Iran President-elect Ebrahim Raisi, Tehran, June 21, 2021 (Atta Kenare/AFP)
In his first speech as Iran’s President-elect, Ebrahim Raisi has followed the lines of the Supreme Leader on the Iranian nuclear deal and US sanctions.
Raisi spoke on Monday, a day after he was declared the victor in a managed Presidential election with a record low turnout for the Islamic Republic.
See also Hardliner Raisi Wins Iran’s Managed Presidential Election
No One Won In Iran’s “Engineered” Presidential Election
The choice of the Supreme Leader’s office, Raisi proclaimed that nuclear talks in Vienna must lead to the lifting of all US sanctions as Washington returns to the 2015 deal with the other 5+1 Powers (US, France, Germany, China, and Russia). Trying to split others from the Biden Administration, he said Europeans need to comply with terms of the deal and not be affected by the US.
Raisi, currently the head of Iran’s judiciary, did not refer to Iran’s compliance with the deal. That includes a rollback of enrichment of 20% and even 60% uranium.
The cleric said generally, “Any negotiation in which national interests are guaranteed will be supported.” However, he echoed Ayatollah Khamanei’s refusal to discuss any issues over the region and Iran’s ballistic missile program.
The nuclear talks adjourned last weekend for consultations in national capitals. Iran’s lead negotiator, Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, said the discussions were “close to the end of the road”, expressing hope that they can be completed in the next round.
Beyond the nuclear discussions, Raisi proclaimed, “We’ll pursue engagement with all countries of the world”. He specifically cited restoration of diplomatic ties with Saudi Arabia, broken in January 2016. But he rejected any meeting with US President Joe Biden.
Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, who met with Raisi for 90 minutes on Monday, said he believes an agreement can be reached before Raisi is inaugurated in the first week of August.
The European Union, which is the broker in the Vienna talks, said in a Monday statement:
We followed closely the electoral process and take note of the Ebrahim Raisi’s victory. The EU stands ready to work with Iran’s new government. In the meantime it is important that intensive diplomatic efforts continue to bring the JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action] back on track.
In a sign of the tightening grip of conservatives and hardliners, they took all 21 seats on the Tehran City Council amid a sharp fall in turnout. Mehdi Chamran led the list with 486,000 — a total which would have finished only 24th, failing to get a seat, in 2017.
Centrists and reformists swept all the Tehran seats four years ago.
Raisi: I Oversaw Mass Executions to Defend Human Rights
The President-elect brushed aside his role in the 1988 executions of tens of thousands of political prisoners.
Asked by Al Jazeera about the mass killings, he said, “Everything I’ve done in my time of holding office has been to defend human rights.”
He claimed that, as judiciary head has subsequently dealt with “those who disrupted people’s rights and engaged in Daeshi [Islamic State] and anti-security moves”
If a legal expert, a judge or a prosecutor has defended the rights of people and the security of the society, he must be lauded and encouraged for preserving the security of people against assaults and threats.
Human rights organizations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have called for Raisi to be tried for crimes against humanity. Raisi is already under US sanctions for his role in the executions, including the hanging of juveniles, and repression of dissent.
Using a standard tactic by Iranian officials, the President-elect told Al Jazeera that Iran will declare human rights violations by other countries, with calls for “those that founded terrorist groups” to be prosecuted.
“Sorry — that’s a statement of principle, not a record of what happened in the trials. Point me to a record that shows these principles were upheld.”
jlj.ir lists all the information you need. Search the database on publications that include court transcripts/records.
Please. Give me a specific case from the site that backs up your claim.
“Suffice to say that Iran’s rapid process to execute many thousands of political prisoners in the late 1980s ”
You have misunderstood the point entirely which is that there were many prisoners *already sentenced to death* (on death row) and the process of re-trying them for treason. The authorities simply brought forward their sentences rapidly. As such, their executions were totally legal.
And these prisoners *already sentenced to death* — can you point me to the trial records to show due process of law?
Thanks in advance…
As an Orientalist, you believe that people in West Asia don’t have laws and due process unless it is given to them by outsiders.
But Iranian law guarantees these: https://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JLPG/article/viewFile/28460/29202
1. Presumption of innocence.
2. Right to legal representation.
3. Right to call witnesses and evidence.
4. Sufficient proof needed for conviction of a crime.
5. Right to appeal.
All 5 legal rights were given to MEK members convicted of terrorism or providing support to terrorism in the 1980s. The human rights issue is that the death penalty should not be applied except for “serious crimes”. Even if some MEK members were convicted of just enabling the terror campaign (through fundraising, recruitment, intelligence gathering etc) rather than actually killing anyone, these would still constitute the definition of a “serious crime” – at least in Iran.
In addition, in 1988, all MEK prisoners were given the opportunity to recant and renounce the organisation – many were spared as a result.
Sorry — that’s a statement of principle, not a record of what happened in the trials. Point me to a record that shows these principles were upheld.
“I see. So you prefer your speculation and spin to the work of Abrahamian, one of the most highly-regarded historians, and Amnesty.”
Abrahamian provides no documentary evidence to support his assertion, neither does Amnesty which only provided this false statement:
“PMOI members who had perpetrated violence in the early 1980s had already been executed. Generally, low-ranking members and supporters of the PMOI had no military training, were not armed and had not participated in armed activities.”
1. The PMOI carried out bombings and shootings well after the early 1980s.
2. Amnesty fails to mention that the MEK killed 10,000 Iranians between 1981 and 1988: this requires many members.
3. Amnesty preferred not to mention the MEK’s alliance with Saddam Hussein.
4. Amnesty referred to Operation Eternal Light merely as an “armed incursion” and not an attack against the Iranian state.
5. Amnesty failed to mention that 2,000-3,000 MEK members were killed in Operation Eternal Light.
Iran does not execute those guilty of violence immediately. Look at the case of Abdolhamid Rigi. He was on death row for 2 years.
Btw, you might want to know that the Green Movement’s activists have condemned Amnesty’s report in which they state that the”report has in some cases been accompanied by obvious distortions” : https://www.iran-emrooz.net/index.php/news1/85973/
“What exactly is the “judicial process” that was employed? You don’t set it out here.”
Same as in any other country. They were arrested, charged, prosecuted, tried and convicted.
You expect from a judicial process that there is no pre-determined outcome and that those tried have a chance of being acquitted as well as condemned.
Varharan,
There are a series of factual errors and distortions in your reply — for example, the Green Movement’s criticism was not of Amnesty’s findings over the mass killings and lack of judicial process, but of Amnesty’s portrayal of Mir Hossein Mousavi’s role.
Suffice to say that Iran’s rapid process to execute many thousands of political prisoners in the late 1980s was not the “same as in any other country” and that your description either shows you have little knowledge of what happened or are covering it up.
S.
” the fact that 17,000 Iranians had been killed by the MEK and other armed groups since 1979. The 1988 executions of MEK members were for treason – they supported Saddam Hussein and invaded their own country from Iraq. ”
NO!
The fact is vast majority of the executed were teenagers at the time of their arrest and conviction, they spent several years in prison before their were murdered. They had no role in what MEK did outside.
Lost on the western media were Raisi’s comments about the fact that 17,000 Iranians had been killed by the MEK and other armed groups since 1979. The 1988 executions of MEK members were for treason – they supported Saddam Hussein and invaded their own country from Iraq. He stated that the leaderships of these groups operate with complete immunity and freedom in the West.
Varharan,
Some problematic assertions here:
How many of the executed political prisoners were MEK members?
How many of those who were MEK members were involved in violence against Iranian authorities and/or civilians?
How many of those went through a judicial process before execution?
I will respond to the best of my knowledge:
1. According to the only publicly available list (Neither the MEK nor their friends in Amnesty International have provided one), there are 1,432 names, the vast majority of whom are from the MEK (some from other allied armed groups and also a few from the Tudeh (communist) party): http://holycrime.com/Images/Listof1367Massacre.pdf
2. According to Amnesty, who in turn use Professor Ervand Abrahamian as a source, they were all jailed for peaceful activities – the idea being that those found guilty of acts of violence would have either been killed by the security forces or executed shortly afterwards.
However, this is just unevidenced speculation. The MEK’s terror campaign in the 1980s depended not just on shooters and bombers, but also fundraisers, spies/scouts, explosives experts etc – all of whom provided essential support to the hit teams.
3. All of the prisoners went through a judicial process as part of their original sentence. Many were already on death row at the time, and had their sentences brought forward by the “death commission”. Others had their custodial sentences changed to the death penalty. The reason for this was because they were supporters of a group that was not only a terrorist organisation but was also guilty of high treason.
4. A great many were acquitted/spared and later released – those who renounced the MEK and violence. Amnesty spoke to some of them.
I see. So you prefer your speculation and spin to the work of Abrahamian, one of the most highly-regarded historians, and Amnesty.
What exactly is the “judicial process” that was employed? You don’t set it out here.