Reporter sentenced in Iran

Remove all ads!

Full Article Here

I am a bit conflicted, she does seem to be a pawn yet she IS an Iranian citizen. I don't really want any country telling another country how to run it's legal system . . . . . . . . . but this seems very wrong.

Comments?

 

What the Iranians are doing is wrong, of course, but they are well within their rights. No sovereign nation will bend to other nations when it comes to matters of internal law enforcement. God knows that the US under ANY President sure as hell wouldn't.

I would say that this woman played a very, very dangerous game and now she is paying the price. If she were travelling on an American passport then the US could help her, but as it stands, her prosecutor has a very good point -- you can't just take the advantages and ignore the disadvantages.

With any luck Ahmadinejad will milk this for all he can and then return her when her usefulness as a campaign point and reinforcer of his power as a snubber of America.

 

I am not familiar enough with this case - was she the one about which Ahmadinejad said she should have full access to defense, or some such? I was looking for a more fact-based article (marty, the piece you linked was more of an analysis) but the closest I got was http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7997608.stm.

Of course, if Iran were pressed it would defend the independence of its judiciary against foreign intervention, and that is a right every sovereign country has. Not doing so is tantamount to, well, forsaking your nation's independence and is a political suicide for the party in power. Actually, I think the entire case should be viewed from the Iranian political perspective. If I were to make a guess, I would say her arrest is probably due more to the upcoming elections in Iran than to the overall US-Iranian relations, though it is a bit of both. It is possible that she was engaged in what can be considered espionage, either for ideological reasons or for money, but I am rather dubious on that case. Besides, it is standard practice that when you know of an enemy spy in your country you use him to feed disinformation or possible "links" at first, and only expose him/her when you can get some political benefit out of this. What is more important is that her case can have influence both on the internal politics of Iran and its relationship with the West, and the US in particular. Now, it could be just paranoia, but look at it this way: Ms. Saberi is part American, and she has been convicted of spying, a crime against the state - and supposedly for the US, which in Iran is probably as close to "the enemy" as it gets. If there are public perceptions in Iran that their country is pressured to release her despite her guilt, this would probably trigger an outburst of conservativism and anti-Western feelings just before the elections. An unhappy (for her, and thus the US) outcome would also strain if not completely derail the possibility of a thaw in the Iranian-American relationships.

Who would win from that, as far as Iran is concerned? I'd say the hardliners in Iran have the most to gain. Ironically, Ahmadinejad - who is often perceived as the face of the Iranian hardliners in the West - seems to be rather careful here. It is possible that the whole thing was hatched by some ultracons in his own party without his express approval or knowledge, and he has to now try to cover it up. Either that, or a as a Yahoo piece opined, he may be trying to act the moderate in order to steal votes from whoever his moderate opponent on the elections would be. From a purely political perspective, he and his party seem to be in a rather tricky position: most likely not everyone there is very happy with their gung-ho attitude, and the recent economical problems Iran has been having lately (iirc even before the crisis and the oil price drop) means that there is a serious chance for a more liberal candidate to win. Trying to scare everyone with the US boogeyman will probably not be as effective now that big bad W is not in charge, especially as the new president's stance seems much less threatening. In short, their chances are not as good as they would like; a March poll puts support for the reformists at 52% (against 36% for the conservatives) with elections being held in early June they have less than two months. Their position in parliament is already a bit tricky - reformists and independents form some 58% of the entire parliament, and with a reformist president Iran might be heading in a different direction.

If that were the case, I would suggest that the US government tries to play carefully on that one. If it comes across as too forceful and antagonizes the Iranians we may end up with four (or five, I don't know how long their mandates are) more years of Ahmadinejad, and I'd rather not have that. On the other hand, Obama will be under some pressure to act tough - even though her father is Iranian and her mother Japanese, Roxana Saberi is (half-)American. Luckily she is not sentenced to death, so the pressure will most likely not be as great. I think that right now, the best course for the US is to act amiably, especially if it can do it in a way that splinters the Iranian conservatives on the issue. It is possible that a trade is made; chances are that there are enough Iranians in jails in Iraq and elsewhere. Saddam Hussain is, afaik, about as loved in Tehran as he was in NY; if the US can find an Iranian imprisoned during his rule and trade him for Roxana, it would work for the best. If the price Iran asks is too high, and there is no immediate danger for Roxana, it may be best to delay until after the elections, and then deal with whoever is in charge. The best strategical outcome would be to have reformists in Tehran and shortly after have a positive development, which both the US and the Iranian politicians can then present to their respective audiences as proof of the possibility of a constructive relationship and thus boost their respective positions on the "home front".

 

Not that the conviction or sentence seems justified (although it's hard to say, given that we don't have all the facts), but at least there was a trial.

Quite unlike Guantanamo Bay.

 

Actually, there were some trials in Gitmo. Given the given sentence, it might not be the worst possible outcome... though I'd rather it didn't take several years to get to those trials .

 

Here is another article about it.
yahoo news

 

The potential goings on inside Iran are hard to measure. For one thing, elections in Iran have been dubiously 'free' for a long time, meaning they have suspicious appearances (armed guards patrolling streets, scattered reports of strongarming) and election results have frequenlty clashed with polling results (not that that is uncommon even in the US). If the elections are free, Ahmadinejad could use this for some powerful centrist movements. If they aren't, this could be used as an international bargaining chip. Either way, much of the real power in Iran doesn't rest with Ahmadinejad, but rather with the religious authorities. Anyway, we'll see how things turn out.

As to the 'justice' of the whole thing, I have no doubt the charges are complete BS, but that's one of the risks some reporters take to get their stories. As others have said, the best we can do is try to pressure and persuade. And Iran knows it.

 

Apparently Ms Saberi has been released and is preparing to leave Iran. Here is a part of the article detailing this, you can find it at http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_IRAN_US_JOURNALIST?SITE=KTVB&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- An American journalist jailed for four months in Iran was freed Monday and reunited with her parents after an appeals court suspended her eight-year prison sentence on charges of spying for the U.S. Her parents said they would bring her home to the U.S. within days.

The release of Roxana Saberi, a 32-year-old dual Iranian-American citizen, clears a major snag in President Barack Obama's efforts to engage Iran in a dialogue after decades of shunning the country. Washington had called the charges against Saberi baseless and repeatedly demanded her release.

Saberi's arrest in late January, followed by a secretive, one-day trial and a heavy prison sentence, prompted sharp U.S. criticism. Soon after, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other officials appeared to back off, suggesting the sentence could be reversed.

On Monday, an appeals court reduced her jail term to a two-year suspended sentence, Iran's judiciary spokesman, Ali Reza Jamshidi, told reporters. Jamshidi said she was free to leave Iran.

"I'm very happy that she is free. Roxana is in good condition," Saberi's Iranian-born father Reza Saberi said after her release...

(Source: Associated Press)

Oh, and she has, according to the BBC story, been banned from working in Iran in the next 5 years. Somehow I doubt she minds that so much.

 

If she ever goes back, she's an utter fool. Some would see a return after 5 years as an act of courage. I'd say it's unnecessary grandstanding and an unacceptable risk. She can fight against corruption in other ways.

I wonder if there was any "under the table" deal that was made -- we'll likely never know.

I'm also extremely glad she's safe -- she really dodged a bullet there.