The Reddest of the Iranian Red Lines

Journalist Ahmad Zeidabadi was released from prison on May 19 after almost six years. Instead of being allowed to return to his life, he was forced into exile.

Ahmad Zeidabadi was arrested following the 2009 disputed election and the Green Movement. In December that year, the court sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment and five years of exile. It also banned him from social and political activities for life.

Zeidabadi was one of many thousands of people arrested in 2009. So why has he been forced to face continued isolation and persecution, despite having served his time?

What sets Zeidabadi apart is a letter.

In April 2007, Zeidabadi, who had also served as the secretary-general of the pro-democracy student organization Office for Strengthening Unity, wrote an open letter to the Iranian Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. The controversial letter led to severe trouble for Zeidabadi.

According to a report by Radio Farda published shortly after his arrest in 2009, Zeidabadi told his wife that his interrogators had demanded he apologize to Ayatollah Khamenei. In particular, they said he had insulted the Leader because he had not used the term “exalted” when addressing him. Zeidabadi did not consent to his interrogators’ demands, and, in response, they allegedly beat him savagely. “You must apologize to the Supreme Leader in court or we will ram these interrogation papers down your throat,” they told him.

Extracts from Zeidabadi’s letter to Ayatollah Khamenei may give some indication of just what made the interrogators so angry.

Two Questions for Ayatollah Khamenei

I am well aware that the Iranian political system is sensitive about any criticisms of or questions about the Leadership of the Islamic Republic. I know that entering this arena means crossing a red line. For years I have wanted to write this letter, in particular to complain about the injustices and discrimination my friends and I have endured, starting from time I was arrested in 1379 [2000]. But I have given up time and time again because the sensitivity of the issue can be interpreted as showing off, or as recklessness and bravado.

But this time, especially after the Leader’s statement in the city of Mashhad, I have decided to act. I hope that this decision will not be interpreted as showing off or bravado. Although, like every other human being, I am not immune to the temptation of ostentation and I possess my own share of recklessness, to avoid accusations I must emphasize that my intention in writing this letter is not to make a political name for myself by challenging the highest office of the system. So throughout this letter, I will endeavor to take into account his special position when choosing my words and phrases, and to avoid stepping into the realm of disrespect and insolence.

Nonetheless, the question may arise as to why I do not follow the familiar custom of sending my questions and criticisms in the form of a private letter to the Leadership’s office. Instead, I insist on its public dissemination. The answer is that what I want to bring up is not a private matter. My real intention is to bring up some of the biggest issues that confront Iranian society and ask for the Leader’s views on them, hoping that by doing so other Iranians who think like me will benefit as well.

The First Question: Why is criticizing the Leader’s speech and conduct forbidden?

By what religious, rational, legal or traditional reasons, and based on what public interest, is it practically forbidden in Iran to ask the Leadership public questions or to critique his statements and his actions? From a religious viewpoint, we know that even God’s prophets and his anointed, who enjoy a unique spiritual status for us, never prohibited members of society and their followers from challenging their conduct and speech. And the narrated history of the Prophet of Islam and the Righteous Caliphs [the first four caliphs following the death of the Prophet Mohammad], especially that of the Commander of the Faithful Ali, show that those great ones never acted harshly against even the sharpest attacks from ordinary people. Even if they were enraged by an impolite and baseless verbal offense, they answered words with words — not by creating a case, sending it to a judge and imposing punishments.

Here I do not intend to peddle my knowledge by citing the conduct of the Prophet and his companions when faced with the verbal criticisms of others, but I must insist that the immunity of the Leadership from questions and criticism not only lacks a precedent in sharia, but is also unprecedented revisionism in Islamic thought.

From a rational point of view, all the reasons to support criticism and questions that one can think of point to the necessity of criticizing leaders at all levels of society. There is not even one rational reason for prohibiting criticism or questioning political and religious leaders. From a legal standpoint, as far as I know, according to the laws of the Islamic Republic, insulting the Leadership is an offense, but no law bans criticizing his speech and conduct.

Likewise, from a common law point of view, these days, in all countries in which the leaders are elected by the popular vote, citizens have the right to question and criticize leaders, and can even verbally offend them. Every day, the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting [IRIB] broadcasts samples of these affronts, quoting English and American media. IRIB TV even broadcasts scenes of protests against American policies in various US cities. Some of them show protesters carrying posters depicting George Bush as a bloodthirsty animal. The police do not lift a finger against the protesters.

In any case when there is no religious, rational and traditional basis for prohibiting criticism and questioning the Leadership, why are the system’s security and judicial agents so hard on even the smallest indirect reference, in people’s writings and speech, to the activities and conduct of Leadership? Why is it considered to be an unforgivable crime? Does the Leader approve of this behavior? If he does, based on what religious or rational argument? And if he does not, then why is it not announced publicly and explicitly? This is not only the way to open up principled and logical criticism and make critics feel safe, but also to ensure the agents of the system will not be able to abuse it.

As far as I can remember, when the founder of the Islamic Republic [Ayatollah Khomeini] was alive, despite the constricting atmosphere that some of his fiery supporters had created, Ayatollah Khamenei himself was one of the few critics of how the country was run, and of some of the statements made by the late Ayatollah Khomeini. Considering this record, it should be expected that under his leadership the environment for criticism and questioning high officials of the system would be strengthened. Unfortunately, however, not only this did not happen, but even the faint voices that criticized Ayatollah Khomeini during his lifetime either went silent or those who spoke out had to pay the cost, both politically and in terms of security. I have yet to find a logical explanation for this. I hope that the Leader himself or a person close to him can offer an explanation.

The Second Question: A Nuclear Iran

My second question relates to an issue that has become a fateful one for Iranian society. Failure to make the right decision about it is likely to put our country in an extremely dangerous situation. As we all know, it has been quite a while since the question of Iran’s access to nuclear fuel has made the country a captive of this international crisis. This has led to the UN Security Council making binding resolutions against the country.

Here I do not want to talk about the importance or unimportance of the nuclear fuel issue, or how it affects Iran’s progress and development. I just assume that whatever officials are saying about the strategic importance of nuclear fuel and its consequences for the country’s progress is true and accurate. But I believe the main question we must ask ourselves is this: At what price?

There are many useful and good things in the social and individual lives of human beings that must be set aside because of the cost they incur, since the world is a world of choices and a system of priorities. In the system of priorities for a nation, safeguarding its existence is undoubtedly the top priority, followed by guarding domestic security and human and national assets.

If an economic or scientific achievement endangers the existence, the security or the national assets of a country, what logical justification can be found for that achievement? We know that the Islamic Republic insists that it is not seeking to achieve nuclear power to produce nuclear weapons. Based on this claim, the only significance of the nuclear issue for Iran are economic and scientific benefits. When looked at from the standpoint of truth and falsehood, what are the economic or scientific benefits?  Any economic question must be based on a cost-benefit analysis. That is why the critics of Iran’s nuclear program do not see any benefit in the current situation based on the cost-benefit principle — because the increasing negative consequences of sanctions or the likelihood of a military attack are many times costlier than the benefits of access to nuclear power.

Here, however, I am not asking the Leadership to abandon his own views and accept the views of the critics. Each person has his own evaluation of the situation based on his own viewpoint and knowledge. Based on certain information, one can evaluate the system as dangerous, while another person can judge the situation to be normal and ordinary based on a different set of data.

But my question for the Leader is: Why does he insist that all Iranians must evaluate the situation as he does? If they do not, then he believes that they are repeating the enemy’s words or, as some security officials put it, they are enemy agents themselves. In today’s world, there are millions of reports and news items published every day about any single subject. It is obvious that no one person can study them all. Each person selects and studies a portion of the news depending on his overall view of the world. Therefore, the evaluation a specific situation by each individual is different depending on the news that he has read and his overall views. This is quite natural. But does the Leader believe that an Iranian cannot have a different evaluation from him about the situation of the country based on his own studies? If he has a different evaluation, shouldn’t he have the right to express it?

If an Iranian, based on his own experience and outlook, believes that the country is in danger, can we consider him to be a criminal, and an accomplice of the enemy? Can we accuse him of being intimidated and scared because he is worried about the future?

The Leader and people close to him repeatedly claim that those who support flexibility in the nuclear program have been intimidated. This is especially sad and surprising. No doubt fear and terror are not welcome elements in either individual or collective life but, in turn, they are mechanisms of human survival. If there were no grain of fear in human beings, would humanity survive for a moment? Is an individual praiseworthy if, by his recklessness and lack of fear, he casts a vast number of people into the pit of misery and annihilation? Should he be rewarded for this? God bless the person who is scared and worried about the life and the fate of other people.

The fact is that many Iranians have a different evaluation of the overall situation of the country and the current nuclear crisis than that of the Leadership. To be exact, they are afraid of Iran’s future! Should they hide their fear? And if they do not, should they be threatened by the respected Minister of Intelligence?

The final decision rests with all Iranians

I repeat: I am not asking the Leader to abandon his own views and accept those of others. But I want to ask that, when it comes to an issue that affects the fate of each one of us, and the fate of our children, he should allow for different views and evaluations to be discussed in a safe and free atmosphere. I believe that when the issue is as significant as the nuclear crisis is, the final decision belongs to all Iranians. And to make this decision, Iranians must hear the views of all authorities on the subject, and come to a conclusion in a rational and calm atmosphere.

Does the Leader agree with this? It is my belief that that the destiny of Iran is to a very large degree tied to the decision of the Leadership on the above question. And if he makes the right decision then there is no doubt that many worthy subjects can be presented to him. God help us to recognize that the truth, as the Commander of the Faithful Ali said, is more concealed and harder to see than a black ant on a black rock on a black night.

To learn more about issues affecting journalists in Iran please visit: journalismisnotacrime.com