Attack on Homeless People in Haqqani Park, Tehran

The newspapers Javan, Vatan-e-Emruz, and Kayhan have explicitly attacked Hassan Rouhani in their Tuesday editions for his criticism of the arrest of journalists. The Javan newspaper, close to the Revolutionary Guards, dedicated its front page headline and photo to the reaction of the head of the judiciary to the statements of the Iranian president, quoting Sadegh Larijani as saying that Rouhani's remarks were 'false, insulting, and defamatory.' The newspaper reported: 'One day after the president implicitly made unprecedented accusations against the judiciary at the opening ceremony of the press and news agencies exhibition, the head of the judiciary emphasized that 'the judiciary should not be wronged,' stating that 'the people want us to solve problems, not to create new issues every day.' Javan also emphasized in its editorial titled 'What is Influence' that 'influence' cannot be defined 'outside the governance,' stating: 'The mutual understanding between part of the governance and the Americans is the step and beginning of influence in the country's decisions on one hand and the beginning of doubts regarding the past of the Islamic Revolution on the other.' Vatan-e-Emruz, close to the Stability Front, also published an editorial titled 'More Dangerous than the U.S. Army,' claiming that the main secret behind the anger of the 'moderates in government' is the 'blow to the influence project' and wrote: 'The system is detoxifying the JCPOA by striking at the fundamental project agreed upon with those outside Iran's borders.' Kayhan newspaper, in a similar editorial titled 'New Kashmiri,' likened some government officials to Masoud Kashmiri, accusing them of 'influence' within the governance. Mohammad Imani, in Kayhan's editorial without naming Rouhani, addressed him, stating: 'Not prioritizing the system and revolution and being surrounded by problematic or impatient close associates leads to passivity, confusion, and inefficiency in any management. Without a plan, you will inevitably play into the opponent's map and concede goals.' He added that increasing accusations and anger towards critics would be forgivable if it resolved issues, but if it thickens the veil of negligence over the influence line and its political-cultural background, it would be a double injustice to the nation and the system. The newspaper criticized Rouhani, stating: 'The president and relevant ministries have a responsibility to confront the bitter reality of infiltration, rather than inadvertently aiding the enemy's influence-seeking and covering it up. Even if they perceive some aspects of the issue as ambiguous, they should consult the Supreme Leader.' The Iran newspaper reported on the Interior Ministry's follow-up regarding the fate of the arrested journalists, stating: 'The issue of 'influence' and the journalists arrested last week has also reached a joint meeting of ambassadors and governors,' and Interior Minister Abdolreza Rahmani Fazli said in this meeting that 'I have asked the judiciary officials about this, and they said they have documents that are under review,' and the judiciary officials are supposed to show these documents to me. The Farhikhtegan newspaper, whose editor-in-chief Ehsan Mazandarani is among the arrested journalists, published a list of reactions from President Hassan Rouhani, Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani, Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council Ali Shamkhani, Minister of Intelligence Mahmoud Alavi, Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance Ali Jannati, Minister of Communications Mahmoud Vaezi, Vice President Shahindokht Molaverdi, Interior Minister Abdolreza Rahmani Fazli, and representatives such as Ali Motahari and Ahmad Tavakoli, evaluating these reactions as 'responsible' and opposing the arrest of journalists on charges of 'influence.' The Etemad newspaper reported on a group attack on 'homeless people in Haqqani Park' in the 'Darvazeh Ghar' neighborhood of Tehran. This newspaper reported that on Tuesday morning, 'a number of men with sticks and bricks' attacked about 200 to 300 homeless people in Haqqani Park in the Darvazeh Ghar neighborhood of Tehran and set their belongings on fire. Elnaz Mohammadi, in a report for the Shahrvand newspaper, wrote: 'Iranians are experiencing a year of significant forgiveness this year; this is evident from the statistics of families forgiving the retribution of murderers of their family members. The spokesperson for the judiciary announced that in the first six months of 2015, there were 251 cases of forgiveness, meaning that in the first six months of this year, 251 families have forgiven, and 251 people have not been executed.' The Javan newspaper, close to the Revolutionary Guards, also stated in its editorial titled 'What is Influence' that 'there is a basis for influence within the governance.' Abdullah Ghanji, the editor-in-chief of Javan, emphasized that 'the difference in the way the U.S. engages with Iran after the JCPOA is the issue of influence,' writing: 'Now the strategy of confrontation has turned into interaction.' He stated that 'the Americans insist on formal, public, and governmental interactions with Iran and believe that in the post-JCPOA era, they can achieve their goals with a less costly method while maintaining their previous objectives.' The editorial writer of Javan emphasized that the Americans' perception of 'the applicability of the JCPOA model and the similarity and shared understanding of this issue between American officials and part of the governance in Iran' are among the grounds for 'influence.' He wrote: 'The Americans believe that instead of overthrowing, they must first empty the system of revolutionary and anti-imperialist slogans and are interested in continuing currents in power that do not insist on 'Death to America' and anti-imperialism.' This newspaper close to the Revolutionary Guards emphasized that 'influence is not a complex underground and terrifying matter but rather the Americans' desire for a governance that deliberately does not insist on revolutionary slogans and, in the best case, seeks employment and development.' He wrote: 'The Americans' insistence on continuing negotiations with repeated contacts with Iranian officials is to inform themselves of Iran's decisions in the region, knowing that until they engage in formal communications, they cannot be informed of the essence of the system's decisions.' The editorial writer of Javan noted that 'the insistence on negotiation and relationship with this goal is that the prerequisite for any overthrow is to empty the system of revolutionary slogans,' stating that they 'believe they have been able to set up a debate between 'development' and 'prosperity' with the continuation of the spirit of revolutionary Islam, and the organizers of this debate can be found within Iran. Therefore, they consider this opportunity for influence and strengthening this debate, which is why the arrest of four journalists who received money from America should not be framed as influence while others are exempt.' This newspaper also wrote that 'contact with dissenters or opposition within Iran cannot be interpreted as influence, but influence means affecting forces within the governance, and conditioning part of the people with hopes for post-JCPOA openings is one of the crossroads of this influence.' Therefore, 'the continuation of the governance of a current that merely believes in the 'Islamic suffix' in the title of the system is currently desirable for the Americans for up to 10 years, and they are trying to bring supporters of 'Islamic Republic by name' into competition with supporters of the Islamic Revolution, feeling that the grounds for this exist within the governance.' The editorial writer of this newspaper close to the Revolutionary Guards emphasized that 'political influence is a pathway for entering the economic and cultural dimensions of the country through part of the governance, but they also pursue the social domain directly through transnational and transnational communication networks and smartphones.' Therefore, if we align influence with the post-JCPOA atmosphere, we cannot define it outside the governance.' However, the Javan newspaper wrote that 'this does not mean that some within the governance are traitors, but the Americans are looking for harmony with those who have reached a crossroads in the path of the Islamic Revolution, where at the head of this crossroads, development and prosperity are separated from values and ideals, and anyone on the path of development and prosperity will be approved, while anyone on another path will be introduced not as a revolutionary but as a disruptor of the people's prosperity and development, and unfortunately, in this second perception, there is an unwritten harmony between part of the governance and American officials.' This newspaper also wrote: 'Influence in elections does not mean that some traitors, dependents, and anti-revolutionaries enter the parliament; the Americans desire the entry of individuals who do not care about 'Death to America' and 'Israel' and do not see relations with America as the only way to save the country's economy. Understanding influence is that simple; it should not be considered abstract, imaginary, merely security, and intelligence.' The Vatan-e-Emruz newspaper, close to the Stability Front, in an editorial titled 'More Dangerous than the U.S. Army,' wrote: 'The main secret behind the anger of the 'moderates in government' these days is the 'blow to the influence project.' Mehdi Mohammadi, in the editorial of Vatan-e-Emruz, implicitly referring to Hassan Rouhani's statements at the press exhibition, wrote: 'Hearing noise and uproar from the moderates in government should not deceive us about what the main issue is. Apparently, some are upset that some people have been arrested or that their Ministry of Culture's press exhibition has been disregarded by some of the most influential newspapers and media in the country.' However, 'in reality, this is a false address. What has frightened them relates to the failure of a fundamental project agreed upon with those outside Iran's borders, which, as sports commentators say, is about to unravel all of their threads.' The Vatan-e-Emruz newspaper noted that 'whatever the U.S. plan for influence in Iran is, it is not supposed to be executed in a vacuum,' writing: 'The implementation of this plan is the mission of a completely organized network that has been working for a long time to shape its various components. Although this network is not the entire organization for influence, it constitutes a significant and very powerful part of it.' However, now 'the entirety of this network, which may be the most important asset of the West in Iran, is under pressure in all financial, security, political, and media dimensions.' The editorial writer of Vatan-e-Emruz wrote: 'Compared to the depth of the blow the West has received, no amount of noise, theatrics, or fuss is excessive,' as 'the Westerners know that if their good friends in Iran are harmed, then all their future plans will turn into dreams.' This newspaper emphasized that 'a new conflict has begun,' stating: 'The dispute is not over the JCPOA but over the type of fruits this tree is supposed to bear,' and now 'the system' is in the process of 'detoxifying' this sapling, and 'naturally, those who were supposed to poison this nation are anxious. This is good news.' The editorial writer of Vatan-e-Emruz emphasized that 'the JCPOA was supposed to hold public opinion hostage in Iran and keep the government cooperating with the U.S.,' writing: 'With the closure of the strategic 'interaction-based' channels, the heart of which is to open the way for the U.S. into Iran under various pretexts and forms, the implementation of this project will practically become impossible.' This newspaper wrote: 'The JCPOA was supposed to become a model for involving Iran in a series of 'negotiation-oriented' political processes in the region, the outcome of which would be to replace interaction for resistance and bargaining at the negotiating table instead of fighting in the field.' However, 'the timely and profound attention of the Supreme Leader to the hidden dimensions of this project has almost completely ruled this out, and today, the Americans themselves no longer doubt that if the JCPOA has not made Iran's regional strategy more aggressive, it has certainly not diminished its intensity.' Mehdi Mohammadi pointed out that 'the blow to the influence project makes the implementation of the complementary packages of the JCPOA impossible,' writing: 'If the internal and regional appendices of the JCPOA are removed, what will remain? I think precisely thinking about this issue is what has made the minds and tongues of the moderates so bitter and sharp. The answer is: almost nothing.' The editorial writer of Vatan-e-Emruz emphasized that 'if the JCPOA is a tactic rather than a strategy, a minimal compromise rather than a national honor, a reactive matter rather than a continuous strategy, and if it is a prelude to more serious resistance inside and outside against the U.S. rather than yielding to bilateral definitions with the U.S.,' then 'the JCPOA would be a disaster for the 10-year plan the U.S. has designed to turn Iran from a rival into a pawn,' as 'in this case, the JCPOA could even worsen the situation, enhance the internal legitimacy of the system, expand its financial resources, recruit some previously cooperating figures to serve the goals of the Islamic Republic, and make advancing anti-Iran projects in international environments more difficult.' This newspaper raised the question, 'What has the U.S. gained in such a situation?' writing: 'Apparently, this question is becoming a very disturbing issue; both for the U.S. and for those inside who think the equation has reversed and that the nuclear agreement may be a prelude to their discrediting and downfall, rather than what they previously thought: turning them into eternal and unrivaled political forces in Iran.'