadside bombs are a near-daily way of life. They are heartbreaking, scary, and devastating" and "have sucked the confidence and hope from Iraqis who never know when it is safe to go out."

Gosztola points out that it is now, in the wake of the tragedy on Boylston Street, "in the moment when people are most paying attention," that we all must remember "that there are other people around the world, who suffer from violence daily," oftentimes committed by the U.S. government itself.

The photos of these beautiful Iraqi children, victims themselves of the consequences of American Empire, stand as a testament to the boundless human capacity for compassion, dignity, forgiveness and solidarity.

"We are all citizens of the world and our pain can bring us together," concludes Gosztola, and so should we all.

*****

Originally posted at Muftah.

*****

Clapper: Iran Still Not Building a Nuclear Weapon; Purpose of Sanctions is to Foster Unrest

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, April 18, 2013

(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Army Lieutenant General Michael Flynn testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee today and reiterated the same assessment regarding Iran as was delivered in March 2013.

The exact same statements - verbatim - were included in Clapper's unclassified report, including the assessment that "Iran is developing nuclear capabilities to enhance its security, prestige, and regional influence and give it the ability to develop nuclear weapons, should a decision be made to do so. We do not know if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons."

Of course, as Clapper notes, Iran's ability to potentially manufacture the components is inherent to its advanced nuclear infrastructure and is not an indication of an active nuclear weapons program, which all U.S. intelligence agencies agree Iran does not have.

As such, Clapper again reported to the Senate Committee, "Iran has the scientific, technical, and industrial capacity to eventually produce nuclear weapons. This makes the central issue its political will to do so."

In his testimony, Clapper stated that, were the decision to weaponize its nuclear energy program to be made by Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran could theoretically reach a "breakout" point within "months, not years." His report repeats the assessment, though, that "[d]espite this progress, we assess Iran could not divert safeguarded material and produce a weapon-worth of WGU before this activity is discovered."

Again, undermining the bogus claims that Iran is an irrational and reckless actor, Clapper maintained the judgment that "Iran's nuclear decisionmaking is guided by a cost-benefit approach," balancing its own domestic interests with "the international political and security environment."  Iran also has a defensive - not aggressive - military posture, one based on "its strategy to deter - and if necessary retaliate against - forces in the region, including US forces" were an attack on Iran to occur.

During questioning from Senators following his prepared remarks, Clapper admitted - as a number of recent independent reports have shown - that the increasingly harsh sanctions levied upon Iran have had no effect on the decision-making process of the Iranian leadership, yet has produced considerable damage to the Iranian economy and resulted in increased "inflation, unemployment, [and the] unavailability of commodities" for the Iranian people.

This, he said, is entirely the point.  Responding to Maine Senator Angus King, who asked about the impact sanctions have on the Iranian government, Clapper explained that the intent of sanctions is to spark dissent and unrest in the Iranian population, effectively stating that Obama administration's continued collective punishment of the Iranian people is a deliberate (and embarrassingly futile) tactic employed to the foment regime change.

"What they do worry about though is sufficient restiveness in the street that would actually jeopardize the regime. I think they are concerned about that," Clapper said of the Iranian leadership.  It is no wonder, then, why Clapper refers in his own official report to the economic warfare waged against Iran as "regime threatening sanctions."

Not mentioned in the session, of course, are the decades of repeated affirmations by senior Iranian officials that Iran rejects nuclear weapons on strategic, moral and religious grounds.  Within the past six weeks, this position has been reiterated by Iran's envoy to the IAEA Ali Asghar Soltanieh, President Ahmadinejad, and Ayatollah Khamenei himself.

Just two days ago, for instance, during a three-day diplomatic visit to Africa, Ahmadinejad declared, "The era of the atomic bomb is over. Atomic bombs are no longer useful and have no effect on political equations. Atomic bombs belong to the last century, and anyone who thinks he can rule the world by atomic bombs is a political fool," according to a report by Iran's state-run PressTV. He also pushed back the constant conflation in Western discourse of nuclear energy with nuclear weapons. "Nuclear energy is one thing and an atomic bomb is another. This useful energy must belong to all nations," he stated.

Furthermore, reports that Iran has continued converting its stockpiled 19.75% enriched uranium into fuel plates for its cancer-treating medical research reactor gained absolutely no traction within the Committee or Clapper's comments. For Congress, Iran is a threat simply by virtue of having independent political considerations, inalienable national rights and refusing to accept American hegemony over its own security interests.

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, who spends most of his time advocating for new, illegal military adventures in the Middle East, presented this wholly disingenuous and misleading question to Clapper: "Over the last six months, as we've been imposing sanctions and been negotiating with the P5+1 regime, [does Iran] have more or less enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb?"

None of Iran's enriched uranium is "for a nuclear bomb" insofar as it is all far from weapons-grade and under the safeguard and seal of the IAEA. Iran's enriched uranium is no more "for a nuclear bomb" than Graham's fanciest set of steak knives are for throat-slitting.

"Can I just say it's more?," Graham proffered, revealing that he already knew the answer he wanted to hear, at which point Clapper chimed in. "Not highly-enriched," he said, "but up to the 20% level." Graham was undeterred from his propagandizing and grandstanding. "Well, they're marching in the wrong direction," he said. "We talk, they enrich." AIPAC poetry at its finest.

Shortly before ending the session, in response to questions from Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal, Clapper stated that the relationship between the American and Israeli intelligence communities - especially on the Iranian nuclear program - has "never been closer or more pervasive," citing unprecedented levels of "intimacy."

While each state continues to maintain its own unique sources for intelligence gathering, Clapper said, "generally speaking," the United States and Israel are "on the same page" when it comes to Iran.

Pressing the issue on behalf of his AIPAC backers, Blumenthal asked whether all information is shared between the two nuclear-armed nations, at which point Clapper declined to agree completely.

"Pretty much," he replied.

Why was Clapper being so cagey?  An Associated Press report from last July seems to provide an answer:

Despite inarguable ties between the U.S. and its closest ally in the Middle East and despite statements from U.S. politicians trumpeting the friendship, U.S. national security officials consider Israel to be, at times, a frustrating ally and a genuine counterintelligence threat.

In fact, the AP states, "The CIA considers Israel its No. 1 counterintelligence threat" in the Middle East, meaning that the agency "believes that U.S. national secrets are safer from other Middle Eastern governments than from Israel." This is unsurprising, of course, as "Israel's foreign intelligence service, the Mossad, and its FBI equivalent, the Shin Bet, both considered among the best in the world, have been suspected of recruiting U.S. officials and trying to steal American secrets."

Did any of that make it into Clapper's "Worldwide Threat Assessment" today? No, of course not. Israel was only mentioned as a victim and an ally. One might think an untrustworthy, nuclear-armed serial aggressor, constantly threatening to drag the United States into an unprovoked military conflict with inevitable devastating consequences, all with the allegiance and blessing of Congress, would rank rather high on potential security threats to the United States.

But James Clapper isn't allowed to say that.

*****

Cross-posted at Antiwar.com.

*****

The "Constructive Engagement" of Liberal Zionists

(Credit: BDS South Africa)

"We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians."

- South African President Nelson Mandela, December 4, 1997

"The issue of a principled commitment to justice lies at the heart of responses to the suffering of the Palestinian people and it is the absence of such a commitment that enables many to turn a blind eye to it."

- Archbishop Desmond Tutu, September 26, 2010

During the 1980s Ronald Reagan's anti-boycott policy toward South Africa was known as "Constructive Engagement," which claimed the positive influence of U.S. corporate participation in South Africa would be more effective towards ending apartheid than direct pressure on the regime. Writing in November 1985, MIT Finance professor John E. Parsons articulated a critique of this approach widely held in the anti-apartheid movement saying that failure to divest from apartheid was tantamount to supporting it:

US corporations continue to operate in South Africa because it is profitable. Apartheid makes it very profitable. These corporations pay millions of dollars in taxes which pay for the police, prisons, weapons, and armaments that maintain the apartheid system. They sell the government its armored personnel carriers, its computers and communications technologies. Westinghouse has sold South Africa several licenses for the manufacture of nuclear power facilities.

And every US industrial facility is integrated into the civil defense plans of the South African government...includ[ing] turning over its facilities for military production at the direction of the South African government.

That's "constructive engagement."

Perhaps we should try disinvestment.

That same year, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who also supported a "constructive engagement approach", directly addressed issue of boycotting South Africa in an interview with CBS television. Her argument will seem familiar to anti-BDS arguments today:

I think a policy of sanctions would harm the very people in South Africa you are trying to help...I agree with a policy of trying to influence South Africa by other means. The present Government is moving forward in the direction we wish them to go, faster than any other. Sanctions will harm, not help.

It is now commonly accepted that her view (and Reagan's, of course) was wrong, both morally and strategically. Apartheid was hugely profitable then, just as the Israeli occupation of Palestine is immensely profitable now. The United States, Britain and Israel all maintained lucrative economic and military relationships with the Apartheid regime long after the rest of the international community heeded the call to boycott and divest. Barak Ravid pointed out in Ha'aretz last year that, by 1987, "Israel was the only Western nation that upheld diplomatic ties with South Africa" and was one of the last countries to join the international boycott campaign.

A few years ago, Archbishop Desmond Tutu noted the absurdity of opposing boycotts under the banner of solidarity with the victims of apartheid. Countless universities around the world, which have since honored him with honorary degrees, had previously punished their own faculty members for anti-Apartheid political activities and "refused to divest from South Africa because 'it will hurt the blacks' (investing in apartheid South Africa was not seen as a political act; divesting was)," Tutu wrote in South Africa's Times.  "Let this inconsistency please not be the case with support for the Palestinians in their struggle against occupation," he pleaded.

The South African boycott movement had long appealed to the British government to support its goals and tactics.  As early as December 1959, just six months after the founding of the movement, the leaders of the African National Congress, South African Indian Congress, and Liberal Party of South Africa proposed "a limited boycott of South African produce in Britain for a period of one month."  The purpose of the boycott, they wrote, "is a protest against apartheid, the removal of political rights, the colour bar in industry, the extension of passes to African women and the low wages paid to Non-White workers. In the towns and cities of South Africa over half the African families live below the breadline."  The statement continued:

It has been argued that Non-White people will be the first to be hit by external boycotts. This may be so, but every organisation which commands any important Non-White support in South Africa is in favour of them. The alternative to the use of these weapons is the continuation of the status quo and a bleak prospect of unending discrimination. Economic boycott is one way in which the world at large can bring home to the South African authorities that they must either mend their ways or suffer for them.

This appeal is therefore directed to the people of Great Britain to strike a blow for freedom and justice in South Africa and for those whom the State would keep in continuing subjection in the Union.

In her staunch opposition to joining the boycott campaign, Thatcher argued against effectively punishing the culprits of severe discrimination and oppression for fear that such actions would backfire and stem chances for positive change. She was against the international arms embargo on South Africa, claiming in 1964 that such sanctions would have "far reaching adverse effects." In late 1977, Thatcher declared, "In my view, isolation will lead only to an increasingly negative and intransigent attitude in the part of white South Africa."

These exact sentiments are now echoed in the liberal Zionist community with respect to even the most timid and selective application of BDS. In March 2012, J Street executive director Jeremy Ben-Ami provided the same reasoning behind his own opposition to the boycott of settlement goods during a conversation with discourse gatekeeper Jeffrey Goldberg:

I don't think that it makes any sense to put negative pressure on people whose behavior you hope to change. I think that the way that Israelis will feel comfortable making the compromises and the sacrifices--and Israel as a whole, not just the settlers --is when they really feel that not only American Jews, but the United States, is going to be there for them. I think if you begin to do things that say, 'We're not really with you, we're against you, we're putting pressure on you,' I think that causes people to pull more into a shell and pull back...Rather than it making you more inclined to do something, it actually makes you less inclined.

...you can't use boycotts, you can't threaten aid, you can't use these kinds of forms of negative pressure. I think you're right to extrapolate. It is all of a piece that these negative approaches to trying to get people to do something you want them to do, we've lumped them all together for four years and said, this doesn't work.

What you need to do, I often call it positive pressure instead of negative pressure. Positive pressure means actually giving people hope and something to believe in again.

Ben-Ami's "positive pressure" is the new "constructive engagement," reinforcing the current power dynamics of occupier and occupied, bending over backwards to assuage the bigoted fears of Israeli Jews, fomented and internalized by decades of propaganda and privilege, while ignoring the call of solidarity with the real victims of ethnic, religious and racial oppression. Just as it was with South African whites, liberal Zionists need to understand that "security" and "peace" doesn't spring from separation, militarization and mutual concessions by two vastly unequal parties, but rather from the repudiation of ethnocracy in favor of equal rights and the acknowledgement of wrongdoing in order to begin rectification and reconciliation. Ben-Ami seems to think the occupation will end simply by hugging Jewish Israelis - including settlers - tightly enough.

Beyond this, as I've noted in the past, Ben-Ami's opposition to "negative pressure" only extends to his own tribe; Iranians, of course, don't get such a compassionate plea for positive reinforcement when it comes to their nuclear program, which doesn't violate international law, as opposed to Israeli colonization of Palestine, which does.

As per the apartheid analogy, it may also be interesting to note that such a correlation between South Africa and Israel was made by a British Parliamentarian - and one of Thatcher's fellow Conservatives, no less - back in June 1984. MP Tony Marlow tried to point out the hypocrisy of the liberal Labor party's outcry over Apartheid and its silence on Israel (the point, no doubt, was supposed to be to get them to shut up about Apartheid, not the other way around.)

On the floor of the House of Commons, on June 5, 1984, Marlow wondered, "Is there not something bogus about the hue and cry from the Opposition about the visit of Mr. Botha when not a whisper was raised against the visit of the President of Israel? In moral and physical terms, there is very little to choose between those two regimes."

Thatcher contested his analogy and affirmed her support for "constructive engagement." She confidently stood her ground on the wrong side of history. Nearly two decades later, liberal Zionists who oppose BDS are standing alongside her.

*****

Originally posted at Mondoweiss.

***** 

The Lonely & Lovely “Look” of Iranian Photographer Newsha Tavakolian

A photo from Newsha Tavakolian’s “Look” series

A new photography exhibition, which opened Thursday April 11, 2013 at the Thomas Erben Gallery in New York City, showcases the talent of world-renowned, award-winning Iranian artist Newsha Tavakolian.

Her latest series, entitled “Look” (and a sort of a sequel to her previous project “Listen”), in the words of the exhibition’s press release, “consists of staged large-scale photographs in which lone subjects are framed against a window view of high-rise buildings. All shot at the same evening hour, the images are permeated with a cold bluish note, giving them a richly cinematic quality. Seen together, the individual photographs form a collective." Describing the "mood and a condition" of the photo series, Tavakolian says:

Look began with my desire to look deeply into the lives of people around me whom I have known for over ten years, and who live in my building. I wanted to bring to life the story of a nation of middle class youths who are constantly battling with themselves, their isolated conformed society, their lack of hope for the future and each of their individual stories. Over a period of six months, at 8 pm, I fixed my camera on a tripod in front of the window where I had watched the same view of the city for ten years. I tried to capture a moment of each of their stories, within the frame of a window looking out onto the cold concrete buildings which surround us daily.

Born in Tehran in 1981, Tavakolian “started her career as a self-taught photojournalist at the age of 16,” working for five years as a photographer for Iranian media outlets, including the now-banned women’s magazine, Zan. She “has covered wars and natural disasters, and produced photo documentaries in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Pakistan and Yemen. One of few female photographers in this context, she gained international success with work published in magazines and newspapers such as Time, Newsweek, Stern, Le Figaro, New York Times, Der Spiegel, Le Monde and National Geographic.”

In recent years, Tavakolian “developed several art projects – still maintaining a largely documentary style – focusing particularly on women’s issues, through projects such as Mother of Martyrs (2006) and The Day I Became a Woman (2010).”

Her work has been exhibited all over the world: Tehran, London, Vienna, Dubai, Rome, New York, Turin, Moscow, Paris, Amsterdam, Florence, Oslo, Berlin, Los Angeles, and elsewhere.

In a recent interview with the online journal Roads and Kingdoms, Tavakolian – who lives and works in Tehran – describes how “Look” depicts “a mix of universal anxieties and a depressed feeling specific to Iran because of the sanctions and mismanagement.”

“It’s not about protests,” she explains, “but about feelings.”

When asked how she thinks the American audience will respond to the series and “seeing the emotional afterlife of their sanctions on Iran,” Tavakolian replies:

Naturally the sanctions are hurting people, as they add to their feelings of isolation. But while making this project, sanctions were not the main thing on my mind. LOOK deals with emotions that, in my view, are shared by people all over the world: loneliness, uncertainty, guilt, suspicion and so on. When you also feel isolated, such feelings become even more powerful.

Newsha Tavakolian’s “Look” will be shown at the Thomas Erben Gallery through May 11, 2013.

Below is Tavakolian’s two-minute teaser film for “Look.

*****

Originally posted at Muftah.

*****

The Ironic Lady: Margaret Thatcher, Supposed Champion of Freedom and Democracy, and Her Dictator Friends

Margaret Thatcher in a British tank during a visit to British forces in Fallingbostel, Germany, September 17, 1986
(AP)

Margaret Thatcher died Monday, April 8, 2013, at the age of 87. Predictably, there is no dearth of hagiographic profiles of the former British Prime Minister in the mainstream press and scathing vitriol elsewhere. But while The Economist hails Thatcher for her "willingness to stand up to tyranny" and Barack Obama calls her "one of the great champions of freedom and liberty," it should be remembered that, throughout her career, Thatcher was a staunch supporter of many of the world's most brutal regimes, propping up and arming war criminals and dictators in service to Western imperialism, anti-Communism and neoliberal hegemony.

Throughout the 1980s, Thatcher's government backed Iraq during its war against Iran, funneling weapons and equipment to Saddam Hussein in contravention of both international law and British policy, all the way up until Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. She even sent Christmas cards to both Saddam and Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi in 1981.

When she was in power, Thatcher also publicly supported Pol Pot's then-exiled Khmer Rouge, which was responsible for the deaths of nearly two million Cambodians. This, despite the fact that she decried their "open savagery" in 1975, before she was Prime Minister. During her leadership, Britain's elite Special Air Service (SAS) trained Khmer fighters in Thailand. As late as 1988, Thatcher was still convinced that "the more reasonable ones in the Khmer Rouge will have to play some part in the future government [of Cambodia]."

During her first trip to Israel in 1965, less than two decades after the Nakba and while Palestinians still lived under martial law, Thatcher spoke highly of Israelis for "their sense of purpose and complete dedication, their pioneer spirit, and their realism." She later advocated that Palestinian self-determination be realized within the context of "some kind of federation with Jordan," which she deemed "the best and most acceptable solution."

In 1986, Thatcher said of Golda Meir, who not only denied the Palestinian right of return but also the existence of Palestinians in general, "I greatly admired her. I greatly admired her as a war leader. I greatly admired her tremendous courage. I greatly admired her as a pioneer. I greatly admired her as a great human being, warm, thoughtful, kind, for all her fellow citizens and for human kind in the world as a whole."

But that's just the tip of the iceberg. Here's a review of some of her other pals...

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, The Shah of Iran

The Shah of Iran and Margaret Thatcher, 1978

In April 1978, prior to her ascension to Prime Minister, Thatcher visited the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, in Tehran where she praised him as "one of the world's most far-sighted statesmen, whose experience is unrivaled."

Despite the popular protests against the Shah occurring across Iran with increasing frequency, Thatcher said of her host, "No other world leader has given his country more dynamic leadership. He is leading Iran through a twentieth century renaissance." Exactly one month before her visit, street protests in over 55 Iranian cities resulted in the killing of more than 100 civilians, when police opened fire on the crowds.

Iran "holds a key strategic position in the defence of the Western World," Thatcher continued, "Her strength and resolve are vital to our future." She added, "Iran has been the West's most resolute and stalwart ally in this crucial region."

Upon his overthrow the following February, the Shah expressed his desire to seek asylum in England at his lavish country estate in Surrey. While the British government at the time wound up secretly helping the Shah make his way from Morocco to the Bahamas, it rejected his request to enter the UK.

Thatcher, who became Prime Minister soon thereafter, respected the decision of her predecessor for political reasons, but was "deeply unhappy" that Britain could not offer sanctuary to Pahlavi, whom she called a "firm and helpful friend."

Hosni Mubarak

Thatcher and Hosni Mubarak, 1981

A longtime supporter of the Egyptian dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak, Thatcher once received a memo from the UK Foreign Office referring to Mubarak as "no intellectual but...always friendly and cheerful," noting that while "apt to express simplistic views, he has become an experienced and accomplished political operator." The brief continued, "His affable exterior evidently conceals a degree of ruthlessness since it seems likely that he has conducted some successful political infighting to maintain his position" having "succeeded in ousting or at least surviving all other prominent figures in the government or armed forces."

"Nevertheless his reputation is free of any taint of corruption or malpractice and he is not thought to have made many enemies," the memo said of Mubarak, adding that he was "eager to improve relations with the Royal Air Force and to buy British [military] equipment."

Thatcher was only too happy to oblige.

Over the years of her leadership, Thatcher routinely commended Mubarak for his "courage" and "strength." In 1985, at a banquet in Cairo, she said she "admire[d] particularly, Mr. President, the leadership which you personally...have shown." Five years later, while hosting Mubarak and his wife at No. 10 Downing Street, Thatcher declared, "You are among our very favourite visitors because we all know you as particularly good and close friends of this country, as we are of Egypt," and once again
expressed her admiration for the Egyptian president, this time for his "incredible energy."

"You are as full of beans as ever," she said. Unfortunately for the Egyptian people over the next 11 years, thanks largely to American and British largesse, she was right.

Augusto Pinochet

Thatcher and Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet

Thatcher was a steadfast defender of Augusto Pinochet, whose unspeakably brutal dictatorship of torture and repression terrorized Chile from 1973 to 1990. She visited Pinochet in 1999 during his house arrest in England, saying that her country "owed" him "a great debt" of gratitude for his help during the 1982 Falklands War.

Without any sense of irony, Thatcher added, "I'm also very much aware that it is you who brought democracy to Chile."

Never one to mention his appalling human rights record, Thatcher expressed her "outrage at the callous and unjust treatment" of Pinochet during a speech that October at the Conservative Party Conference, called him "this country's only political prisoner," and hailed him as Britain's "staunch, true friend in our time of need" and "who stopped the communists taking Chile."

The next year, upon his release and return to Chile, for which she fought tirelessly, Thatcher sent Pinochet a silver Armada dish as a gift, condemned his detention in England as "a great injustice" and wished the deposed dictator and his family "all good wishes for a peaceful and secure future."

When Pinochet died six years later, Thatcher said she was "deeply saddened" by his passing.

Subsequently, Robin Harris, a former official in Thatcher's administration, wrote in The Telegraph that Thatcher "took a positive view of Pinochet's 17 years in power" and "would not have spoken up for him if she had believed him a monster. She could not judge the merits of every allegation. But, clearly, the legal case against him was weak and the motivation of those involved suspect."

Harris similarly praised Pinochet for "[leaving] behind a stable democracy," concluding that "Margaret Thatcher has nothing to be ashamed of in defending Augusto Pinochet, when others refused to do so" and that Pinochet "was lucky to find such a champion."

The House of Saud

King Fahd of Saudi Arabia and Thatcher, March 25, 1987
(Corbis)

In March 1987, King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, visited Thatcher. Beforehand, Thatcher said in an interview, "Relations between Saudi Arabia and Britain are excellent. We have common interests in peace and stability in the Middle East. The Al Yamamah Project for the sale of Tornado and other aircraft to Saudi Arabia has done much to focus Saudi attention on Britain and British attention on Saudi Arabia."
The Al Yamamah arms deal, signed a year and a half earlier, was "the biggest export transaction in British history, estimated by a British Aerospace executive in 2005 to be worth £83 billion in past and future sales to Saudi Arabia of military hardware including aircraft ranging from Tornado fighters and Hawk trainer jets to Eurofighter Typhoons," in addition to a wide range of arms, naval vessels, radar, spare parts, and a pilot-training program.

Thatcher with King Khalid
of Saudi Arabia, 1981

The deal was largely the result of Thatcher's own lobbying initiative on behalf of the British defense industry and weapons manufacturers and, ever since its signing, allegations of corruption, fraud and bribery have abounded.

In 1993, in a speech to a Chatham House Conference on Saudi Arabia after leaving office, Thatcher maintained that "[o]ne of Al Yamamah's achievements has been the training and equipping of the Royal Saudi Air Force by Britain. Both training and aircraft were put to the test of wartime combat far sooner than anyone expected. As we now know, both the aircraft and their RSAF pilots performed superbly in Operation Desert Storm." She continued, "The Al Yamamah programme has continued steadily since the conflict. When this year's new order of a further 48 Tornado aircraft for the RSAF has been executed it will be safe to say that Saudi Arabia will have one of the strongest and most effective Air Forces in the world."

Beyond this, Thatcher described the kingdom as "a peace loving nation" and a "modern miracle," touting its "domestic achievements" and the "stable framework" and "solid rock of a well established and respected monarchy." Thatcher called herself "a great admirer of Saudi Arabia and the leadership of King Fahd," which she declared was "a strong force for moderation and stability."

"We are strong partners in trade and defence. We share great strategic interests," she said.

Regarding Saudi Arabia's human rights record, Thatcher was silent. "I have no intention of meddling in that country's internal affairs," she insisted. "It is one of my firmest beliefs that although there are certain basic standards and goals we should expect from every member of the international community, the precise pace and approach must reflect different societies' cultural, social, economic and historical backgrounds. And Saudi Arabia, in particular, is a complex society which Westerners do not often fully comprehend."

Again, without even the slightest hint of irony, Thatcher - in the very same speech - noted, "It is the surest signal to other dictators that the West lacks the resolve to defend justice. We have yet to see its full consequences — our lack of effective action will return to haunt us." She was talking about Bosnia.

P.W. Botha

P.W. Botha and Thatcher, 1984

While Thatcher maintained throughout her political career that she "loathe[d] apartheid and everything connected with it," she referred to Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress, as "a typical terrorist organization" and refused, alongside Ronald Reagan, to back sanctions against the Apartheid regime in South Africa. "In my view, isolation will lead only to an increasingly negative and intransigent attitude in the part of white South African," she said in December 1977.

In 1984, Thatcher invited South African Prime Minister P.W. Botha to visit London, the first such visit in 23 years, sparking understandable outrage in the anti-Apartheid movement. Botha, in his former role as South Africa's Defense Minister, presided over the country's massive militarization and, in an effort to maintain Apartheid policies, implemented the brutal repression and aggression campaign called the "Total Strategy." Between 1981 and 1983, he "poured ever-increasing numbers of troops into African townships to stop unrest" and used the army "to enforce compliance on every one of the country's neighbours," writes Apartheid expert Padraig O'Malley.

Botha waged aggressive military campaigns in Angola and Mozambique and sent "commando units across the borders into Botswana, Zimbabwe, Swaziland and Lesotho to attack and bomb South African refugees." Under his leadership, the detention and execution of political activists increased.

A year after Botha's visit, the Associated Press reported that Thatcher "rejected demands by the opposition Labor Party that she meet with Oliver Tambo, leader of the African National Congress guerrilla movement, who is visiting Britain...on grounds he espouses violence."

"I do not accept that apartheid is the root of violence... nor do most other people," Thatcher insisted and, during a speech before Parliament, stated that Botha's "South African government has taken more steps to start dismantling apartheid than any of their predecessors."

"I can see little point in sanctions creating more unemployment in this country only to create more unemployment in South Africa...It seems to me a ridiculous policy that would not work,'' she added.

Five years later, during the last gasps of Apartheid, Thatcher was still opposing sanctions. In 2006, Tory leader (and now British Prime Minister) David Cameron apologized for Thatcher's actions.

In response to her death today, Oliver Tambo's son Dali told the press, "My gut reaction now is what it was at the time when she said my father was the leader of a terrorist organisation. I don't think she ever got it that every day she opposed sanctions, more people were dying, and that the best thing for the assets she wanted to protect was democracy," adding, "It's a shame that we could never call her one of the champions of the liberation struggle. Normally we say that when one of us goes, the ANC ancestors will meet them at the pearly gates and give them a standing ovation. I think it's quite likely that when Margaret Thatcher reaches the pearly gates, the ANC will boycott the occasion."

Zia Ul-Haq

Thatcher and Zia-Ul-Haq, 1981

After deposing Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in 1977 and imposing martial law, General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq retained power in Pakistan for a decade. Supported by the United Kingdom, United States and Saudi Arabia, as well as cultivating ties with both Israel and India, Zia-ul-Haq served as an anti-Communist bulwark against Soviet expansion after the occupation of Afghanistan, he presided over Pakistan's acquisition of nuclear weapons and promoted the spread of Islamist militancy.

TIME's Ishaan Tharoor writes, "Lost in a Cold War fog," Thatcher supported Zia-ul-Haq's "military government...helping prop up a South Asian generalissimo now seen as one of the chief architects of the Islamist radicalization of his country," and adds, "under his watch, the Afghan mujahedin bloomed and the seeds of a new era of terrorist militancy were planted." His rule was consistently consolidated and dissent silenced through torture and public executions.

During a visit to Pakistan in 1981, Thatcher hailed the dictator's "courage and skill" and said she and other Western states "admire and support" his commitment to affirm "the right of the Afghan people to choose their own form of government in peace." Clearly, since Pakistan wasn't occupied by Soviets, Thatcher didn't care much for the Pakistani peoples' own rights to self-determination.

She pledged that Britain and Pakistan would "maintain a close and friendly relationship," with her government "giving Pakistan practical support, and toasted the "health and happiness of His Excellency."

Six years later, soon after the general had lifted martial law and granted himself even more presidential powers, Thatcher hosted him in London. She hailed "with great pleasure" the "remarkable strides" Pakistan had made under his rule, praised his "generosity" with regard to Afghan refugees, and wished Zia "every success in your great endeavours."

"I believe that your courage, your strength and your persistence will have their reward and your example will be a lesson to the world," Thatcher said. "[W]e are your friends and you are our friends." She raised a glass to his health and "to the success of democracy in Pakistan and to the continuing and abiding friendship between our two countries."

The very next year, Zia dissolved Pakistan's National Assembly and dismissed his appointed Prime Minister Muhammad Khan Junejo for signing the Geneva Accords and not sufficiently supporting his continued Islamization projects.

Suharto

Thatcher and Suharto, 1985

In the midst of the bloody Indonesian occupation of East Timor, Thatcher visited genocidal Indonesian dictator General Suharto, praised Indonesia's "agricultural and industrial development" and, although East Timorese had been killed, starved, disappeared and herded into "resettlement camps" as part of Suharto's "encirclement and annihilation" campaign, dismissed allegations of human rights abuses, explaining that East Timor was none of Britain's business and that Suharto himself has "assured me that the International Red Cross not only had access to East Timor, but was very welcome there."

She told the press, "Trade brings us together and identifies our interests, and I am sure that trade between Indonesia and Britain will increase as a result of the very friendly and warm atmosphere created by my visit here. We are clearly the best of friends and there is no sounder basis on which to construct future collaboration."

In 2008, veteran journalist John Pilger recalled that Thatcher referred to Suharto as, "One of our very best and most valuable friends," and how, "[f]or three decades the south-east Asian department of the Foreign Office worked tirelessly to minimise the crimes of Suharto's gestapo, known as Kopassus, who gunned down people with British-supplied Heckler & Koch machine guns from British-supplied Tactica 'riot control' vehicles."

"A Foreign Office speciality was smearing witnesses to the bombing of East Timorese villages by British-supplied Hawk aircraft - until Robin Cook was forced to admit it was true. Almost a billion pounds in export credit guarantees financed the sale of the Hawks, paid for by the British taxpayer while the arms industry reaped the profit," Pilger adds.

With this kind of record, it is clear that Thatcher's constantly pledged support for "freedom and democracy" was really a violent, imperial campaign waged for free markets and domination.

*****

Cautious Optimism as Negotiations Between Iran and the P5+1 Resume in Almaty

EU foreign-policy chief Catherine Ashton (left) and Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, Said Jalili, on the sidelines of the Almaty talks on February 26, 2013. (AFP)

A second round of negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 – the five nuclear-armed permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, and Germany – over Iran’s nuclear program began today, Friday April 5, 2013, in Almaty, Kazakhstan.

Iranian officials have remained hopeful that the talks will prove fruitful, building upon the relatively productive previous meetings. ”Almaty I meeting bore positive results, and we also hope that in Almaty II this forward movement continues,” Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi recently told the press. While “this issue will not be solved overnight,” Salehi added, “the process of solving this issue has begun.”

Just two days before the meeting, Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast echoed these sentiments, saying, “The upcoming talks are likely to be conducted in a reasonable atmosphere which would help both sides reach a final solution.” Still, Washington Post correspondent Jason Rezaian notes that, with Iran’s June election looming, chances are “[a]ny nuclear deal would be unlikely until after Iran has chosen its next president.”

Meanwhile, Western officials have tempered their own optimism over making progress with a heavy dose of skepticism and low expectations. “There has been a very positive line out of Tehran on the talks so far,” an unnamed U.S. official told Scott Peterson of The Christian Science Monitor. “We hope that that positive talk will now be matched with some concrete responses and actions on the Iranian side. The onus is really on Iran to respond to the proposal and tell us where they stand.”

Catherine Ashton, the European Union’s foreign policy chief and the P5+1′s top negotiator, said she was “cautiously optimistic” about what she “hope[s] will be a successful meeting in Almaty.” She added, “I really do hope that Iran will now…consider the proposal we put on the table [in February] and respond to it.” Her spokesman later called upon Iran “to give a clear and concrete answer” to the recent offer.

Though the Iranian negotiating team on Thursday released a statement declaring that “the Islamic Republic will enter the new round of talks with the P5+1 group of world powers with clear, groundbreaking proposals,” the head of the delegation, Said Jalili, made clear how progress could be made. Speaking at a university in Almaty before the talks, Jalili explained, “We think our talks tomorrow can go forward with one word. That is the acceptance of the rights of Iran, particularly the right to enrichment.”

This position was similarly articulated by Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei during his annual Nowruz speech in the Iranian city of Mashhad. ”If the Americans wanted to resolve the issue, this would be a very simple solution: they could recognize the Iranian nation’s right to enrichment and in order to address those concerns, they could enforce the regulations of the International Atomic Energy Agency,” Khamenei said. “We were never opposed to the supervision and regulations of the International Atomic Energy Agency.”

For now, however, the potential for Western acknowledgement of Iran’s inalienable national rights remains slim, while threats and demands continue to control American discoure. If Iran “does not take concrete steps to address the concerns of the international community,” the anonymous U.S. official told Peterson, then sanctions “pressure only will increase.”

Despite these warnings, “the international community” does not appear to have any interest in supporting any more American-led sanctions on Iran. Last summer, the 120 nations represented in the Non-Aligned Movement unanimously backed Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy and the domestic mastery of the fuel cycle, including an enrichment program. Just last week, the world’s five fast-growing economies, known as the BRICS nations – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – concluded their fifth annual conference and issued a declaration expressing concern over unilateral sanctions, opposing military action and recognizing “Iran’s right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy consistent with its international obligations.”

On Wednesday, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov stressed that “unconditional recognition” of Iran’s right to a civilian nuclear energy program is the only solution to the current standoff, adding that any long-term solution must be based on the recognition of Iran’s “unconditional right to develop its civilian nuclear program.”

Both Russia and China have previously opposed imposing unilateral sanctions upon Iran and its trading partners.

Furthermore, as veteran journalist Jim Lobe recently reported, even the P5+1 itself “is showing signs of growing disunity, according to the European Union’s former top foreign policy official,” Javier Solana. “I think that the level of consistency and coherence of the P5 (+1) is diminishing,” he said during remarks at Washington’s Brooking Institute this week, adding that “emerging powers” are “unhappy with Western pressure to curb imports of Iranian oil and gas, especially in light of the latest estimates of a possible spike in energy prices next year if Iranian supplies are kept off the market.”

Unsurprisingly, the Israeli Prime Minister has also chimed in. In a statement released Wednesday, Benjamin Netanyahu accused Iran of “talking, but at the same time developing nuclear weapons; threatening and at the same time developing nuclear weapons and threatening the use of nuclear weapons, we cannot allow this to happen in Iran,” despite the fact that Iran is neither developing nuclear weapons nor has it ever threatened to use the nuclear weapons that it’s not developing.

With all of these factors in play, any progress this weekend may very well prove elusive. But what happens in Almaty will surely set the stage for what comes next: either more of the same bellicose threats from Israel and the United States or the beginning of the end of three decades of hostility and propaganda. The latter possibility, however remote, is reason enough to hope for the best.

*****

UPDATE: Early feedback from Almaty indicates that, according to Western diplomats involved in the negotiations, “little progress” has been made on the first day of talks. “There has not yet been a clear and concrete response” from Iran to the most recent P5+1 proposal put forward in February, an unnamed Western official told the press Friday.

The Iranian delegation is said to have opened the talks by presenting “specific plans and proposals for starting a new round of co-operation,” but the P5+1 was reportedly “somewhat puzzled” by the suggestions. ”There were some interesting but not fully explained general comments on our ideas,” the diplomat said. “It was mainly a reworking of what they said in Moscow,” during a previous round of talks last June.

Al Monitor's Laura Rozen, who is in Almaty covering the talks, reported that “Western diplomats expressed barely contained exasperation at Iran’s apparent sharp retreat to debating modalities for negotiations, rather than specific steps discussed at two recent rounds of talks this Spring.”

Other news outlets have been similarly negative. Reuters describes the two sides as "miles apart," while The Wall Street Journal said the talks were "off to [a] shaky start."

Meanwhile, Iran's deputy nuclear negotiator Ali Baqeri told the press that "Iran believes that what is referred to as a confidence-building step or the measures both sides should agree upon and undertake is part of the comprehensive solution," but didn't elaborate on what those measures might entail.

The talks will continue Saturday.

*****

Originally posted at Muftah.

*****

From a Candy Factory in Iran to the 'Sweet Sixteen' in Indiana:Arsalan Kazemi’s Mad March through the NCAA

Oregon’s Arsalan Kazemi (Bruce Ely / The Oregonian)

NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament history was made last week when the Florida Gulf Coast Eagles, in their inaugural tournament appearance, became the first ever 15-seed to advance to the third round, joining other underdogs like 13-seed La Salle Explorers and 9-seed Wichita State Shockers in the Sweet Sixteen.

But there’s another team that has not only beaten the odds to advance this far into the tournament, but also boasts a league first of its own – one that demonstrates how sports and politics are so often inextricably interconnected.

The Oregon Ducks, the Pac-10 champion and current number 12-seed challenger to top-ranked (and odds-on favorite to win it all) Louisville, is home to 22-year-old senior Arsalan Kazemi, the first Iranian-born athlete to play NCAA Division I basketball.

A 6-foot-7, 226-pound forward, Kazemi is the son of candy factory owners in the beautiful Iranian city of Esfahan. Falling in love with the game at the age of 9, Kazemi excelled in junior basketball leagues in Iran and eventually came to the United States on his own at the age of 17 to pursue his hardwood dream. After playing a year of high school ball in North Carolina, he accepted a scholarship to Rice University in Houston. A year ago, Kazemi transferred to the University of Oregon for his final college season.

Kazemi’s parents have been unable to visit their son in the United States because of difficulties in obtaining a visa. Kazemi says his mother is still his biggest fan and watches his games online. He speaks with his parents regularly, at least twice a day, via Skype, and says that his decision to leave Iran was a “sacrifice” made for the love of basketball.

“Just the type of young man that he is — quiet, humble, gracious — he’s hard not to like,” Oregon Coach Dana Altman says about Kazemi. “And the unselfish part of it on the basketball floor, everybody can see. And those are qualities that every team needs.”

While he has become an integral and impressive part of the Ducks’ frontline, grabbing a combined 33 rebounds in the team’s two tournament wins so far, Kazemi’s nationality is – unsurprisingly – always a topic of conversation. He seems to have adopted an unofficial role as good will ambassador.

“Obviously a lot of people see the news on the TV,” Kazemi said during a locker room interview a week ago. “I try to be really humble…and show the world who I am, and that I’m coming from Iran. I try to represent my country as best as I can… and show them who we really are.”

Kazemi has drawn small groups of Iranians to Oregon’s road games and says he often receives letters from fellow Iranians calling him an inspiration for their country. Needless to say, he is appreciative of the support he’s received at Oregon and at away games, especially when greeted by fans waving Iranian flags.

But being an Iranian athlete in the United States is not always so easy. According to The New York Times, “When Kazemi first arrived in the United States, landing in Houston as a 17-year-old, he was held at immigration for six hours of questioning. Tired and scared, he was ready to ask to be sent back home to Iran.”

In a recent player profile of Kazemi, Sports on Earth reporter Gwen Knapp writes:

With sad predictability, some hecklers have resorted to the cheapest taunt imaginable when Kazemi turns up in their gym. They call him a terrorist, which he explains this way: “I call it the ‘T’ word, I don’t want to say it.”

He ignores them, as all athletes are taught to do. “They’re saying more about themselves,” Kazemi said. But this sort of baiting stoops to a level that embarrasses universities. The University of Washington noted that a heckling guide for its Dawg Pack student section targeted Kazemi based on his ethnicity and apparently intervened. Adam Jude, the beat writer for The Oregonian, tweeted from Seattle that a Washington spokesman said the issue had “been addressed with students.”

Such discrimination may explain Kazemi’s decision to leave Rice University last year in search of a new school. Kazemi has declined to speak about the subject with the press and Rice’s Athletic Department has strongly denied the allegation.

Still, Kazemi says that most Americans he meets are friendly and seem eager to learn about his native country. “I’m more than happy to tell them what is exactly going on and help them understand,” he told Knapp. “They all think that there is a war going in in Iran, and I tell them there is no war there…Iran is totally safe, and it’s a really nice country.”

Kazemi is completing a sports-management degree at Oregon and also has tentative plans to continue his education and obtain a sociology degree.

“My dad always wanted me to study,” Kazemi told The New York Times. “I’m not sure, but he probably wanted a doctor or engineer out of me, and he still wants me to go to grad school and continue my studying. But I think it’s a time for me to try to go and make some money from basketball.”

“When I went to Rice, I was the first Iranian to get a Division I scholarship,” he told Knapp, “and then here I was the first Iranian to win a Pac-12 championship, and now I’m the first Iranian to go to the Sweet 16. And I hope it just goes from there.”

In 2010, Iranian-American guard Ali Farokhmanesh hit a game-winning 3-pointer against top-seeded Kansas to take the University of Northern Iowa to the Sweet Sixteen. He now plays pro ball in Austria.

If Kazemi were to make it to the NBA, he’d be the second Iranian in the league. Hamed Haddadi, now a center with the Phoenix Suns, blazed that trail back in 2008. Kazemi says the two are friends.

Oregon plays number one seed Louisville Friday night in Indianapolis.

Go Fighting Ordaks!

*****

Originally posted at Muftah.

*****



*****