Who Holds the Key to Lifting the House Arrest of Mousavi, Karroubi, and Rahnavard?

As the anniversary of the 9th of Dey approaches, which has been designated as a day of absolution from those involved in what the Iranian government describes as the '2009 sedition', various statements regarding the house arrest of Mir Hossein Mousavi, Mehdi Karroubi, and Zahra Rahnavard, leaders of the 2009 protests, are being made. Some officials from the far-right conservative spectrum accuse them of rebellion, insurrection, and subversion, thus deserving the death penalty, while others call for lifting the house arrest or reconsidering the matter and holding a fair trial. On Saturday, Mir Hossein Mousavi responded to the first group of accusations, describing the charge of subversion as stemming from the impiety and weakness of the accusers, and reminded that he has repeatedly expressed readiness to appear in a public and competent court since the beginning of his house arrest. This request was echoed by Mehdi Karroubi some time ago. After more than four years of house arrest for these three figures, and on the eve of the fifth anniversary of the 9th of Dey 1389, three guests on this week's program 'Views' discuss the possibilities and ways to lift the house arrest: Ahmad Montazeri, son of the late Shia cleric Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri in Qom, Ardeshir Amir Arjamand, senior advisor to Mir Hossein Mousavi in Paris, and Mohammad Taghi Karroubi, son of Mehdi Karroubi in London. There have been various statements recently regarding the house arrest. I will try to highlight some of the most prominent ones. Mr. Montazeri mentioned one of the latest comments about the house arrest of Mr. Mousavi and Mr. Karroubi and Ms. Rahnavard, which was made last week by Mohammad Reza Toiserkani, the representative of the leader in the Basij of the Underprivileged, who said: 'The decision for house arrest was not made by the Supreme National Security Council, and it is this institution that, with the leader's approval, can end the house arrest.' In these statements, there is no attack or mockery, and a way to lift the house arrest has been suggested. Could this be a sign that some close to the leader are making efforts towards lifting the house arrest? Unfortunately, regarding the house arrest of these three dignitaries, various officials of the Islamic Republic speak as if after 36 years, a regime has not yet been established, and everyone who comes makes a statement without being accountable for the consequences. Ahmad Montazeri -- son of Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri (Qom) Ahmad Montazeri: Unfortunately, regarding the house arrest of these three dignitaries, various officials of the Islamic Republic speak as if after 36 years, a regime has not yet been established, and everyone who comes makes a statement without being accountable for the consequences. Now we see that regarding Mr. Montazeri's house arrest, they said that it was the National Security Council. But the house arrest was lifted when Mr. Khamenei decided to do so. This means that the National Security Council was actually a cover, and the action of Mr. Montazeri's house arrest was at the behest of Mr. Khamenei, and the lifting of the house arrest was also at the behest and order of Mr. Khamenei. This is completely clear. The same applies to Mr. Mousavi, Mr. Karroubi, and Ms. Rahnavard. In other words, Mr. Khamenei must indicate that this house arrest should be lifted, and now they are putting the responsibility on the National Security Council, as if he wants it to be at his command, but the responsibility should not be attributed to him. However, this is not the case. With the communication tools available and the awareness of the people, this duality is very ugly for the Islamic Republic system. Now, regarding Mr. Toiserkani's statement that it must be with the leader's approval, is this a sign that people like him who are close to the leader are finding a solution for lifting the house arrest, or are they just trying to buy time? If they want to lift the house arrest, this task takes just a few minutes. Perhaps just a second. That Mr. Khamenei makes a gesture and the house arrest is lifted. Mr. Amir Arjamand, last week, Mustafa Kaveh Kabi, a representative of the reformist faction in the eighth Majlis, said in the last seconds of a television program: 'In the week of unity, the leader should manage the house arrest.' A statement that surprised both the host and the counterpart in the discussion. Could the emergence of this statement be a sign of a change in the political atmosphere of society in favor of openly discussing the lifting of the house arrest? The public atmosphere of society, especially in recent weeks, has been completely in favor of pursuing the issue of lifting the house arrest and has shown that it is a public demand. This is a reality. On the other hand, we are witnessing increasing pressure on the key decision-makers in the Islamic Republic regarding lifting the house arrest. Ardeshir Amir Arjamand: The public atmosphere of society, especially in recent weeks, has been completely in favor of pursuing the issue of lifting the house arrest and has shown that it is a public demand. This is a reality. On the other hand, we are witnessing increasing pressure on the key decision-makers in the Islamic Republic regarding lifting the house arrest. More importantly, the set of arguments that they have presented to justify the house arrest has completely become unjustifiable, and I personally see the statements of people like Mr. Toiserkani as a result of pressure from the Basij base. There are Basijis with pure intentions whose presence in the Basij is genuinely due to ideological issues, and today, with the disorder and lawlessness that is occurring regarding these three individuals, and the violation of religious standards, questions have arisen for them, and they have pressured the system to find a solution for this issue and provide a convincing answer. Mr. Karroubi, last week, the weekly 'Sobhe Sadegh' affiliated with the political office of the Revolutionary Guards wrote that the house arrest was not due to the protests against the 2009 elections but rather a result of the change in the methods of Mr. Mousavi and Mr. Karroubi concurrent with the protests in Tunisia and Egypt in Bahman 89, leading towards subversion. This statement was previously made by Saeed Jalili, former secretary of the Supreme National Security Council in Mashhad. What do these statements signify? We are witnessing confusion, desperation, or frustration within the government. Regarding the illegal and un-Islamic house arrest that has occurred, we have heard very different statements from responsible officials, and every day new points are raised. The main reason and root cause of it must also be found in the lawlessness of this act. Mohammad Taghi Karroubi -- son of Mehdi Karroubi (London) Mohammad Taghi Karroubi: As mentioned regarding the house arrest and its lifting, we are witnessing confusion, desperation, or frustration within the government. Regarding the illegal and un-Islamic house arrest that has occurred, we have heard very different statements from responsible officials, and every day new points are raised. The main reason and root cause of it must also be found in the lawlessness of this act and that the institutions and other governmental and state sectors initially created a situation and are now trying to find justification and reasoning for it. We know that the house arrest occurred after the controversial 2009 elections and the people's protests against the fraud and the leaders' presence among the people, and then the bitter events that occurred within these rallies increased pressures and other issues for the people. Until we reached the time when the Arab Spring occurred. The leaders of the movement actually invited the people to support the Arab Spring or, in the government's terms, the Islamic Awakening. They designated a day for support. Well, it is natural that there were dictators in the region who had ignored the rights of the people. Mr. Karroubi and Mr. Mousavi, in order to avoid tension between their supporters and the group that the government brought to the streets with its own mechanisms, designated another day, and from this perspective, it could also be seen as a display of power by the protest movement. Unfortunately, the government could not tolerate it. In simpler terms, what it at least claimed to be pleased with the Arab Spring and preferred for the people of the region, it did not prefer for its own people and reacted. Today, justifying the house arrest has become very, very difficult. Given the different statements we hear from officials, including political, social, and military officials, or even those close to the leader, we hear different statements. Therefore, they are also trying to present various justifications for it, and unfortunately, I think this does not help a system that thought it could bury the leaders of the movement in oblivion with house arrest and limitations and completely sever this part of the protests of the Iranian people from the outside world and make it a target of the enemy. It has been unsuccessful, and therefore every day they are looking for justifications, and today they have turned towards subversion. Mr. Karroubi and Mr. Mousavi, with their history, were seeking to reform a system that has been largely engulfed in corruption, and today, according to the officials of the government, including the president, the corruption that has been shocking so far has been only five percent of what has occurred, and they have said. Mohammad Taghi Karroubi: It is clear that Mr. Karroubi and Mr. Mousavi, with their history, were seeking to reform a system that has been largely engulfed in corruption, and today, according to the officials of the government, including the president, the corruption that has been shocking so far has been only five percent of what has occurred, and they have said. Therefore, they moved to reform this system and this structure, which unfortunately was not tolerated, and now we hear different statements from officials to justify that behavior. Mr. Montazeri, the statements of Mr. Toiserkani and Kaveh Kabi on one side and the earlier statements of Abbas Ali Kadkhodai, the former secretary and spokesperson of the Guardian Council on the other side, that the system has been kind to Mr. Mousavi and Mr. Karroubi with the house arrest and that the Islamic Penal Code provides for the death penalty for actions against national security. With such statements and the pressures that Mr. Amir Arjamand referred to, which a faction of the Islamic Republic is imposing to continue the house arrest, can the leader even if he wants to move towards lifting the house arrest? These are all just words that they come and say there are two factions within the government, and one says yes, and one says no... They are actually justifying the illegal and un-Islamic actions that are being carried out, and that illegal and un-Islamic house arrest is being justified. It is not the case that the leaders of the country cannot solve this problem. Ahmad Montazeri: Yes, absolutely. As Mr. Karroubi said, this is a lawlessness. The result of all these gentlemen's discussions around this issue, whoever expresses different opinions, is one result: this is lawlessness. If someone is accused of wrongdoing and is accused of wanting to subvert, then a competent court should be established to try them. Not only these three individuals but also those who are accused of bringing the elections to this point, from the Guardian Council to the police forces and others should come and examine and close the case. This kind of leaving the bone in the wound and leaving the people in uncertainty, leaving public opinion in uncertainty, is very detrimental. If there is a law, well, the law has specified it. There should be a court with a jury present. Because political courts have the accused against the government, and there should be an impartial judge who is the jury. With the presence of a jury, they should come and examine if they really say that a violation has occurred. Regarding the question you asked, I think these are all just words that they come and say there are two factions within the government, and one says yes, and one says no... They are actually justifying the illegal and un-Islamic actions that are being carried out, and that illegal and un-Islamic house arrest is being justified. It is not the case that the leaders of the country cannot solve this problem. Mr. Amir Arjamand, on the other hand, within the framework of the prominent figures of the government, Mustafa Pour Mohammad, the Minister of Justice, said that the decision-making body is the Supreme National Security Council, and the government and judiciary cannot pursue this issue alone. How can these statements be analyzed and interpreted in the current situation and the balance of power that exists between the government, judiciary, and other institutions? In the constitution, the president, while being the head of the executive branch, is the executor of the constitution. In the capacity of executing the constitution, the president must defend the rights of every single Iranian citizen. When he came to power, the first thing he raised was citizens' rights. It was the citizens' rights bill. He later emphasized that he wanted to implement the old constitution. Well, when will these promises be fulfilled? Ardeshir Amir Arjamand: First of all, when he wanted to become a minister, one of the issues he raised was that he promised to negotiate and interact and solve this issue. Later, we witnessed that gradually he said he could not do anything, and now he claims that the government cannot do anything and has referred the issue to the Supreme National Security Council. In any case, until now, no member of the Supreme National Security Council has accepted the legal responsibility of this council in this regard. If we refer to Chapter 13 of the Constitution, Article 176, which is dedicated to the Supreme National Security Council, we see that no judicial duty has been provided for the Supreme National Security Council. This means that this council does not have such authority. Moreover, this article explicitly states that the resolutions of the Supreme National Security Council are enforceable only after the approval of the leader. This means that basically, whatever decision this council makes, it becomes executable only when the leader approves it. Therefore, if this illegal act has been executed, meaning that the decision for house arrest was made by the Supreme National Security Council, which itself was an illegal act, it would not have been executable until it was approved by the leader.