Spotlight on Iran (Week of April 28-May 5, 2011)

Highlights of the week Internal power struggles within Iran’s leadership: conservative anti-Ahmadinejad coalition expands "Intifada of unity”: Iranian press and its support for the Palestinian reconciliation agreement Iranian reactions to Bin Laden’s killing: from skepticism to anti-American defiance "A reactionary ceremony you wouldn’t find even in Arabian Nights”: Iranian media and the royal wedding in Britain  Pictures of the week: Tehran’s first video game show

Internal power struggles within Iran’s leadership:
conservative anti-Ahmadinejad coalition expands

The controversy between President Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei over the intelligence minister’s removal affair has brought the president under increasing criticism even from those conservatives formerly considered his staunch supporters.

Tehran Friday prayer leader Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami implicitly criticized the president by saying that Iran’s senior officials should know that the public support they have is not absolute, and is dependent on their obedience to the Supreme Leader.

The president is also increasingly criticized by the Revolutionary Guards for his association with his controversial advisor Rahim Masha’i. Mojtaba Zolnour, the Supreme Leader’s deputy representative in the Revolutionary Guards, criticized Ahmadinejad’s relationship with his advisor, saying he must cut himself off from Masha’i’s influence.

In addition, the president is facing growing criticism from Iranian bloggers affiliated with radical right-wing conservatives, including those considered to be Ahmadinejad’s supporters. For example, the Khat-e Enghelab (Revolution Line) blog said last week that the president betrayed his voters and that he causes frustration to his voters by keeping Masha’i around.

The criticism peaked when Ahmadinejad was warned that he could suffer same fate as Iran’s former president Abolhassan Banisadr, impeached in 1981. This week, the Alef website published an editorial titled "How did Banisadr become Banisadr?” The article, clearly directed at the president without mentioning his name, said that, in his early days, Banisadr too was not a symbol of deviation from the principles of the revolution. However, because of his pride, stubbornness, self-confidence, and advisors, he eventually came to symbolize betrayal of the people, the revolution, and the regime. Last week, conservative cleric Hojjat-ol-Eslam Ja’far Shojouni, member of the conservative Combatant Clergy Association, warned that unless the president obeys the Supreme Leader’s instructions on the removal of the intelligence minister, he may suffer the same fate as Banisadr. Earlier this week, Ahmadinejad returned to work after a week-long absence from office, during which he had missed two government meetings. The president declared his loyalty to the Supreme Leader, thanked him for supporting the government, and said that he has a father-and-son relationship with him. 

"Intifada of unity”:

Iranian press and its support for the Palestinian reconciliation agreement

The Hamas-Fatah reconciliation agreement achieved in Cairo last week was unanimously supported by Iran’s media, which claimed that it is yet another expression of the positive developments that have taken place in the Middle East in recent months, and that it is likely to help the Palestinians achieve their goals.

The daily Keyhan argued that while Palestinian national unity may take a while to achieve, the reconciliation agreement is significant in that it signals an end to internal Palestinian conflicts, making it possible for the Palestinians to benefit from regional developments. The daily also assessed that the agreement would allow Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad to resume their activities in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and thus put an end to the period of calm Israel has enjoyed for the past four years.

The daily Siyasat-e Rouz dubbed the agreement "the Intifada of Unity”, arguing that it reflects not only unity between the two Palestinian groups, but also unity between Gaza, the West Bank, and Jerusalem, which may constitute the beginning of a new intifada supported by the entire Palestinian people.

Iran’s media took a critical stance towards Abu Mazen. The daily Resalat said that Abu Mazen has to learn from the regional developments and change his policy, which so far benefited Israel and the U.S. The daily Keyhan said that the Palestinians do not trust Abu Mazen and his initiatives; however, they do believe that he is able to take the reconciliation process through the transitional phase until the establishment of a Hamas-led administration.

Iranian reactions to Bin Laden’s killing: from skepticism to anti-American defiance

It was no surprise that the killing of Osama Bin Laden provoked a great deal of interest in Iran. Following the initial reports of the Al-Qaeda leader’s death, most Iranian media questioned their accuracy, wondering why the Americans did not provide conclusive evidence of Bin Laden’s death.

In addition to expressing doubts about the reliability of the U.S. announcement on Bin Laden’s killing, the Iranians took advantage of the incident to once again criticize the American foreign policy, arguing that Bin Laden was simply an excuse for the U.S. to fulfill its expansion ambitions in the region and promote the political interests of the American administration.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast commented on Bin Laden’s killing by saying that now there are no more excuses for foreign military presence in the region under the pretext of fighting terrorism.

In its editorial, Fars News Agency argued that the U.S. will now have to find a new enemy to control the region, saying that it may be Iran.

The daily Keyhan argued that the elimination of the "CIA agent” by the U.S. will not put an end to the killings committed by the Americans in the Middle East, while the daily Donya-ye Eqtesad said that Bin Laden’s death may have a negative impact on America’s relations with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and its European allies, making it difficult for the U.S. to continue raising global support for the fight on terrorism.

"A reactionary ceremony you wouldn’t find even in Arabian Nights”:

Iranian media and the royal wedding in Britain 

Iran’s media used the occasion of Prince William and Kate Middleton’s wedding, held in London last weekend, to once again attack Iran’s historic enemy. The media focused on the massive wedding expenses, claiming that the ceremonies were designed to divert British public opinion from the severe economic crisis plaguing the kingdom. The chairman of Iran Broadcasting referred to the wedding as "a reactionary ceremony you wouldn’t find even in Arabian Nights”.

The Iranian media emphasized the objections raised by British anti-royalists to the wedding and to the spending of public funds, claiming that the British authorities had to arrest several people due to concerns about possible riots during the wedding ceremonies. Britain was also criticized for inviting representatives from Saudi Arabia and Bahrain to the wedding ceremony despite the two countries’ involvement in suppressing the riots in Bahrain.

Iranian web surfers, however, took a different stance towards the wedding. Wedding photographs published on several Iranian websites received a lot of comments. Many web surfers had reservations about the critical coverage of the wedding by Iranian media. For example, one of them said that the expenses for the annual Shi’ite mourning ceremonies marked in Iran are far greater than the royal wedding expenses, while another web surfer said that at least the people of Britain enjoy adequate social security and are guaranteed a basic living standard.

 

Internal power struggles within Iran’s leadership:
conservative anti-Ahmadinejad coalition expands

The controversy between President Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei over the intelligence minister’s removal affair has brought the president under increasing criticism even from those conservatives formerly considered his staunch supporters. Some criticism went as far as warning Ahmadinejad that he could suffer the same fate as Iran’s former president Abolhassan Banisadr, impeached in 1981.

In his latest sermon, Tehran’s Friday prayer leader Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami implicitly criticized President Ahmadinejad, saying that the three branches of government enjoy legitimacy as long as they follow the principles of "rule of the religious jurisprudent”. According to Khatami, Iran’s senior officials should know that the public support they have is not absolute, and is dependent on their obedience to the Supreme Leader. The public supports those whose actions and words are closer to those of the Supreme Leader. No government branch can operate without the Supreme Leader’s approval, and obeying the "rule of the religious jurisprudent” is a religious and legal duty for the country’s top officials, Khatami said. The senior cleric also noted that the leaders of Iran should avoid any action that can be used by its enemies to claim that Iran has a dual government (various news agencies, April 29).

The president is also increasingly criticized by the Revolutionary Guards for his association with his controversial advisor Rahim Masha’i. Mojtaba Zolnour, the Supreme Leader’s deputy representative in the Revolutionary Guards, said this week that Masha’i has assumed the power of acting president, and that the intelligence minister’s removal affair reflects the depth of his involvement in running government ministries.

In a speech given in the city of Mashhad, Zolnour criticized the president’s continuous relationship with his advisor. He noted that while Ahmadinejad remains true to the values of the regime, he must cut himself off from the influence of people like Masha’i, who deviate from the values of the revolution and the concept of "rule of the religious jurisprudent”. He added that the president does have the power to dismiss government ministers; however, the intelligence minister’s removal was clearly driven by Masha’i’s influence and political considerations (ISNA, April 29).

In addition, the president is facing growing criticism from Iranian bloggers affiliated with radical right-wing conservatives, including those considered to be Ahmadinejad’s supporters. For example, the Khat-e Enghelab (Revolution Line) blog said last week that the president betrayed his voters. Hezbollah is not fooled by Masha’i and the government’s "deviant faction”, the blog says. "Why does Ahmadinejad betray our votes?” the blogger wondered. If Ahmadinejad had obeyed the Supreme Leader and dismissed Masha’i, things would have been different. By keeping Masha’i around, the president has caused frustration and discord among his supporters, and sacrificed national interests for his own stubbornness (http://adihamed.blogfa.com/post-350.aspx, April 28).

Asr-e Iran, a website affiliated with the pragmatic conservative bloc, addressed the

loss of support for the president from his former conservative supporters.

An editorial published by the website argues that, in the 2005 presidential race, Ahmadinejad had the support of conservative religious elements ("Hezbollah forces” in Iran) which believed him to be more loyal to the Supreme Leader than the other candidates. These candidates, as well as numerous clerics, believed that the Supreme Leader’s status had deteriorated during former president Mohammad Khatami’s reformist regime, and that Ahmadinejad’s election would allow the Supreme Leader to restore his status and better manage state and government affairs. Until now, these conservative elements have supported President Ahmadinejad thanks to the support he has had from the Supreme Leader for the past six years. Even the president’s conservative critics kept defending him thanks to his backing by Khamenei. The recent events, however, have prompted many of Ahmadinejad’s former supporters to cease supporting him. The political and religious groups that supported the president due to the Supreme Leader’s support have now come to the conclusion that Ahmadinejad has changed and is not as committed to Khamenei as he used to be. Accordingly, their commitment is gone as well (Asr-e Iran, April 30).

The criticism peaked when Ahmadinejad was warned that he could suffer same fate as Abolhassan Banisadr. Alef, a website affiliated with Majles Research Center chairman Ahmad Tavakoli, published an editorial titled "How did Banisadr become Banisadr?” The article, clearly directed at the president without mentioning his name, said that, in his early days, Banisadr too was not a symbol of deviation from the principles of the revolution. Over time, however, he underwent a process that transformed him from an elected president to a symbol of betrayal of the people, the revolution, and the regime.

Banisadr failed to realize that the people of Iran would only support him if he followed the wishes of Ayatollah Khomeini, the leader of the revolution. He surrounded himself with harmful advisors who gave him the false impression that he was supported by the public and that he could stand up to the Majles, the law, the judiciary, and the Revolutionary Guards. He believed that the Supreme Leader’s support of him reflected personal support. He would not accept criticism, thinking there was no one better or more talented than him. At some point, he would not even listen to the Supreme Leader and thought he could fulfill his desires at any price, even if they contradicted the interests of the regime and the revolution. He humiliated the clerics and ignored their criticism, with the result being that his pride, stubbornness, brash self-confidence, and submissive advisors turned him into what he became (Alef, April 30).

Last week, conservative cleric Hojjat-ol-Eslam Ja’far Shojouni, member of the conservative Combatant Clergy Association, warned that Ahmadinejad may suffer the same fate as Banisadr. In an interview to the reformist website Rooz Online, Shojouni said that while he has a great deal of respect for the president, he does not like his stubbornness with regard to Masha’i, and that unless he obeys the Supreme Leader’s instructions on the removal of the intelligence minister, he may suffer the same fate as the impeached president (Rooz Online, April 25). Shojouni later denied giving the interview to the reformist website.

The conservative daily Qods also hinted at the fate awaiting President Ahmadinejad if he does not obey the Supreme Leader. An editorial published earlier this week says that the history of the Islamic revolution shows that those who claimed to have the support of millions and distanced themselves from the Supreme Leader eventually lost the support of the public opinion, and were consigned to history by those who had voted for them and considered the "rule of the religious jurisprudent” a religious and political duty (Qods, April 30).

Earlier this week, Ahmadinejad returned to work after his absence from office, during which he had missed two government meetings. Fars News Agency reported that, at a meeting Ahmadinejad held with Iran Broadcasting director Ezatollah Zarghami, the president said he has a father-and-son relationship with the Supreme Leader. He noted that he intends to take part in the weekly government meeting to foil the schemes of Iran’s enemies and prove that they are unable to comprehend the depth of his connection with the Supreme Leader. Speaking at the Sunday government meeting, the president declared his loyalty to the Supreme Leader and to the principle of "rule of the religious jurisprudent”, and thanked him for supporting the government (Fars, May 1).

Following the president’s return to work, Hossein Shariatmadari, the editor-in-chief of Keyhan, said that the president once again proved his loyalty to and support for the Supreme Leader. However, Shariatmadari criticized his long demonstrative absence, wondering why he had acted in a way that furthered the schemes of Iran’s internal and external enemies. According to the editor-in-chief of Keyhan, the president’s absence was received favorably by the enemies of Iran, who suddenly became his supporters, praised him, and claimed he was ignoring the Supreme Leader’s instructions (Keyhan, May 2).

"Intifada of unity”: Iranian press and its support

for the Palestinian reconciliation agreement

The Hamas-Fatah reconciliation agreement achieved in Cairo last week was enthusiastically supported by Iran. Last weekend, Iran’s foreign minister Ali-Akbar Salehi hailed the agreement as one of the achievements of the revolution in Egypt. Salehi said the agreement was an important step towards fulfilling the Palestinian people’s goals, adding that unity among Palestinian groups and resistance to Israeli occupation are the two most important factors for reclaiming the rights of the Palestinians. The foreign minister expressed hope that the agreement would help the Palestinian people achieve great victories in their fight against the occupation, and that the agreement would result in the opening of the Rafah crossing (Mehr, April 29).

Iran’s media also expressed unanimous support for the Palestinian reconciliation agreement, saying it is yet another expression of the positive developments that have taken place in the Middle East in recent months.

The conservative daily Resalat argued that Hamas and Fatah must take advantage of the regional developments in the Middle East and the erosion of the West’s status there to focus on fulfilling the Palestinian objectives, liberating Jerusalem, and returning the Palestinian refugees. Both Palestinian groups should treat the Palestinian objectives as a common ground for concerted action. The daily also claimed that Israel’s angry reaction to the agreement proves the need for Palestinian unity against the U.S. and Israel. Abu Mazen has to learn from the regional developments, change his policy, which so far benefited Israel and the U.S., and stop believing the false promises made by the West and Israel (Resalat, April 30).

The daily Keyhan said that the reconciliation agreement proves that the Palestinians fully realize the sensitive conditions prevailing in the region, and that Israel’s strong reaction to the agreement is proof of its significance. While Palestinian national unity may take a while to achieve, the reconciliation agreement is significant in that it signals an end to internal Palestinian conflicts, making it possible for the Palestinians to benefit from regional developments.

An editorial published by the daily asserts that, since the Cairo agreement recognizes the right of "resistance” to carry weapons, it will likely allow jihadist groups to resume their activity in the West Bank and Jerusalem. Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s return to the Gaza Strip, which may prove a complicated process requiring adaptation to conditions set by the Palestinian Authority, will allow Hamas and PIJ forces to openly resume their activities in the West Bank over the next several weeks. This will put an end to the four-year period of calm enjoyed by the "Zionists”, considerably changing Israel’s security situation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

The article further states that recent Israeli public opinion polls indicate that over 70 percent of Israelis support the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. According to Keyhan, the polls show the "Zionists’” weakness.

Referring to Abu Mazen and his leadership, the daily Keyhan said that the Palestinians do not trust Abu Mazen and his initiatives; however, they do believe that he is able to lead the reconciliation process. This is similar to the situation of Egypt: while Egyptians have no confidence in Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, chairman of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, they feel he can take Egypt through the process of transformation from a country ruled by a non-popular, secular government to one ruled by an independent, popular, and religious administration (Keyhan, April 30).

The daily Siyasat-e Rouz also estimated that the reconciliation agreement will help the Palestinians fulfill their objectives. An editorial titled "The Intifada of Unity” says that the agreement must be viewed as an expression of a new intifada launched by the Palestinians, and an important step that lays the foundations for fulfilling their objectives. The Zionists have always tried to exploit Palestinian differences of opinion to realize their own objectives, and the unity between Fatah and Hamas can be a step towards a united struggle against the "Zionist occupiers”. While the Palestinians wanted to resume the intifada ever since the second intifada, they have been unable to do so due to internal disagreements.

The reconciliation agreement reflects not only unity between the two Palestinian groups, but also unity between Gaza, the West Bank, and Jerusalem, which may constitute the beginning of a new intifada supported by the entire Palestinian people. Despite the expected attempts by the Palestinians’ enemies to foil the unity, the reconciliation agreement may bring the Palestinian people closer to ending the occupation and achieving their rights (Siyasat-e Rouz, April 30).

Iranian reactions to Bin Laden’s killing: from skepticism to anti-American defiance

It was no surprise that the killing of Osama Bin Laden provoked a great deal of interest in Iran. Following the initial reports of the Al-Qaeda leader’s death, most Iranian media questioned their accuracy, wondering why the Americans did not provide conclusive evidence of Bin Laden’s death.

Alaeddin Boroujerdi, chairman of the Majles Foreign Policy and National Security Committee, also questioned the reliability of the American announcement, saying it is not the first time the Americans claim to have eliminated Bin Laden. In a conversation with journalists, Boroujerdi said that even if the report is true, it is not a significant achievement for the U.S. since its forces have been in Afghanistan for 10 years trying to capture the Al-Qaeda leader (Fars, May 2).

In addition to doubts about the reliability of the U.S. announcement on Bin Laden’s killing, the incident once again sparked criticism of the American foreign policy and claims that Bin Laden was simply an excuse for the U.S. to fulfill its expansion ambitions in the region and promote the political interests of the American administration. 

Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast commented on Bin Laden’s killing by saying that now there are no more excuses for foreign military presence in the region under the pretext of fighting terrorism. He expressed hope that Bin Laden’s killing will put an end to war and killing of civilians in the region and facilitate the establishment of peace and stability. Mehmanparast added that the killing of the Al-Qaeda leader has proven that there was no need for such a massive military campaign to eliminate a single person (Fars, May 2).

– You want me, your main excuse for the fight on terrorism, to just up and leave?
– Osama, dear, we gave you that role ourselves, and now we’re taking it away from you

(Farda News, May 3)

An editorial published by Fars News Agency following Bin Laden’s killing argued that the U.S. will now have to find a new enemy and a new way to control the region, particularly when considering the latest developments that have taken place there. China could be a substitute for Al-Qaeda and radical Islam, but since it is a major economic ally for the U.S., Iran is a likelier choice. Being a Shi’ite country, Iran can also be considered the strategic enemy of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and the religious enemy of the other Muslim countries. The U.S., therefore, will be able to employ the assistance of these countries to jointly fight Iran and undermine Muslim unity, which threatens the status of the West. According to Fars, President Obama doesn’t have too long to make a decision on the issue since the popular forces of the Middle East are growing stronger and the U.S. elections are coming. While Bin Laden’s killing may help Obama in his political race, the article said, the state of the American economy is not helpful to his cause, and the U.S. will therefore have to pick a new enemy—and soon (Fars, May 2).

The daily Keyhan referred to Bin Laden’s killing as the elimination of the "CIA agent” by the U.S., and argued that President Obama’s statement that the fight on Al-Qaeda and terrorism will continue even after Bin Laden’s death proves that his elimination will not put an end to the killings committed by the American forces in the Middle East (Keyhan, May 3).

The economic daily Donya-ye Eqtesad (World of Economy) also commented on Bin Laden’s killing, stressing that Bin Laden’s death does not signal the end of Al-Qaeda. Bin Laden may be dead, but the "Bin Laden phenomenon” still exists. The daily estimated that Bin Laden’s death may have negative consequences for America’s foreign relations. The U.S.-Pakistan relations may be compromised since the objective the two countries had in common—Bin Laden’s elimination—is no more. The U.S. relations with Saudi Arabia may also take a turn for the worse. The Americans, who had concerns in recent years over the activity of Bin Laden’s supporters in the kingdom, were patient towards its rulers. Now, their attitude towards Saudi Arabia may change.

According to the daily, Bin Laden’s death may also affect the U.S. relations with its European allies. In the past decade, the American foreign policy has focused on an attempt to build a unified global front against terrorism. Now the Americans will have to choose one of two options: telling their allies that the Al-Qaeda threat is as severe as it was before and admitting that Bin Laden’s killing was not that significant, or acknowledging that the Islamic threat has subsided, which would make it difficult for them to mobilize global action in the fight against terrorism. Bin Laden’s death is therefore a significant event, Donya-ye Eqtesad concluded, but one cannot say it has solved the Americans’ defense problems, and Bin Laden’s shadow will still loom over them (Donya-ye Eqtesad, May 3).

"A reactionary ceremony you wouldn’t find even in Arabian Nights”:

Iranian media and the royal wedding in Britain

Iran’s media used the occasion of Prince William and Kate Middleton’s wedding, held in London last weekend, to once again slam Iran’s historic enemy and accuse Britain’s royal family of corruption and spending public funds.

While British citizens are losing their jobs and suffering from a severe economic recession, the royal couple spends over 48 million dollars of British taxpayer money on the wedding ceremonies, the conservative Fars News Agency said. The news agency reported that many British citizens are disgruntled by the high cost of the royal wedding ceremonies. Fars even claimed that the ceremonies were designed to divert British public opinion from the severe economic crisis plaguing the kingdom. The agency reported that recent public opinion polls held in Britain allegedly indicate that nearly 80 percent of British citizens place no importance on the wedding, and that at least one third of them object to the way it was covered on British media (Fars, April 27, 29).

The coverage provided by the website of Press TV, an English-language Iranian channel, and Raja News, an ultra-conservative website, also centered on the cost of the wedding. The Press TV website claimed that many people in Britain believe it is unfair to impose the exorbitant wedding expenses on British taxpayers. The website emphasized criticism from some quarters in Britain that the wedding is a waste of public funds and that its expected revenues (from tourism and souvenirs, for example) will not cover its cost (Press TV, April 29).

In addition to criticizing the spending of public funds, the media widely discussed the security measures allegedly taken by the British authorities to prevent anti-royalists from demonstrating against the wedding. Fars News Agency reported a series of arrests by the British police ahead of the wedding in which several people who planned to demonstrate against it had been detained. According to the report, the British authorities warned dozens of people who took part in last month’s labor union demonstrations not to come near downtown London during the wedding ceremonies (Fars, April 29).

The news agency also claimed that the wedding reflects the political power of Britain’s royal family. Despite claims that the Queen’s power is merely symbolic, Fars claimed, the fact is that she plays a key role in Britain’s decision-making. Such involvement is evident in her powers with regard to appointing a prime minister, disbanding the parliament, and declaring peace and war (Fars, April 27).

The issue of the wedding guests was likewise targeted by Iran’s media, particularly in light of reports saying that the Syrian ambassador’s invitation was withdrawn in protest of the suppression of the riots in Syria. Iranian media wondered how the Syrian ambassador’s invitation was withdrawn while representatives from Saudi Arabia and Bahrain remained on the guest list despite these two countries’ involvement in the brutal suppression of the riots in Bahrain.

The media interest generated by the royal wedding in Iran was itself a target for criticism from conservative circles. The Tabnak website claimed that the fact that even Iran Broadcasting discussed the wedding is proof that Britain still dominates world public opinion. While Iranian media are busy covering the high cost of the wedding, the website said, the wedding organizers greatly benefit from the fact that the wedding had coverage even from media in countries that are most hostile to Britain. The exposure allows Britain to considerably increase its financial profits from the wedding and improve the status of the British royal family, which has lost some of its prestige in recent years as a result of its involvement in several scandals (Tabnak, April 30).

Iran Broadcasting director Ezatollah Zarghami discussed the wedding as well, referring to it as "a reactionary ceremony you wouldn’t find even in Arabian Nights”. Speaking at a conference in Tehran University, Zarghami claimed that no one in Europe dared to criticize the ceremony, and the journalists who covered it were even proud of taking part in it (ISNA, May 2).

However, the criticism did not stop Iranian news websites from publishing photographs from the wedding. The numerous comments made by Iranian web surfers on the photographs indicate that the event drew a great deal of interest from the Iranian public. Furthermore, the web surfers’ comments show a completely different approach than that expressed in the Iranian media’s critical coverage.

One comment reads as follows: "The expenses for the annual mourning ceremonies [commemorating the death of Imam Hussein in Shi’ite tradition] marked in Iran are far greater [than the royal wedding expenses]”. Another web surfer said that at least the people of Britain enjoy adequate social security and are guaranteed a basic living standard. He complained about the fact that the website did not publish the many photographs showing millions of people celebrating in the streets of London.

Referring to a recent remark made by a Majles member who claimed that there was not a single dollar left in Iran’s foreign currency reserves, one web surfer said that despite the considerable wedding expenses, Britain’s foreign currency reserves are not empty. Another web surfer wondered why the Iranian media always accentuates the negative aspects of everything. While the entire world covers the wedding itself, Iran’s media focuses on the corruption of the royal family and the wedding expenses. This kind of coverage is immoral and inappropriate, the web surfer wrote in his comment.

Pictures of the week: Tehran’s first video game show

 

 

Related Articles