 |
Al-Ahram Weekly On-line 28 Sep. - 4 Oct. 2000 Issue No. 501 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly On-line 28 Sep. - 4 Oct. 2000 Issue No. 501
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
||
Egypt Elections Region International Economy Opinion Culture Special Travel Living Sports Profile People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Dashed hopes, little fallout
By Azadeh MoaveniThe degree to which most Iranians are unaware of the proceedings of the country's most controversial trial underscores the opaque nature of a case deemed more political than judicial. In fact, the appeals verdict in the Shiraz trial of 10 Jews found guilty of spying for Israel seemed to be of more interest to the outside world. Having harboured greater expectations after a slew of hazy promises by Iranian officials, Western governments, whose delicate ties with Iran were threatened by the trial, were gravely disappointed by the outcome.
The court overturned two of the three charges with which the Jews had originally been sentenced, and the prison terms were lowered from four to 13 years to a range of two to nine. The charge of collaborating with Israel stood, but the prison terms include the time already served by the defendants, in some cases as much as 16 months, putting the earliest release dates just several months away.
The Americans insist the case should have been thrown out, and the Jews released. "We do not think that due process existed in the whole way this was set up," said US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright last week.
An Iranian government presence at the United Nations Millennium Summit had raised hopes that the appeals verdict would do away with the case altogether. For the first time, the Jewish representative to the parliament accompanied the Iranian delegation. Speaker of Parliament Mehdi Karroubi discussed the case with American senators, and Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi, according to some Jewish leaders and American officials, intimated that the Jews would be released.
Murmured assurances from Iranian officials, who are representatives of specific organs of a complex system of government, are interpreted as off-the-record insight into Iranian policy-making. There is a tendency to believe in what Iran may yet become, rather than the Iran that actually exists. Iran's pro-reform newspapers, prior to their shut-down, pointed to the judiciary's lack of independence as typical of the Islamic Republic's governance. That President Mohamed Khatami, or Kharrazi, have any current information on or influence over the proceedings of the hardline judiciary is unlikely. From the onset, Iranian government officials have privately confided that the case is a political football, manipulated over the course of months by the hardline establishment to alternately embarrass and pressure the Khatami government.
The Shiraz judiciary has attempted to be open about the case by talking to reporters, issuing statements and allowing the accused to appear on national television. This, according to some observers, lent a misleading aura of efficiency to proceedings that international human rights observers believe fail to meet even the minimum criteria of a fair trial.
Between a foreign minister's quiet whispers on the sidelines of a United Nations summit, and the presence of foreign journalists who have followed the case from the beginning, expectations have understandably reigned -- though some, like the US envoy to the UN, called the proceedings a "kangaroo court" from the earliest stage.
Iranian reformists anticipation that the highly sensitive trial would strengthen the hand of the anti-Iran lobbies in the West seemed mere wishful thinking.
The United States, despite President Bill Clinton's "deep disappointment" over the recent verdict, is still prepared to initiate an unconditional dialogue with Iran. European countries show no sign of pulling back politically or economically.
The Jews' defense team intends to lodge a final appeal to the national supreme court, but the team's head, Ismail Nasseri, never appeared confident that justice would prevail. He claims to have received death threats because of his continued insistence on his clients' innocence. From the outset, Nasseri stressed that politics, not the judge, presided over this trial.
Related stories:
From Shiraz with restraint 6 - 12 July 2000
