A Court Named 'Supreme National Security Council'?

Mehdi Taeb, a voice of authoritarianism in Iran and brother of Hossein Taeb (head of the IRGC Intelligence Organization), in his latest remarks — which are being stated with such clarity for the first time — pointed out that a court has a judge, a verdict, and an indictment, regarding the continued imprisonment of the leaders of the Green Movement over the past 40 months. He said: 'The issue of the rebellion of the leaders of the sedition was discussed in the Supreme National Security Council, and the head of the judiciary, who is also the chief judge, was present, as well as the security agencies that were supposed to provide information about the leaders of the sedition. All decisions made by the Supreme National Security Council regarding the leaders of the sedition have been communicated to them, and in fact, they have been informed of the charges, which has proven to the members of the Supreme National Security Council that the issue of rebellion against the regime has been established by them.' He also noted that 'anyone who attempts to overthrow the Islamic regime by force and methods such as deception, street mobilization, and armed actions has committed rebellion against the Islamic regime,' adding: 'The 2009 sedition, like the actions of many groups such as the Mojahedin-e Khalq and the Tudeh Party, was one of the manifestations of rebellion, which is true for individuals who previously held responsibilities in the government such as prime minister and speaker of parliament.' The statements of the head of the so-called 'Ammar Headquarters' — which, according to its claims and agenda, pursues its authoritarian projects in line with 'countering soft warfare' — are noteworthy from various perspectives. Before delving into that, a brief look at the legal status and duties of the Supreme National Security Council is illustrative. The Supreme National Security Council, based on Article 176 of the Constitution, is formed 'to ensure national interests and safeguard the Islamic Revolution and territorial integrity and national sovereignty' and is chaired by the President. The heads of the three branches of the Islamic Republic, the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces, the head of the budget and planning organization, two representatives elected by the Supreme Leader, the ministers of foreign affairs, interior, and intelligence, as well as the highest-ranking officials of the army and the IRGC, make up the members of this council. The duties of the Supreme National Security Council according to the aforementioned article are: First: 'Determining the country's defense-security policies within the framework of the general policies set by the Leader'; Second, coordinating political, intelligence, social, cultural, and economic activities related to overall defense-security measures; and finally, utilizing the material and spiritual resources of the country to counter internal and external threats. It is noteworthy that according to this law, the resolutions of the Supreme National Security Council are enforceable only after the approval of the Supreme Leader. With the above brief explanation, several ambiguities and questions arise regarding Taeb's important and new claim (including the following): 1. Why have none of the main members of the Supreme National Security Council reported what Taeb has publicly stated (the accusation of 'rebellion' against the two candidates who contested the official results of the 2009 election)? What fear or concern or consideration exists for this concealment? Why does the Supreme National Security Council not officially and publicly report on the 'accusation' and the reason for the house arrest of the leaders of the Green Movement and the cause of their continued imprisonment? It has been less than a week since anyone in the Islamic Republic's officials or its main platforms has expressed an opinion on this matter. One of the new assessments was by Saeed Jalili, who mentioned that the reason for the house arrest of Karroubi and Mousavi was their attempts to 'shape' a 'new sedition' and stated that their house arrest 'has nothing to do' with the protests following the 2009 presidential election. 2. Is the 'Supreme National Security Council' supposed to replace the 'public court' that is provided for in Article 168 of the Constitution, which emphasizes that it should be held with the presence of a jury and in the courts for dealing with political accusations? If not, why does this council not stand in its legal and constitutional position and uphold the Constitution? 3. Where in the duties and legal rights of the Supreme National Security Council is there permission to issue a 'house arrest' ruling and extend it for more than 1400 days? Why does this council not officially announce the legal documents for this action? Why does the judiciary not explain its overlap with this legal entity? 4. Hassan Rouhani was one of the two trusted representatives of the Supreme Leader in the Supreme National Security Council at the time of the house arrest ruling for Mr. Mousavi, Mr. Karroubi, and Ms. Rahnavard. After winning the presidential election in 2013 and taking office, he has chaired this council. He has so far failed to meaningfully change the situation of the leaders of the Green Movement and free them. In recent weeks, Rouhani has stated that the economy and diplomacy have been and are his main promises; will he continue to neglect 'political development'? Is Rouhani not concerned about the consequences of weakening, despair, and the erosion of his supporting social base? 5. According to the Constitution, the resolutions of the Supreme National Security Council are enforceable only after the approval of the Supreme Leader. Ayatollah Khamenei, as reported by various quotes (from Ali Motahari to the commander of the police), is the main responsible party for the continued house arrest of the leaders of the Green Movement. Five and a half years have passed since the 2009 election, and four years since the house arrest of Karroubi, Mousavi, and Rahnavard. Despite all the propaganda and distortion and accusations against the Green Movement, what reasons prevent the release of the two contested candidates? Is the regime's crisis of democratic authority not one of these reasons? 6. Every day that passes in the imprisonment of Mousavi, Karroubi, and Rahnavard will increase their popularity and social-political standing. Does authoritarianism based on autocratic rule — which manifests itself in various forms, including in cases of astronomical corruption — have the capacity to resolve the crises facing Iran? 7. How long will civil protest and questioning of fundamental and civil rights be evaluated as 'rebellion' and 'action against national security' and subject to punishment in the Islamic Republic? And with such a view towards political criticism and opposition, what future awaits the political system based on the absolute rule of the jurist? The questions, critiques, and ambiguities of this kind — as mentioned — regarding the continued house arrest of the leaders of the Green Movement are not few. Mehdi Taeb says: 'All the investigations that the Supreme National Security Council has conducted regarding the leaders of the sedition have been communicated to them, and in fact, they have been informed of the charges that the issue of rebellion against the regime has been established by them for the members of the Supreme National Security Council.' The Iranian judiciary lacks the level of independence and fairness to fairly examine an important case such as the house arrest of Karroubi, Mousavi, and Rahnavard. Will the head of the executive branch — who is now the head of the Supreme National Security Council — provide information regarding what Taeb describes as 'informing the charges' of the leaders of the Green Movement? Rouhani, as President, has sworn to 'support the freedom and dignity of individuals and the rights recognized by the Constitution for the nation.' His inaction in this area and in the realm of political openness will have negative consequences even for the success of his moderate government.