Trial of Arbab Siyar; a new psychological warfare against Iran
A year ago on almost this exact day, an Iranian-American citizen named Mansour Arbab Siyar was accused of trying to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in U.S.A. However, Americans offered no valid evidence and only based their claims on Arbab Siyar’s using intercepted conversations. His first trial was held and U.S. media insisted that he had confessed in planning murder of the Saudi ambassador.
Siyar was arrested at the “JFK” airport in New York on September 2011. Arbab Siyar, who had lived for many years in South Texas, was charged in connection with Iranian Revolutionary Guards, and Mexican drug cartel for planning murders with possible explosives.
Concerning the jurisdiction of a U.S. court over his case, it should be insisted, based on international laws, that American courts have had full jurisdiction. This jurisdiction is based upon the conclusion that Arbab Siyar is an American citizen according to U.S laws. Moreover, the alleged assassination was planted presumably on U.S. soil. So, U.S courts had jurisdiction over the case. On the other hand, when a suspect person is Iranian - American, Iranian domestic laws do not consider him as an American citizen so; Iranian courts can also investigate the crime, because he/she is an Iranian citizen.
It also must be taken into account, legally proving such a crime is not easy. Arbab Siyar’s Court verdict has yet been issued and consequently Iranian government’s condemnation in this case is not clear. There should to be strong legal reasons and evidence for courts to issue such a major verdict. Under such circumstances, the U.S court should provide evidence to demonstrate that Arbab Siyar has been paid money by governmental or quasi-governmental sources within Iran. To date, no such evidence has been obtained and only 100 thousand dollars has been possibly transferred from an Iranian account to this American-Iranian citizen. Another issue raised is that Siyar has confessed in planning the murder of a Saudi ambassador. But, it is merely an acceptance of crime, no connection at all to his relationship with Iran. So as to prove that the Iranian government has been in contact and supportive of Arbab Siyar through is merely an issue worth discrediting. There is a need for much stronger evidence to even make such an accusation, absolutely no evidence in this connection has been provided.
Certificates of any deposits in his bank account can be questioned if deposited by a public official, this could be considered and is not hard to obtain. But another reason for this transaction of thousands into his account may be customers allocated to one account and deposited such amount over time. So the government cannot be accused of making such a transaction when there are many other lose ends to consider. Admittingly so, he should have done according to whatever laws apply, which means that if you happened to be subject to abuse or other terms it is acceptable and valid.
Next there lies the question of how Mansour confessed to the crime. Initially Mansour Arbab denied the charge, but after a year, the new admittance to the same crime seems odd. Why did he change his story? Was he coerced? It should be noted that the charges are more than black and white and there is a possibility that they are going to use this issue for political agendas. In fact we cannot even admit that such a trial would suffice. General belief that a person with no training and who only received 100 thousand dollars would carry out and assassinate the Saudi ambassador is illogical. This Court has no content and it is ultimately not reliable.
A civil court cannot condemn a country because this Court is not an international reference. Berlin Civil Court states on the ballot, the voter has no international credibility of the court if it so, be that because there is such credit that must be issued by international authorities. But usually in such cases the votes for face and credit is not good governing. The same should be looked at for half-court. You should first make sure that the vote is issued; and that the name came from Iran and is condemned. If they’re going to make an effort in this area Iran must be prepared within time and their reasons should be offered in advance to prevent such a vote to be taken.
It must be said that a layout with such international credibility, in the long term can be pulsed as domestic law. This can lead to a denial of the rights, property, assets or other relationships surface and become more strained. But there are no diplomatic relations between Iran and America, so in the end it could have political implications for the worse.
DR Mohammad Hussein Zarei
DR Mohammad Hussein zarei