Issues

Friday, November 22, 2013

Iran's response to Reuter's article

Reuters has published Iran's response to their three part article series about Khamenei's wealth and asset. Not surprisingly, Iran completely rejects the analysis and further accuses the authors of indulging in misinformation.

Reuters, however is standing by their claim.

Barb Burg, a Reuters spokesperson, said the news agency stands by the accuracy and fairness of its articles. Its estimate of Setad's net worth was based on an analysis of statements by Setad officials, data from the Tehran Stock Exchange and company websites, and information from the U.S. Treasury Department.

They didn't get back to the investigators/authors

A spokesman for Setad did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment.

While critical of Reuters investigation, the IRNA text did not address Reuters key findings, namely the confiscation of property or Setad's stakes in nearly every sector of the Iranian economy, including finance, oil, telecommunications and pharmaceutical companies.
Iran didn't like the article very much, yet is not ready to reveal more information about all these organizations that are well connected to Khamenei.


5 comments:

  1. Hmmm so your saying Sayyid Khameini has amassed a PERSONAL private fortune, which he hides. And then behind the scenes, when no body is looking he jets out of Iran to some mansion in Dubai to chill out for a bit? Or has he amassed this great wealth for his wife and children (who use public hospitals)? Does the money belong to him personally or does it belong to the position he occupies and hence having no chance of being inherited by his family. And if the collection of wealth is in and of itself evil then what about every other Mujtahid that receives khums?

    This article just reeks of desperation... Always attempting to character assassinate the enemy, even when all they have from eye witness accounts is a Pious slave of the All Mighty.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The article didn't touch on Khums at all. I guess the amount of Khums the Ayatullahs generally received is not really significant..probably petty change.

    The article didn't claim that Khamenei is enriching himself. Here I'm quoting the article

    “Reuters found no evidence that Khamenei is tapping Setad to enrich himself. But Setad has empowered him. Through Setad, Khamenei has at his disposal financial resources whose value rivals the holdings of the shah, “

    ReplyDelete
  3. The article made a claim that Khamenei has an unfair advantage politically, economically etc over everyone else in the country via his association with these rich and powerful organizations like Setad and the guards. Without them, Khamenei would probably not last as long as he is now. That I think is the point of the article.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Unfair political advantage?? He is not elected by the people so as to make use of this 'unfair' advantage. If he trespasses the limits of the constitution then the GC can have him removed. So the idea of him being an all powerful dictator trying to suppress others so that he can keep his position is ridiculous.

    All this wealth the report mentions is not the Sayyid's. He was chosen by the GC and they can remove him. The GC are elected by the people.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's easier said than done. It's not very easy to remove very influential political leader with life-time tenure. Did you not see how hard they tried to remove the Egyptian dictator, Hosni Mubarak, only to have his cronies back in power. Iranians didn't vote him in power. Wilayah al-Faqih is not a representative democracy, it's a republic. The power of many are diluted by the power of very few. The only way the Iranian Supreme Leader will leave his position is when they carry him out in a coffin.

    Anyway, this article is written by persons who don't agree with the current Iranian political system. I'm sure you can find glowing articles and reviews from pro-Khamenei faction. And like always, you'll always find people who agree to something and people who disagree to something. Nothing to get upset over.

    ReplyDelete

Got something to say?