Iranian diplomat says CIA tortured him in Iraq

Saturday, April 7, 2007

The Associated Press

An Iranian diplomat freed two months after being abducted in Iraq accused the CIA of torturing him during his detention, state television reported Saturday. The U.S. immediately denied any involvement in the Iranian's disappearance or release.

Jalal Sharafi, who was freed on Tuesday, said the CIA questioned him about Iran's relations with Iraq and assistance to various Iraqi groups, according to state television.

"Once they heard my response that Iran merely has official relations with the Iraqi government and officials, they intensified tortures and tortured me through different methods days and nights," he said.

Sharafi's comments came a day after 15 British sailors released by Iran said they had been subject to psychological pressure and coercion in captivity. The sailors were captured in the Persian Gulf on March 23 for allegedly entering Iranian waters and released Wednesday.

At the time of his disappearance, Iran alleged Sharafi had been abducted by an Iraqi military unit commanded by American forces — a charge repeated by several Iraqi Shiite lawmakers. U.S. authorities denied any role in his disappearance.

"As we have said repeatedly, we were not involved in the abduction, detention or release of this individual," Lou Fintor, the U.S. Embassy spokesman in Baghdad, said Saturday.

A U.S. intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said the CIA vehemently denies any role in the capture or release of Sharafi.

The official dismissed any claims of torture, saying "the CIA does not conduct or condone torture."

In the report Saturday read by a newscaster, Sharafi, second secretary at the Iranian Embassy in Baghdad, said he was kidnapped by agents of an Iraqi organization operating under CIA supervision and was badly tortured.

State television said signs of torture were still visible on Sharafi, who is being treated at an Iranian hospital. Images of Sharafi were not shown.

Sharafi dropped near back of airport: report

The television quoted Sharafi as saying he was approached by agents while shopping in Baghdad. The agents allegedly showed him Iraqi Defence Ministry identification papers and were driving U.S. coalition vehicles.

He said they took him to a base near Baghdad airport and interrogated him in both Arabic and English, questioning him mainly about Iran's influence in Iraq, and assistance to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government and Iraqi groups. Sharafi did not provide additional details about his captors or their nationalities.

U.S. officials allege that Iran provides money and weapons to Iraqi Shiite militias.

After the initial interrogation, Sharafi said that his captors "softened their behaviour and showed leniency to encourage" him to co-operate.

"I explained I was unable to do anything outside my legal responsibilities," Sharafi was quoted as saying. "Later, they released me under pressure from Iraqi government officials. They dropped me near the back of the airport."

Several of the British crew members said Friday that they had been blindfolded, bound, kept in solitary confinement and subjected to psychological pressure during their captivity. They said they were coerced into saying they had been in Iranian waters when they were detained, and one said he believed one of his colleagues had
been executed on the second day of the ordeal.

Iran dismissed the crew members' news conference as propaganda — just as Britain had condemned the crew members' frequent appearances on Iranian TV during their captivity.

The true face of Iran (Tehran Times)

By our staff writer
President Mahmud Ahmadinejad’s surprise announcement on Wednesday that the British military personnel detained for entering Iranian waters were to be freed was met by a round of applause by correspondents attending the press conference. The move was another example of the civilized attitude of the Iranian people, which is acknowledged by friends and foes alike and has its roots in ancient Iran. The president called the decision to free the sailors and marines “a gift from the Iranian people to the British people.”

Iranian armed forces arrested the 15 British marines and sailors on March 23 after they illegally entered Iran’s territorial waters in the northern Persian Gulf.

The release of the British sailors through quiet diplomacy provides a "compelling lesson on how to deal with the wider international standoff between the U.S. and Iran," according to Professor Abbas Edalat.

The professor at London's prestigious Imperial College said the unexpectedly early resolution following their arrest in the Persian Gulf was the "direct result of Iran's goodwill and a U-turn by the British government."

"After initially using language of threat and seeking to add an unnecessary international dimension to the dispute, it eventually opted for direct negotiations with Iran based on mutual respect," he said in an article for the Guardian newspaper on Friday.

Ahmadinejad’s brief conversation with the sailors and marines was a demonstration of his “doctrine of kindness toward all human beings” in action.

But after they got home, perhaps due to pressure, the British troops were ungrateful, despite the fact that they were treated well in Iran and eventually freed.

The president also asked the Tony Blair government to refrain from punishing the troops for admitting they illegally entered Iran’s waters in the Persian Gulf.

As a result of this move, which won international praise, the ill-intentioned efforts of certain biased Western officials and media outlets to demonize the Iranian president came to naught.

Yet, these Western officials and media outlets have refused to give Iran credit for the humanitarian act and even launched a totally absurd propaganda campaign against the Islamic Republic after four British soldiers were killed in southern Iraq, with some officials saying Iran put psychological pressure on the detained troops and Prime Minister Tony Blair, instead of thanking Iran, again repeating his claim that Iran is supporting elements that are attacking U.S.-UK coalition forces in Iraq.

Unfortunately, the true face of Iran is still being hidden from the world, with media outlets disseminating biased and unrealistic stories about Iran, distorting Tehran’s call for a lasting peace with justice to resolve the decades-long Middle East conflict and insisting that it is unyielding in its demand that its inalienable nuclear rights be recognized.

But one day the world will see the true image of Iran.

Iran sends a message

Pat Buchanan
Saturday, April 7, 2007

WASHINGTON

The Easter pardon by Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of the 15 British sailors and marines, seized by Iranian Revolutionary Guards in waters off the Iraqi coast two weeks ago, ends the crisis.

And as the beaming smile of President Ahmadinejad while he graciously accepted apologies from the sailors and marines testifies, there is no doubt as to who won the showdown. Among Iranians, for whom love of the Brits is an acquired taste, Ahmadinejad is the victor. His position inside Iran, a subject of speculation, is surely stronger today.

But his victory and that of the Revolutionary Guards comes at a cost to Iran, which showed itself to be a state willing to engage in hostage-taking and show trials as a negotiating tactic.

As for the British military, however, it has sustained a humiliation.

What kind of rules of engagement were these sailors operating under to permit themselves to be surrounded, captured and disarmed without firing a shot? What kind of training did they have? How was it that, in days, if not hours, some were parroting the story line fed them by their captors -- that they regretted having violated Iranian territory and wished to express remorse? As yet, there is no evidence any were abused or tortured.

The episode reveals the decline of once-Great Britain.

What could today's Britain have done? Unlike the Falklands War of 25 years ago, the Royal Navy is not what it was, and Tony Blair is not Margaret Thatcher. The Brits may have the nuclear weapons to destroy Iran. In conventional power, they are like the rest of the European Union -- bantamweights, at best.

Among the risks Iran took was that the British would fight, not surrender. Blood could have been shed, casualties taken, and Britain might have retaliated, forcing Iran to fight.

Why, then, did the Iranians seize and hold the Brits, then suddenly let them go? One explanation is that they are sending a message.

While they do not want war with us, they do not fear it to such an extent that they will permit themselves to be pushed around. You hit us, we hit back. But if you engage us diplomatically, rather than disrespect and threaten us, progress is possible in getting what your want. That, at least, is what the Iranian behavior seems to suggest.

The United States should test again, via back channels, whether Iran is willing to suspend enrichment of uranium in return for a U.S. suspension of sanctions. For time is not on our side. Iran's ability to enrich uranium to weapons grade, however limited today, improves every month. It does not diminish.

In recent months, U.S. forces have, on two occasions, seized Iranians inside Iraq. Iraqis close to the U.S. military bagged another. He was released the day before the Brits were let go. Now, the U.S. military has permitted Red Cross visits to five Iranians seized in Irbil.

There have been reports of insurgent attacks on Iranians inside Iran, in the Kurdish region in the northwest, the Arab region of the southwest and in Baluchistan, near the Afghan-Pakistan border.

So far, neither the Iranians nor Americans have crossed a red line that would make inevitable the war some in both countries may want, but the great majority in both countries do not want.

Nancy Pelosi might thus hurry home from Saudi Arabia, where she has been instructing the Wahhabis on women's rights, and reintroduce that House resolution declaring that, before President Bush can take his country to war against Iran, Congress must first authorize it