Statement and Call to Action

July 9, 2009

Dear Friend of United for Peace and Justice,

Over three weeks ago, Iranians held a presidential election. What followed remains unclear, but one thing is for certain: the Iranian government engaged in the suppression of the rights of Iranians to protest their government.

While UFPJ strongly supports the principle of non-interference in the affairs of others, we also feel compelled – as a coalition which has protested the policies of our government for more than six years now – to stand in solidarity with the people of Iran and their struggle for the elementary right to protest their government and its actions without the threat of death, arrest, or censorship. What has happened in Iran is more than unfortunate; we hope that the people of Iran, regardless of their politics, can remain resilient in their demand for such a basic right.

At the same time, for us here in the U.S., what is even more important is the actions of our own government during this crisis, especially in light of the unfortunate historical role we have played and continue to play in this region. In this regard, signs are mixed.

UFPJ has been encouraged that the Obama administration continues to stick to its campaign promise of direct talks with Iran. At a time of increasing regional instability, the world cannot afford heightened hostilities between the U.S. and Iran.

However, UFPJ is deeply concerned over potential developments in the White House’s policy towards Iran. While official statements have made clear that direct talks remain the key goal, we have heard high administration officials deviate from that official stance time and again. A disturbing example of this discrepancy was Vice President Biden’s comment this weekend in which he indicated that the U.S. would not intervene if Israel decided to militarily attack Iran. These comments are counter-productive, harming not just the potential for constructive talks between the two countries, but also giving an excuse to Iran’s leaders for further reactionary action, such as the suppression of Iranian protestors.

What we need is a White House that is clear in both its promise to engage in direct talks with Iran in the near-future and its principle of non-interference in Iran’s internal affairs. To do this, UFPJ urges you to take the following action:

1] Call the White House at 202-456-1111 and let it know that you want Obama to stick to his promise of direct talks with Iran.

2] Sign-on to Just Foreign Policy’s petition to President Obama, which urges him to keep to the principle of non-interference in Iran’s internal affairs.

And to show solidarity with the people of Iran and their elementary right to protest their government’s actions, we urge you to join up with the United For Iran, Global Day of Action, for a rally in your city on July 25. This Global Day of Action is endorsed by such groups as Amnesty International and Physicians for Human Rights and is a non-partisan event.

Part I of III

As United States 2008 presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama bickered over how they would “handle the Iran threat” in their first debate on Friday night, citing erroneous facts and competing with one another on who would hold out the longest from engaging in diplomatic talks with Iran, a small group of one-hundred and fifty American citizens representing fifty of the country’s most prominent peace and human rights groups were busy talking to the world’s media about the two-hour private meeting they held with the Iranian President two days prior.

The meeting – which was not revealed to the media until the next day to assure the safety and security for those in attendance – took place on Wednesday September 24 at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in New York City during the 63rd annual United Nations General Assembly Meeting. The goal of the meeting was “to introduce President Ahmadinejad to the peace community in the United States and to illustrate how this sector of civil society works to oppose war and the use of violence to resolve differences,” said the meeting’s facilitator, Mark Johnson, Executive Director of the global Fellowship of Reconciliation, the world’s oldest peace organization.

In an exhilarating live experiment in civilian diplomacy in action, the ballroom of the Grand Hyatt Hotel was transformed into a veritable who’s who of some of the most outspoken and prominent members of America’s peace, anti-war, and human rights organizations, including Medea Benjamin of A Global Exchange, Jodie Evans of Code Pink and Women for Peace, Brian Becker of the ANSWER Coalition, yours truly representing PeaceWithIran.com, and Leslie Cagan of United for Peace and Justice. There were also representatives from Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Mennonites, the Lutheran Peace Fellowship, American Friends Committee on National Legislation, and the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, among many others. American citizens flew in from almost all fifty states to hold the private meeting with President Ahmadinejad in an effort to begin the process of what many consider long overdue open dialogues with Iran regarding how our two nations can work peaceably together to secure more peaceful relations with one another.

The issues raised during the two-hour plus talk, many considered vital for the future security of both the United States and Iranian citizenry, revolved around how the countries can begin putting aside their mutual distrust of one another in order to move forward in peaceful negotiations; both the US and the Iranian government’s recent crackdown on human rights, freedom of assembly, and dissidents; the current US occupation of Iraq; Iran’s controversially viewed policy toward Israel; their treatment of women and other minorities; the difficulty on both sides of obtaining visas to visit either country. Of course the big issue of the moment, will Iran accept a compromise on its nuclear fuel enrichment program, was also addressed.

Ahmadinejad was joined by his Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, and Iran UN Ambassador Mohammad Khazaee. After already participating in two full days of talks with leaders from all over the globe, the Iranian President seemed tired, but he spoke eloquently, near poetically, and many of the points he made and the answers he gave to our questions were illuminating and insightful. In response to Iran’s nuclear energy program – a subject that the United States government continues to demonize in unsubstantiated propaganda to the American media though it has the support of one-hundred and eighteen other UN nation-states around the planet – Ahmadinejad reasserted for the umpteenth time that Iran has allowed more IAEA inspections of their nuclear facilities than any other country in the world to date, and that they discontinued pursuing nuclear weapons in 2005. A fact that has been confirmed and reconfirmed by all thirteen US Intelligence Agencies including the NSA, the FBI, and the CIA countless times over the last three years.

Why the White House persists in attempting to publicly frame Iran’s nuclear energy program as “a threat to American security” remains a mystery. As does why the US government continues to refuse to speak with or enter into diplomatic talks with Iran while other countries such as Iraq, Japan, Italy, China, Pakistan, and Russia are now jumping at it. Bear in mind that Iran currently sits on the second largest oil deposit on the planet. He told us that US President George W. Bush missed a historic opportunity when he didn’t respond to the Iran President’s 2006 letter inviting him to talk, an opportunity that could have begun a reconciliation of the two countries’ 28 year cold war of silence. As an American citizen I couldn’t help but feel a sense of bitterness and regret — as if we were indeed a winning team but could still lose the game because we simply suffer from having a bad captain.

Ahmadinejad also commented about how the United States, the UK, France and Canada supported, cooperated with, and even gave nuclear technology information to the pre-1979 regime ruled by the US-installed dictator, the Shah of Iran but now “When there were no elections in Iran, they wanted us to be a nuclear power. As soon as there were elections, they didn’t want us to be a nuclear power.” The room roared with laughter at the obvious irony. As a passionately patriotic American – granted, more of the ideals we talk rather than the missteps our government often walks, especially with our foreign policy over the last fifty years – I felt proud knowing that this might be the first time an Iranian government leader was in a room with living breathing American’s who actually understood and fought for America’s promise and potential of real democracy and liberty for all, rather than feeling bullied, threatened, and manipulated as many smaller countries feel in their dealings with the United States government today.

I was reminded of the shock I felt when I first learned just a few short months ago that in 1950 Iran had their first democratic revolution and in 1953 the CIA and the UK, under Operation Ajax, orchestrated a coup d’etat and ousted Iran’s new democratically elected Prime Minister Mosaddeq sending him into exile and installed a puppet regime that they could control easily in the form of The Shah so both countries could reap giant profits from Iran’s enormous oil supply while that country’s people struggled in poverty and fell behind the rest of the world in technology, social services, and infrastructure for thirty more years. I also contemplated how as children we are taught to honor, respect, and celebrate our own American Revolution while at the same time being advised that we should disrespect, fear, and dishonor the Iranian people’s own Democratic Revolution.

But as important as that little bit of history is for all Americans to have knowledge of, that’s in the past and here we were, twenty-eight years later, American citizens no longer able to bear the archaic bullheaded imperialist system that refuses to practice in real life what it preaches to its children in school, taking matters into our own hands and sitting down in the first ever diplomatic talks with the relatively new democratically-elected Iranian government to help begin to build a bridge of shared values and mutual agreements: mainly, that “we must work together to form a wave of citizens who are dedicated to world peace for all citizens of the world and of all nations.”

Echoing what we heard countless times by many leading government officials when I visited Iran in March of this year, Ahmadinejad told us that Iran is politically and religiously opposed to nuclear weapons, adding: “The time for nuclear weapons has come to an end. Those who want to build a new generation of nuclear bombs are politically backward, period. Those days are over.” Again the room erupted into applause. “Did nuclear weapons help the United States in their Vietnam War? Did they help the former Soviet Union in the Cold War? Are they helping your country in the Iraq War?” Silence in the room. Perhaps it was the fact that Ahmadinejad was fasting for weeks straight due to the Muslim holiday of Ramadan. Perhaps he has just matured over the years. But his mannerisms were cool, his demeanor was calm, and the tone of his answers poetic and philosophical. He then posed the question “Doesn’t it seem odd that we are being economically sanctioned, our people strangled literally to death, and at the same time publicly threatened and attacked almost daily for attempting to harness nuclear energy for our rapidly growing economy with no intention of building nuclear weapons, by the United States who has over 10,000 functional nuclear warheads aimed at half the world? Doesn’t this seem odd and illogical?” Again, more applause.

I was speechless. Perhaps this was a first for me too. The first time that I had heard a high ranking government official, a head of State no less, speaking not only insightfully with moral and ethical undertones, but speaking truths that many of us think to ourselves privately but are afraid to utter aloud for fear of being labeled “unpatriotic” or “treasonous.” Having grown up in America in the latter half of the 20th century I was jaded from one too many politico speeches filled with nothing but empty rhetoric and flip flopping. But Iran is in a different position now than they’ve been in thousand’s of years and different than even we American citizens are. They are quickly gaining allies and support and mammoth deals with countries all over the world. They do not share the same fears that even we here at home face of being attacked for speaking their truth. They are a rapidly growing new country of strong proud people with a seven-thousand year long history, a sovereign nation who are free to say what they wish, economic sanctions and near-constant threats of military strikes be damned. All I could do was transcribe the contents of the meeting as quickly as my illegible handwriting would allow. Something told me that what I was witnessing and listening to was important to share with as many people as I could over the coming weeks and months.

This is not to say that those of us in attendance were able to agree with everything that the conservative Muslim President said during our meeting. There was plenty to take umbrage with and in fact just downright vehemently disagree with. This I will cover in Part II, along with a summary of the dialogue surrounding some of the other issues mentioned earlier in this article. But in the name of peace, which was the reason for the meeting in the first place, perhaps it best to end Part I with Ahmadinejad’s closing remarks to illustrate why many left that room that night inspired by the potential hinted at that there is power in our civil society and in non-violent civilian diplomacy to effect change in the world and to lift up democratic societies despite challenges and obstacles.

“My friends we need to create a wave of all world citizens of all backgrounds and all walks of life to create more peace in the world. We need to practice our values of our various religions and gather ourselves together to work at the pace of light itself to keep up with the pace of the world. Carrying out this mission has certain requirements based on justice and respect for all nations. If we don’t like something for ourselves, then we should not want it for other nations. Yes? What I am saying here is not complicated. These are clear-cut ideas that we need simply to put into practice.”

It is too bad that neither John McCain nor Barack Obama could have been in attendance at this historic meeting. Perhaps the contents of their debate on Friday regarding the country of Iran would have appeared more well informed and enlightened. (Both candidates mistakenly referred to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as “the Republican Guard”) If the United States is going to pull out of the numerous crises both here and abroad that it currently faces, it is going to take real change on many levels – the kind of change hyped and promoted by at least one of this election year’s presidential candidates. And one of those changes absolutely essential to our survival, let alone our thriving in the 21st century is going to be a more open door diplomatic policy towards communication with other countries that we may not see eye to eye on in all matters. But we have to start somewhere for real reconciliation to start taking place.

Ed Hale
September 27th, 2008

The failure by Barack Obama to chart another course in the Middle East, to defy the Israel
lobby and to denounce the Bush administration’s inexorable march toward a conflict with
Iran is a failure to challenge the collective insanity that has gripped the political leadership
in the United States and Israel.

Obama, in a miscalculation that will have grave consequences, has given his blessing to
the widening circle of violence and abuse of the Palestinians by Israel and, most
dangerously, to those in the Bush White House and Jerusalem now plotting a war against
Iran. He illustrates how the lust for power is morally corrosive. And while he may win the
White House, by the time he takes power he will be trapped in George Bush’s alternative
reality.

“Humanity Does Not Change”

There is nothing in human nature or human history to justify the idea that we are
progressing morally as a species.

We need to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. We need to stay the hand of Israel, which is
building more settlements—including a new plan to put 800 housing units in occupied
East Jerusalem—and imposing draconian measures to physically break the 1.5 million
Palestinians in Gaza. We need, most of all, to prevent a war with Iran.
House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, in a letter to President Bush on May 8, threatened
to open impeachment proceedings if Bush attacked Iran. The letter is a signal that
planning for strikes on Iran is under way and pronounced.

“Our concerns in this area have been heightened by more recent events,” Conyers wrote.
“The resignation in mid-March of Admiral William J. ‘Fox’ Fallon from the head of U.S.
Central Command, which was reportedly linked to a magazine article that portrayed him as
the only person who might stop your Administration from waging preemptive war against
Iran, has renewed widespread concerns that your Administration is unilaterally planning
for military action against that country. This is despite the fact that the December 2007
National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program
in the fall of 2003, a stark reversal of previous Administration assessments.”

The administration, in rhetoric that is eerily similar to that used to build the case for a war
against Iraq, asserts that the Iranian Quds Force is arming anti-American groups in Iraq
and providing them with high-tech roadside bombs and sophisticated rockets. It
dismisses the National Intelligence Estimate conclusion that Iran suspended its nuclear
weapons program. The White House has not provided evidence to back up its claims. I
suspect it never will. And when Israel’s Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz tells the Israeli
newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth an attack on Iran is “unavoidable” if Tehran does not halt its
alleged nuclear weapons program, what he is really telling us is we should prepare for war.
Conyers’ threat is too little too late, especially if the Bush White House, possibly assisted
by Israel, launches airstrikes on some or all of 1,000 selected Iranian targets in the final
weeks of the administration. But it is an effort. Conyers tried.

This is more than we can say for the presumptive Democratic nominee. Obama went
before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) on Wednesday and said he will
stand with the right-wing Israeli government, even if this means backing an attack on Iran.
“As president I will use all elements of American power to pressure Iran,” he said. “I will
do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in
my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything.”
Obama went on to blame the Palestinians for the conflict, although the ratio of
Palestinians to Israelis killed in 2007 was 40 to 1. This is an increase from 30 to 1 in 2006
and 4 to 1 in 2000-2005.

“I will bring to the White House an unshakable commitment to Israel’s security. That starts
with ensuring Israel’s qualitative military advantage, …” Obama told AIPAC. “I will ensure
Israel can defend itself from any threat, from Gaza to Tehran. …”
Obama spoke about Israelis whose houses were damaged by the crude rockets, most
made out of old pipes, fired from Gaza on Israeli towns. He never mentioned the Israeli
siege of Gaza, the world’s largest open-air prison, or that Israel was deploying fighter jets
and helicopters to attack densely crowded refugee camps with missiles and iron
fragmentation bombs or that it had cut off food and fuel. He ignored the steady expansion
of Jewish settlements on Palestinian land. He called for Jerusalem to become the
“undivided capital” of the Jewish state, erasing Arab East Jerusalem from the map in
contravention of international law. East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are
internationally recognized as occupied Palestinian territories, which Israel took over in
1967. Obama’s stance is the moral equivalent of assuring the Johannesburg government
during the apartheid era that one would support their repressive efforts to punish the
restive blacks in the townships.

The deterioration of the conflict in Israel, which would be accelerated by airstrikes on Iran
and an ensuring regional war, will propel us into the Armageddon-type scenario in the
Middle East relished by the lunatic fringes of the radical Christian right. And so, with
Obama’s enthusiastic endorsement, we barrel toward a Dr. Strangelove self-immolation.
No one will be able to say we did not go out with a spectacular show of firepower, gore
and death. Our European and Middle Eastern allies, who are numb with consternation over
our death spiral, are frantically trying to reach out to Tehran diplomatically.

The instant we attack Iran, oil prices will double, perhaps triple. This price increase will
devastate the American economy. The ensuing retaliatory strikes by Iran on Israel, as well
as on American military installations in Iraq, will leave hundreds, maybe thousands, of
dead. The Shiites in the region, from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan, will see an attack on Iran as
a war against Shiism. They will turn with rage and violence on us and our allies. Hezbollah
will renew attacks on northern Israel. And the localized war in Iraq will become a long,
messy and protracted regional war that, by the time it is done, will most likely end the
American empire and leave in its wake mounds of corpses and smoldering ruins.

The Israeli leadership, like the Bush White House, is increasingly bellicose and threatening.
The Israeli prime minister, after a 90-minute meeting with Bush in the White House on
Wednesday, said the two leaders were of one mind. “We reached agreement on the need to
take care of the Iranian threat,” Ehud Olmert said. “I left with a lot less questions marks
[than] I had entered with regarding the means, the timetable restrictions and American
resoluteness to deal with the problem. George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian
threat and the need to vanquish it and intends to act on the matter before the end of his
term in the White House.”

This time around, unlike about the war with Iraq, the Washington bureaucracy, loathed by
the Bush White House, did not remain silent and complicit. The National Intelligence
Estimate on Iran’s nuclear program released last Dec. 3 distinguished Iran’s enrichment of
uranium at Natanz and Arak from its formal nuclear weapons program, which it said had
halted in 2003 after the American invasion of Iraq. Adm. Fallon, who put his country and
his integrity before his career, spoke out against a war with Iran, tried to stop it and lost
his job as the head of CENTCOM. He has been replaced with Gen. David H. Petraeus,
whose devotion to his career admits no such moral impediments.

” … There is no greater threat to Israel or peace than Iran,” Obama assured AIPAC. “This
audience is made up of both Republicans and Democrats. And the enemies of Israel should
have no doubt that regardless of party, Americans stand shoulder to shoulder in support
of Israel’s security. … The Iran regime supports violent extremists and challenges us
across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race
and … its president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. … [M]y
goal will be to eliminate this threat.”

Barack Obama, when we need sane leadership the most, has proved feckless and weak.
He, and the Democratic leadership, is as morally bankrupt as those preparing to ignite our
funeral pyre in the Middle East.

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama on screen receives applause during
his address before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee Policy Conference 2008 in
Washington.

Run Date: 04/24/08

By Soheila Vahdati

Iranian activists are bravely pushing for women’s rights. But Soheila Vahdati warns that an outbreak of an Iran-Israeli war that involves the Bush White House would fan the flames of fundamentalism and destroy the cause.Editor’s Note: The following is a commentary. The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily the views of Women’s eNews.

(WOMENSENEWS)–In case you missed it, here’s how a Reuters story started out on the day Pennsylvania Democrats were nominating deciding who they want as a presidential candidate.

“Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton warned Tehran on Tuesday that if she were president, the United States could ‘totally obliterate’ Iran in retaliation for a nuclear strike against Israel.”

While many American women may be measuring the next U.S. president for his or her policies on health care, gender pay equity and a struggling economy, women in Iran are looking for foreign policy approaches. More immediately, we’re also wary of what the remaining days of President Bush’s time in office might bring.

The possibility of U.S. military action against Iran has been rising this month along with the saber rattling between Israel and Iran.

Some analysts have speculated that Israel might attack Iran to stop its nuclear activities, which the West fears are a front for weapons development. Iran has responded by saying it will obliterate Israel if it comes under attack.

Amid this, female activists in Iran hope that war can be avoided, fearing the Iranian women’s movement would be among the first casualties.

This would be a major loss because the women’s movement is making progressive gains.

Last year, for instance, the fundamentalist daily newspaper Kayhan called upon lawmakers to disarm the movement by reforming the Islamic law in favor of women’s rights.

In this fashion, the women’s movement is chipping away at fundamentalism. And it is best that we continue doing it that way, within the context of peace. If bombs start falling we won’t have that chance. Nationalism and fundamentalism will rise to meet the external aggression and dissidents of every variety will be stifled.

Troubling Rhetoric

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s anti-Israeli rhetoric along with the country’s nuclear program are of obvious concern to Israel, especially in the past few weeks as the war rhetoric has risen. Although Iranian officials have repeatedly claimed the nuclear program is for civilian purposes only, the United States and Israel are not yet convinced.

Following an April 16 meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, President Bush said it is “naive” to think Iran would not be able to transfer nuclear enrichment into a weapons program.

That same day, prominent Israeli newspaper Haaretz opened its editorial by reiterating: “Iran under the Islamic revolutionary government represents a serious security problem for Israel.” And to underscore the extent to which the U.S. military stands behind Israel in this matter it concluded: “Bush may not be the world’s police officer, but in the absence of any other cop on the horizon, he can be expected to make good on his promise to prevent Iran from acquiring the ability to destroy Israel.”

Meanwhile, at a joint congressional hearing, congressional members bluntly expressed their frustration at the lack of an effective U.S. policy toward Iran. “Having a policy of hope is horse dung,” is how Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y., chair of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, expressed it.

Diverting the Fifth Column

In the face of U.S.-Israel opposition the Iranian government is reacting by not only strengthening its military forces but also eliminating any potential “fifth column” recruits, including anybody who dares voice their criticism of the state.

The government strictly controls the media and has closed down magazines that it deems are unsupportive of the government or hold the slightest critical views and commentaries. Zanan, a monthly magazine and the only women’s independent publication in the country, became the latest victim of the government crackdown on media in January.

The state’s strict policies never allow the public to openly voice their opinions about negotiating peace with Israel. A few years ago, I had an interview with an Israeli peace activist, Ada Aharoni, about the joint efforts of some Israeli and Palestinian women for building peace. After the piece was published online, I received e-mails from women in Iran who wished they could join efforts to make Israel and Palestinians negotiate a peaceful solution, but no one was willing to be interviewed.

Yet, female activists have been among the most vocal critics of the Islamic regime, demanding an end to the systemic gender discrimination by the state-imposed Islamic laws. Consequently, they are the first to be oppressed.

Activist Attacked Every 4 Days

Scores of female activists face charges of acting “against national security” and for the first time they face sentences of flogging in addition to prison terms, though the sentences are mostly suspended. Women’s groups are tracking these cases online. During the past three months, on average, one female activist has been summoned, tried, sentenced or threatened every four days.

According to one prominent women’s rights activist, who does not want her name to be revealed, the fundamentalists have all activists and vocal dissidents, at most a few hundred, under surveillance.

“We know that we can work when there is peace,” she says. “But if there is any serious military threat, the regime will round us up and execute us immediately in order to make sure nobody thinks of a replacement for the current regime.”

Iran has made it clear that any military action against the country would lead to a full-scale war. As in any war, nationalism and patriotism will come to support the state, which in this case is in the hands of the fundamentalists. Furthermore, Iran plans to actively recruit its fundamentalist supporters from all over the world to target U.S. interests.

Such a scenario is the worst nightmare of Iranian women’s rights activists. Since the 1979 Islamic revolution, women have successfully brought severe theoretical and practical challenges to the Islamic fundamentalism. Women have defied barriers set by the Islamic regime and found their way into nearly all aspects of social life. The headscarf has been no barrier for women to enjoy education and employment and now they are showing their presence in the fields of music and sports.

Women are continuously pushing for reforms to the state-imposed Islamic laws. The child custody law, for example, has been reformed to increase the mother’s share of child custody. The inheritance law was reformed to lessen discrimination against women. Last year, when the lawmakers were drafting the Islamic polygamy bill, women brought sharp criticism to it. Before it could reach the parliament the Supreme Leader–Iran’s highest-ranking religious and political authority–announced his opposition to the bill in a meeting with the 12 female members of the 281-seat parliament.

The Stop Stoning Forever campaign–initiated by women in August 2006 after activists learned of a case where a man and a woman had been stoned and another woman was sentenced–caused some of the prominent grand ayatollahs to distance themselves from the practice of stoning, a legal form of punishment for adultery prescribed under Iran’s Islamic Penal Code. When the campaign drew public attention to stoning, some prominent religious figures, including Ayatollah Montazeri and Ayatollah Mousavi Bojnordi, issued decrees allowing the state to bend the Islamic law and put an end to stoning.

Dr. Soheila Vahdati is an Iranian American human rights activist who has written many articles about women’s human rights and gender issues in Iranian journals. She is a coordinator of the Stop Stoning Forever campaign and is based in California.

Women’s eNews welcomes your comments. E-mail us at editors@womensenews.org.