US Condemns Iranian Delegation’s NY Attack On Journalist
US State Department has strongly condemned threats against Iran International reporters by the entourage of the Iranian president during their visit to the UN this week.
US State Department has strongly condemned threats against Iran International reporters by the entourage of the Iranian president during their visit to the UN this week.
A State Department official sent a statement to Iran International that they "have seen reports of threats, and assault on, an Iran International journalist by a member of the Iranian delegation. The behavior seen in the video footage is unacceptable," the official reiterated.
The Office of the Special Envoy for Iran also posted Thursday a more cautious statement on X, saying that “We condemn the apparent harassment and intimidation of several journalists on U.S. soil. Such behavior is unacceptable.”
Many Iranian Americans and some Iran observers criticized the brief statement by the Special Envoy, especially the use of the word “apparent harassment” when video footage is widely available showing the attack on the Iran International reporter. Unlike the state department’s official, critics noted that the special envoy didn’t even mention that the attacker was a member of the Iranian delegation. More than 230 people posted comments under the statement of the Special Envoy, mostly critical.
The US statements were referring to several incidents when members of President Ebrahim Raisi’s entourage in New York City harassed and in one case physically attacked an Iran International reporter. Journalists working for the Voice of America Persian Service were also harassed.
On Wednesday, an official from Raisi's delegation attacked Iran International correspondent Kian Amani outside the Millenium Hilton New York One UN Plaza Hotel.
The official tried to grab Amini’s cellphone as he was capturing footage of them exiting the hotel. The hotel's security team finally intervened and halted the aggressor.
In another encounter, an official identified as Reza Naghipour – who ironically accompanied Raisi as a protocol coordinator -- was asked by Amani questions about the protesters who were killed during the regime crackdown on dissent last year. But instead of replying or even refraining from answering, Naghipour started to threaten the reporter, telling him that he “should be trembling with fear until the end of his life” because he works for dissident media.
The State Department official said that the Iranian government "repeatedly curtailed press freedom through threats, intimidation, and the use of violence against journalists in Iran." The official added that "the Iranian government has used detentions or forced confessions as tools to suppress their media."
The First amendment protects free expression in the United States, the official said, and "the US government will not tolerate the violent suppression of media freedom in the United States." But what counts for the public is the official statement by the Special Envoy, which has left many annoyed. Former National Security Council official Richard Goldberg tweeted, “You gave them the visas to enable it. Oh and $50 billion. Assassination plots. Drone transfers to Russia. Does anyone say this stuff out loud in your office to recognize the insanity?”
The encounters by Raisi’s delegation have drawn countless reactions by other journalists, human rights activists and even media inside Iran. Earlier this year, Iran International's offices in London were forced to relocate to Washington after repeated threats from the IRGC forced the UK's highest security services to admit they were no longer able to safeguard the lives of the reporting team.
In a statement issued Thursday, Diana Eltahawy, the human rights group’s deputy regional director for the Middle East and North Africa said, “This bill is a despicable assault on the human rights of women and girls that will further entrench violence and discrimination against them in Iran.”
Earlier in the week, Parliament Speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf announced that the bill was approved for a "three-year trial run" following coordination and a written confirmation by the judiciary. The contentious bill's content was finalized by a committee of approximately 10 lawmakers making the best use of an obscure regulation known as Article 85. The only aspect voted upon was the duration for the trial implementation.
Article 85 of the constitution enabled the parliament to effectively sideline opposition by restricting discussions on the bill to an internal committee. The committee's decisions are set to be sent to the Guardian Council, whose members are chosen by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. If the council deems the decisions to be in line with the Constitution, they will be implemented throughout the country. Legal experts say the hijab bill violates not only civil rights but also the Constitution and requires vast resources beyond the government’s means.
Eltahawy said that the new regulations will further “exacerbate the already suffocating surveillance and policing of women’s bodies, ”mandating the Islamic Republic’s various political, security and administrative bodies to “obsessively observe compliance with compulsory veiling laws and control women’s and girls’ lives.”
Initially comprising only 15 articles, the "Hijab and Chastity" bill was sent to parliament by the administration of Ebrahim Raisi. It has since expanded to include 70 articles. The bill was proposed after months of nationwide protests following the death of Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old woman who died in police custody last year, allegedly for breaching hijab rules.
The uprising sparked by the death in police custody of Mahsa Amini in September 2022 has made it increasingly difficult for the clerical regime to enforce the mandatory Islamic dress code. Since the beginning of the ‘Women, Life, Freedom’ movement, tens of thousands of girls and women have shed their compulsory hijab. The regime seeks to criminalize hijab defiance, but no branch of government wants to solely shoulder the responsibility for complications of such a provocative and risky action in society.
Amnesty International's Eltahawy further described the bill as an "all-out assault," meant to "crush the spirit of resistance among those who dared to stand up against decades of oppression and inequality as part of the 'Women, Life, Freedom' popular uprising."
She also called on the global community to pressure the Islamic Republic's authorities to revoke the bill and abolish all degrading and discriminatory compulsory veiling laws and regulations, stating that the world must "pursue legal pathways at the international level to hold Iranian officials accountable for ordering, planning, and committing such widespread and systematic violations against women and girls."
Human rights advocates have warned that the bill's implementation could lead to “increased violence, harassment, and arbitrary detentions of women and girls in Iran.” Both the United Nations Human Rights Commission and the UN's Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Islamic Republic of Iran have issued statements this month expressing their concerns over the potential consequences of this bill on the rights and freedoms of Iranian women.
It’s hard to tell if that’s the real intention – or if it’s just about money. It’s also hard to tell how effective it would be in keeping out the bots.
One thing is almost certain, however: that any ‘monthly payment’, no matter how small, would keep out thousands of users living in Iran.
Thanks to the tireless efforts of the Islamic Republic since its inception, Iran is completely isolated from the global financial system. There’s no Visa or Mastercard in Iran. Those inside can’t even use PayPal, due to the US sanctions regime.
Some may find ways to go around this, of course, especially those with friends or family abroad who are willing to pay on their behalf. But they would be a tiny minority. The rest would have to abandon the platform.
And no one would be happier than the ayatollahs.
Elon Musk is, of course, aware of the information isolation people in Iran face. At the same meeting where he floated the idea of charging X users, he revealed that he had received a letter from Tehran, complaining about the activation of the satellite internet service Starlink over the country.
“We got permission from the State Department to turn on Starlink over Iran,” he said in a conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, “and a few people are using it… we got an upset letter from the government of Iran”.
For many years now, the anachronistic regime in Iran has been trying to cut off Iranians from thousands of websites and social media –generally, because it doesn’t like spaces it can’t control, even virtual ones, but more specifically, because more elite Iranians use X for political expression and organization perhaps more than any other platform.
Reliable figures on users (or usage) are hard to come by. But the most popular accounts on X –those which post solely in Persian– have around 2 million followers.
Instagram has a lot more active users inside Iran, perhaps ten times that of X, if the biggest accounts are an indication. Instagram wasn’t blocked until the 2022 protests last September. But it’s a different universe entirely. Millions use it to advertise, sell and buy (partly because it was the only non-blocked platform for a long time).
On X, however, politics seems to be a much more prominent topic. It’s the platform of choice for Iranian journalists, activists and those who’re often called ‘opinion-makers, for want of a better word. Even the Islamic Republic insiders have active accounts on X –from the Supreme Leader and the President down to the state-affiliated journalists who support their politics of restriction and suffocation.
They will all be over the moon to see X go behind a paywall.
Of course, Musk and X could always come up with ‘smart’ solutions: excepting those living under dictatorships, for instance, for whom the platform offers a lifeline. But it won’t be easy, since ordinary Iranians inside Iran have to use circumvention tools to access X, making it harder to determine their real location.
It’s not clear when the plan to charge X users takes effect. And it’s not clear how much people should pay to access the platform.
X does have a subscription service already, charging for features like editing posts and ranking higher in conversations and search –and of course the blue tick. That service starts at $8 a month.
The new subscription is likely to be cheaper. Musk says a “lower tier” pricing is “the only defense against vast armies of bots." Time will tell if that’s the case where Elon Musk lives. In Iran, though, the winners and losers of his plan are clear from now.