Iran Closes Leading Newspapers Critical Of Ahmadinejad

Iran has shut down three daily newspapers critical of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president, according to reports by state-run news agencies.

While no reason was given, the newspapers had been considered sympathetic towards those protesting over Ahmadinejad's disputed re-election in June.

The papers closed on Tuesday were Tahlil Rooz (Day's Analysis) in the southern city of Shiraz, and two of the most influential reformist newspapers Farhang Ashdi (Culture of Reconciliation) and Arman (Ideals) published in the capital, Tehran.

Read the whole story: Al Jazeera.

Comments

[political atheist]

And Obama supports speech limitations at the UN where he is now the chairman of the security council. At what point are Obamanoids going to admit that Obamalamadingdong = George Duh-bya Bush, Act. III? People say they never thought they'd see the day America puts a black president in the White House. I never thought I'd see the day ANY president would so openly support limits on free speech.

Oh sure, Bush I, II and Clinton did their share of dismantling the Constitution and Bill of Rights incrementally. How else could we have fallen so far in such a short time? But now our prez doesn't even try to hide it. How's the for a big "F**K YOU American citizens!" for ya?

http://www.infowars.com/obama-supports-speech-limits-at-united-nations/

[pakaal]

Good old Weekly Standard.

Anyway, yeah, expressions of racial or religious intolerance aren't cool. And you have a problem with that? And do you know this isn't enforceable law, it's only confirming commitment to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The whole thing's worth reading:

http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/6A69FF0F95283CE7C12576430046793B?opendocument

Action on Resolutions Under the Agenda Item on the Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights

In a resolution on Freedom of opinion and expression (A/HRC/12/­L.14/Rev.1­), adopted without a vote, the Human Rights Council reaffirms the rights contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; expresses its concern that incidents of racial and religious intolerance, discrimination and related violence, as well as of negative racial and religious stereotyping continue to rise around the world; calls on all parties to armed conflict to respect international humanitarian law; recognizes the moral and social responsibilities of the media and the importance that the media's own elaboration of voluntary codes of conduct can play...."

[jacobomorales]

Here is evidence of clean and fair elections in Iran.

[JerryLevy]

This is typical of the modern dictatorship. Ban free media. It is what Hugo Chavez is doing and it is what his close ally Amadenijadd is doing. Two dictatorships, one Islamic, one socialist.

[outnow]

Have you had an opportunity to check on the status of your constitutional rights lately? How about warrentless wiretapping or torture? The only right under the Bill of Rights that I see being honored is the right to bear arms. Does the media really give you the real poicture given that three major corporate conglomerates control the content?

Plans are underway to control the internet. Most people see a dictatorship of sorts growing right here in the good ole USA.

They are not just chipping away at your rights, they cut the entire tree down, and pulled out the roots.

[jasjohn128]

Oh, I get it. Here in the United States it's just as bad, right? Or will be, maybe in a week or two? And here we are, wasting time thinking and writing about Iran, Venezuela and stuff when the real enemy's got us in his sights here at home.

The jackboot's gonna land on our head any day now. Then we'll be sorry we didn't all go running around waving our arms and sh*t like we should'a done, to stop it.

But look, before they change the water and drag us off to the camps, some of us are still gonna comment on world affairs up here. 'Cause it ain't that bad in America, really, compared to the way things are in a whole lot of the rest of the world.

[SouthpawSass]

If the Republicans thought they could get away with it, they'd get rid of the NYT... And if the Democrats thought they could get away with it, FOX news would be history.

[courtb]

I disagree with some of what you wrote, but wanted to point out something key: "if they thought they could get away with it".

In America, they couldn't because we are a free society. Yes, we have our flaws and yes our media certainly is not perfect...­but they don't have to worry about being shut down because of the government and politics.

[diggg]

But they can't.

[Wisdo]

the end is nigh for this regime.

[Mollabaji]

"Leading newspapers"? I know all the leading newspapers in Iran and have never heard of the three mentioned in this report. Is Aljazeera(Dubai) agitating against Iran again? Shut Aljazeera down.

[Rand]

Interestin­g... So, unless a newspaper's circulation reaches a level of which you approve, shutting it down is okey-dokey?

[wereeverywhere]

Thank you for the insight into how shills for IRI think- 'If thine newspaper offends thee, cut it out' to paraphrase Jesus.

[Mollabaji]

wereeverynowhere,

But it is o.k. if a couple of corporations own and control all media and news sources. It must be okey dokey with you and Randy (and the clan)?

[wereeverywhere]

Slandering shill for IRI don't hide behind media reform as somehow being equivalent to shutting down free speech. There are people languishing in Evin because of what they said or wrote. Marg bar dictator is the only solution- death to the dictator.

[CaptainHowdy2]

Why is A.r.i.a.n.­n.a on TV l.y.i.n.g about I.r.a.n?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEuxel6Fv-0#t=3m46s

[Antiks]

glenn was absolutely right. I'm now a fan of his.

[outnow]

Glenn Greenwald can argue his viewpoint. Iran itself has been under an existential threat for many years. Overthrowing its government in 1953 is just an example.

If I denied that slavery was an evil or that there were fewer than so many millions, I would be a hero to some, at least in the South - not my relatives, however, but I have ears to hear what they say.

I see neoconderates in the US as being a bigger threat than a country such as Iran that has no WMD.

People need to get a grip and allow the inspections which will reveal no diverted uranium. It is the oil and gas that has many salivating for an attack. Just like Iraq - an Iraq redux.

[Sirdi]

The more successful her "blog", the more she depends on the USA winning on all fronts. Right, Left, different fingers on the same hand.

[JeffMaylor]

So I am actually pretty non-partisan and confused about where the Left stands on Jews and Anti-Semitism. Does the Left believe Israel is basically an outlaw nation? Does the Left think that there is too much media power in Jewish hands? Seems like I am hearing that vibe more and more.

[escribacat]

Judging by your other comments, you're about as non-partisan as Beck or Limbaugh.

[JeffMaylor]

Ok so anyway, do you have an answer?

[wereeverywhere]

"The left" can hardly agree on what day of the week it is much less a definitive stand on Israel. However, since that state is and always has been instrumental in the foreign policies of US, those who don't like said policies tend to resent Israel.

[JeffMaylor]

I think it's fine to support Israel in general, although not to the extent it hurts America. I've never really understood in what way they are instrumental in helping us.

[outnow]

Anti-semitism seems to imply that being Jewish is a race. That term is used every time that Israelis want to force someother issue, it seems.

My understanding of Judaism is that it is a religion.

Being anti-Anglican for example is not being anti-Anglo Saxton. Palestinians are also Semites. If I disagreed with a Black Episcopalian and he called me an anti-Anglo-Saxton, it would make as much sense.

Israel needs to quit depending on the destructive narrative of victimhood while perpetrating its own holocaust on Plestinians and then justifying its actions by some concept of racial prejudice by Persians or Iranians or whatever.

Some people like the idea of Manifest Destiny and want a religious state but many see Iran as a threat because of its religious basis. I see Israel as called the pot calling the kettle black. Many fear that this dispute will undermine the security of the planet and view Israel as an existential threat.

You asked.

[Rand]

The term "anti-Semitic" was coined in the 19th Century by a group which hated Jews and wanted a name for their own favorite brand of bigotry. It has been used in that sense ever since

As the state of Israel didn't exist until the term "anti-Semitism" had been used for decades, one could hardly (Unless one has a specific bigotted agenda) blame Israel for the use of the term

Certainly not everyone who criticizes Israel is an anti-Semite, but many who do so are. To deny this is to embrace their bigotry

[jasjohn128]

There isn't a monolithic "Left" that I know of, and probably not a monolithic "Right" either. Descriptions like these maybe once meant something, but for a couple decades now they've just been words lazy thinkers were taught to use as shortthand for beliefs and social/political positions that actually take time and brain power to discuss intelligently.

But no cretins left behind, I always say. There's never been so many experts on everything as there are now, and I guess we've got TV, Cable News and the Internet to thank for that.

That said, I'm sure there's people who can't do anything but march under some banner or other, "Left" or "Right", with one eye on what the larger group's doing so they'll know what to say when or if they're ever asked to say something.

The Israel vibe, if you're hearing it more and more you're probably hearing it here too. I personally think a lot of the anti-Israel comments are just noise coming from people who're marching along with where they think the crowd's going. But I definitely get a feeling I'm reading summaries of the daily fax from Hamas HQ in some of the comments whenever Israel is in the news.

[Trittydi]

I'm so sad to hear this. This country deserves better - their people deserve better.
*

[Sirdi]

Why?

Perhaps the people of Afghanistan and Iraq deserve better.
Better yet, the people of the Occupied Territories (West Bank, Gaza Concen. Camp) deserve better.

Yes, we should be so sad for Iran. This makes me very sad too. Boo hoo.

[wereeverywhere]

It's the height of cynicism to use one people's injustice to then negate another country's suffering. By extension, we shouldn't care about the Palestinians because what the Burmese have to go through is worse. But who cares about the Burmese because the people in Chad have it even worse. Etc.

The grievances of and crimes against the Iranians by their own government are real and are not so easily dismissed.

[joabear]

Mahmood Delkhasteh­.Posted: October 6, 2009 03:44 PM BIO Become a Fan Get Email Alerts Bloggers' Index .Iran's Not-Yet-Revolution: Cause for Optimism


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mahmood-delkhasteh/irans-not-yet-revolution_b_311457.html

[Khirad]

This is a recurring theme in the IRI, particularly regarding reformist newspapers. Even semi-state papers, like ISNA have gotten into hot water for publishing stories unfavorable (i.e. true) on the government. Being pro-government doesn't always make you immune either, as with the infamous bus incident en route to Armenia years ago and of course there's the bodies of intellectuals being dumped on the outskirts of Tehran.

Here's how it will go: they'll be shut down, same staff and editors will start it up under a new name, they'll be harassed and maybe have offices and computers seized, shut down again, and so on. The same whack-a-mole game occurs in the People's Republic of China. I guess the only thing that makes this different is that the report said they were shut down for criticizing the President. He's fair game. That's not a red line (more details would have been interesting, I shall have to look elsewhere, their ostensible reason sounds too pat and predictable), and if that were the criteria, how many newspapers allied with the state/hard­liners/IRG­C should have been shut down for their attacks on Khatami (rather than closing down papers in favor of him)? Rafsanjani did get a few papers shut down himself, though, to be fair.

Also, I found it ironic that the picture link to this article from the HP World Main Page headline showcased a man reading Kayhan! That certainly isn't being shut down!

[jasjohn128]

Well said and well written, thanks.

[joabear]

"Islamic Republic: The Future of an Illusion"//the beginning of the End
Ahmad Sadri speaking at Emory University seminar

The seminar titled "Iran 2009 Election: Precursors, Observations, and Consequences" was held in Atlanta, Georgia on August 29, 2009. Dr. Sadri is Professor Sociology and Anthropology and Gorter Chair of Islamic World Studies at Lake Forest College.

http://www.iranian.com/main/2009/oct/islamic-republic-future-illusion

[stargazer13]

Seem,s Iran,s people are dealing with the same lack of freedom of the press that we are selves our enduring

[admarx]

I really hope that's a joke...

[BradSmith]

Lack of journalism anyway.

[Khirad]

Except that they go after alternative media too.

[JerryLevy]

Sweetheart, I really hope you are able to decipher the difference between your press options here in the U.S. and what the Iranian people have. If you can't do that, I pity you.

[joabear]

""To possess "nuclear latency," then, is to have both the capacity to make and the will to use (despite what the Supreme Leader may say to the contrary) a nuclear weapon — in response to some trigger = geopolitical circumstance. I can think of several reasons why the West in general, and ISRAEL in particular would have various concerns about IRAN embracing this "JAPAN" doctrine. Unmentioned, but certainly implied is that to achieve this capability one must have the intellectual property to build and use/deliver a nuclear device. Even if the Iranian leaders were to comply with all the so-called "safeguards", the international regulations and inspections, etc of its physical works ~ and that's a big IF, Juan, seeing as how at least 50% of the Iranian people, themselves do not embrace the credibility of their own leaders ~ IRAN's nuclear weapons intellectual property would be transferable, even if their capacity were not used, and their devices did not "exist," thus. The challenge of "Non-Proliferation" nowadays is not just containment of brick -and- mortar works and the physical devices they do (or could, e.g. JAPAN, with latency) produce, but also about the dissemination of WMD assembly and delivery savoir faire, e.g. PAKISTAN ~ which is how we got here / why we're talking about IRAN today, n'est-ce pas? imho, "the JAPAN deterrence doctrine" is nothing more than latent MADness."

http://www.juancole.com/2009/10/iran-and-nuclear-latency.html

[JohnnyLee]

I read the link. I understand Juan Cole is a respected academic but in all due respect I don't understand his argument that the Ayatollah doesn't want a bomb because it violates the Islamic value of protecting the innocent.

If that was true then why did the post election crack down violently and indiscriminately attack the protestors, including women? Did they lose their innocence standing because they threatened the regime? If that's the case wouldn't the US have lost it's innocence standing long ago?

If that was true then why does Iran fund and train Hamas and Hezbollah who indiscriminately fire rockets into Israel? If it's because Israelis (Muslim, Christian and Jews alike) are not innocent?

In either case wouldn't that be enough of a justification, in the Ayatollah's mind, for Iran to build a bomb?

[joabear]

""An Iranian nuclear latency or Japan option would render Iran invasion-proof. And take forcible regime change off the table permanently. It would also provide a lot of deterrence for any plan to even attack Iran from the air.


The first Israeli nightmare is not that Iran will bomb Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, but that once Iran knows it will not be invaded or even bombed, it will feel free to offer more support to the Palestinians and to pressure Egypt and other Arab countries to do the same.

The second Israeli nightmare is that once Egypt and Saudi Arabia see that Iran has achieved immunity to US bombings or invasion without making unpopular concessions to the project of Zionism, they will want the same deterrence. Once they get it, their domestically costly policies of cooperation with Israel will be less useful. These countries, whose cooperation Israel needs to remain viable as a Jewish state may follow the wishes of their people and become more hostile to Zionism.


Knowledgeable supporters of Zionism, such as France's Sarkozy, Israel's Netanyahu and many US political figures are lying, not mistaken but lying, when they declare the danger of Iran getting a nuclear weapon.

An Iranian bomb is also illegal unless Iran leaves the NPT, while a Japan option is not.""

http://www.juancole.com/2009/10/iran-and-nuclear-latency.html


The above comment is one the best analysis I've ever read on this subject.

[Khirad]

"The above comment is one the best analysis I've ever read on this subject."

I concur. Kudos, as usual, to Juan Cole.