Cartoon de Kal na revista The Economist

"Face a um Irão nuclear miliar o que fazer?" in Libération, 26 de Setembro de 2007

Une certitude: selon tous les experts, au rythme actuel, dan deux ans, Téhéran aura la maîtrise du nucléaire. Face à ce danger Washington avance des options militaires si les sanctions de l’ON ne font pas plier un pouvoir iranien désuni. Six questions-réponse pour examiner cette alternative
L’Iran continue de construire des «cascades» de centrifugeuses nécessaires à la production d’uranium enrichi - elle en disposerait d’une dizaine, pour un total de 1 640 machines. De son côté, Téhéran prétend disposer de 3 000 centrifugeuses, ce qui, en théorie, lui permettrait de fabriquer une bombe par an. Mais, pour cela, il lui faut enrichir l’U-235 (destiné au réacteur nucléaire) à 90 %, et non à 4 % comme actuellement.
Existe-t-il une «solution militaire» à la crise nucléaire iranienne ?
C’est ce que laisse entendre l’administration américaine, et, récemment, Sarkozy et Kouchner. Si attaque il devait y avoir, il s’agirait essentiellement de frappes aériennes conjuguées à des actions menées par les forces spéciales. Une «invasion» terrestre de l’Iran, comme celle de l’Irak en 2003, semble totalement exclue. Deux pays sont militairement capables de conduire ces frappes aériennes : les Etats-Unis et Israël - la France et la Grande-Bretagne possèdent des capacités offensives nettement plus réduites.
La première difficulté est d’identifier clairement les cibles: lesquelles faut-il détruire pour stopper le programme nucléaire iranien ou pour déstabiliser le régime, en particulier les Gardiens de la révolution qui constituent son bras armé ? Il existe aussi un risque de contamination radioactive en cas de frappes directes de matériel fissible. Dans toutes les hypothèses, une seule frappe ne serait pas suffisante : il ne s’agit donc pas de rééditer le bombardement de la centrale nucléaire irakienne de Tamouz, conduit par l’aviation israélienne en juin 1981.
Autre difficulté : les Iraniens se préparent à une telle attaque. Ils ont donc dispersé leurs sites, les ont renforcés en les enfouissant, parfois sous des tonnes de béton. Enfin, ils ont développé des défenses sol-air. Dernier problème: si des frappes aériennes anéantissent ou réduisent les capacités nucléaires de l’Iran, Téhéran ne restera pas sans réagir. Les cibles potentielles sont nombreuses: l’US Army est en Irak, en Afghanistan et dans le Golfe. En cas d’implication d’Israël, c’est le front du Liban qui pourrait se «rallumer» via le Hezbollah. Comme en Irak, le déroulement des premières heures d’une opération militaire est assez prévisible. Pour les suivantes, c’est beaucoup moins sûr…
Où se situe la «ligne rouge» ?
Il y a plusieurs lignes : diplomatique, technologique, militaire… La plus communément admise par les experts, c’est lorsque l’Iran aura accumulé assez de matière fissile pour fabriquer une bombe. Un horizon qui devrait être atteint en 2009 si Téhéran poursuit son programme au rythme actuel.
Les sanctions du Conseil de sécurité sont-elles efficaces ?
Même si elles ont une portée limitée, les deux résolutions du Conseil de sécurité, la 1737 et la 1747, adoptées à l’unanimité en décembre 2006 et mars 2007, ont déjà sérieusement affecté l’économie iranienne, comme le soulignait un rapport du FMI publié en mars. C’est le secteur financier qui est le plus touché. Parallèlement, la réduction des investissements étrangers dans le secteur pétrolier va aggraver la baisse de la production - estimée à 5 % par an, selon Akbar Torkan, directeur de la compagnie iranienne Pars Oil and Gas. Le secteur du raffinage, capable de ne répondre qu’à 60 % de la demande intérieure, est, lui aussi, affecté. Fin juin, un plan de rationnement de l’essence a été instauré, provoquant des émeutes à Téhéran. Par ailleurs, l’augmentation des primes d’assurance à l’exportation a entraîné le renchérissement des produits importés par Téhéran. D’où une hausse de l’inflation, estimée à présent à 40%. Une troisième résolution pourrait encore aggraver la situation, mais ni la Russie ni la Chine n’y sont favorables. D’où la volonté de Paris de contourner l’ONU par des sanctions prises dans un cadre européen.
Face aux sanctions et aux menaces, le régime iranien serre-t-il les rangs ?
Il apparaît au contraire divisé, même s’il maintient une unité de façade. Ainsi, les ex-présidents Rafsandjani et Khatami sont soucieux d’éviter l’isolement de l’Iran. Dans l’ensemble, le régime craint une intervention militaire que ne semble pas redouter, en revanche, le président Ahmadinejad. C’est dans ce contexte qu’il faut replacer la déclaration de Kouchner, dont on peut imaginer qu’elle était destinée à inquiéter le pouvoir iranien.
http://www.liberation.fr/actualite/monde/280834.FR.php
JPTF 2007/09/26

"Presidente do Irão afirma que dossier nuclear está ‘encerrado‘" in Público, 25 de Setembro de 2007

O Presidente iraniano, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, declarou hoje, perante a Assembleia-Geral das Nações Unidas, que considera "encerrado" o assunto sobre o dossier nuclear iraniano.

"Anuncio oficialmente que, para nós, a questão nuclear está encerrada e que passou a ser gerida pela Agência [Internacional de Energia Atómica]", declarou Ahmadinejad.

"Todas as nossas actividades nucleares têm sido completamente pacíficas e transparentes", acrescentou, acusando as potências ocidentais, "arrogantes", de tentarem privar o Irão "do seu direito à energia nuclear".

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad disse que, apesar das ameaças militares e das sanções "ilegais", o "Irão avançou, passo a passo, e hoje é reconhecido como um país com capacidade para a produção de energia em larga escala, para fins pacíficos".
http://ultimahora.publico.clix.pt/noticia.aspx?id=1305777
2007/09/26

"Entre protestos, o Presidente do Irão fala em Columbia" in New York Times, 24 de Setembro de 2007

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, facing a hostile reception at Columbia University this afternoon, said that Palestinians were suffering because of the Holocaust, proclaimed that there are no homosexuals in his country and said he wanted to visit the World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan during his trip to New York “to show my respect.”

In accepting an invitation to speak at Columbia while in New York for a meeting of the United Nations, Mr. Ahmadinejad subjected himself to protests from scores of students, faculty and others, and to a harsh critique from even the university’s president, Lee C. Bollinger.

In introductory remarks that ran more than 10 minutes, Mr. Bollinger defended the university’s right to invite Mr. Ahmadinejad to speak but moments later accused the Iranian leader of behaving like “a petty and cruel dictator.”

Earlier today, the university had been the scene of growing protests from hundreds of students and others who did not believe Columbia should have extended Mr. Ahmadinejad a platform. The lawn on campus was crowded with students and others who could not get into the forum, who watched him from a live telecast that had been set up by university officials.

Mr. Bollinger set the tone for what became a tense exchange between the Iranian leader and his hosts, who did not let him stray too far afield when he delivered a rambling speech by insisting that he stick to a time limit and putting direct questions to him about his country’s policies.

Throughout it all, Mr. Ahmadinjad tried to maintain a smile on his face, even when he began his remarks by complaining about his treatment at the hands of his hosts, saying that guests would not be treated in such a manner in Iran.

He described some of Mr. Bollinger’s remarks as an “insult” and “incorrect, regretfully.”

“In Iran, tradition requires that when we invite a person to be a speaker,” he said through a translator, “we actually respect our students and the professors by allowing them to make their own judgment and we don’t think it’s necessary before the speech is even given to come in with a series of claims and to attempt to provide a vaccination of sorts to our faculty and students.”

Mr. Ahmadinejad then meandered from science and religion, to the creation of human beings and the misuse of wisdom. But it was during the question-and-answer session that he was confronted about some of his most controversial positions.

He said that as an academic he questioned whether there was “sufficient research” about what happened after World War II, referring to the Holocaust. “We know quite well that Palestine is an old wound” for 60 years, he said at one point.

“We need to still question whether the Palestinian people should be paying for it or not.”

He was asked to answer directly whether he or his government seeks the destruction of Israel. He did not. But to solve the “60-year-old problem,” he said, “we must allow the Palestinian people to decide on its future itself.”

Someone from the audience asked Mr. Ahmadinejad if he was calling for the destruction of the State of Israel.

The Iranian president did not provide a yes or no answer, but spoke instead about the issue of Palestininian self-determination: “We love all nations. We love the Jewish people. There are many Jews living in Iran, with peace and security.”

When John H. Coatsworth, the acting dean of Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs, challenged Mr. Ahmadinejad to give a yes or no answer, the president responded:

“ Where’s the free expression in that?” he asked.

He called for a “free referendum” in Palestine. “Let the people of Palestine freely chose what they want for their future,”

In answer to criticism Mr. Bollinger had made about Iran’s treatment of women and gays, Mr. Ahmadinejad had much to say.

“In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals like in your country. We don’t have that in our country,” he said to boos and hisses and even some laughter from the audience.

“In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon,” Mr. Ahmadinejad continued, undeterred. “I do not know who has told you that we have it. But as for women, maybe you think that maybe being a woman is a crime.

“It’s not a crime to be a woman. Women are the best creatures created by God. They represent the kindness, the beauty that God instills in them. Women are respected in Iran.”

Mr. Ahmadinejad also said he hoped to visit the site of the World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan, although police had forbidden him to do so. Mr. Ahmadinejad said he wanted to “show my respect.”

He added: “Regretfully, some groups had very strong reactions, very bad reactions. It’s bad to prevent someone from showing sympathy to the families of the victims of the 9/11 event, a tragic event.”

Mr. Ahmadinejad has been trying to cast a positive light on his policies during his visit to a country where they have been criticized. Iran has been accused by the Bush administration of arming Shiite militias in Iraq as well as developing a nuclear weapons program, charges that the Iranian government denies.

Earlier today, he spoke at the National Press Club at midday in Washington via videolink from New York.

At the National Press Club event, Mr. Ahmadinejad said that Iran sought only peace and security for Iraq; he appeared to deny that Iran was providing weapons for Iraqi insurgents, and he said any talk of war with the United States was “a propaganda tool” by the West.

But Mr. Ahmadinejad, in his first real dialogue with the Washington press corps, expressed no great admiration for the United States. “We oppose the way the U.S. government tries to manage the world,” he said. “We believe it’s wrong; we believe it leads to war, discrimination and bloodshed.”

And he defended or repeated his earlier comments about the Holocaust, saying Iran could not recognize Israel “because it is based on ethnic discrimination, occupation and usurpation, and it consistently threatens its neighbors.”

At Columbia Mr. Ahmadinejad was asked to participate in the World Leader’s Forum. He is also scheduled to address the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday.

This morning, protesters, including students bused in from other schools, gathered at the university grounds ahead of the speech. Student groups and individuals started covering the campus with fliers. Columbia security guards closed off the grounds to anyone without a campus identification card, and the police set up barriers outside of campus.

“The events in Iran are disturbing,” said Lauren Steinberg, a political science major who was hanging up signs. “We don’t want to turn a blind eye to them. I personally don’t think he should have been invited to campus, but now that he’s here, I see it as an important opportunity for free speech and for us to denounce his views.”

“With the amount of people we will have, we will most likely stretch down a couple of blocks,” said Dani Klein, the campus director for StandWithUs, one of the sponsors of the protests.

“We felt that this went above and beyond the issues of free speech,” Mr. Klein said, adding that his objections included the lack of human rights in Iran and the fact that the university had given Mr. Ahmadinejad a platform. “You can criticize his views without honoring him the way they are.”

Other protests against the Iranian president were expected in the streets outside the United Nations in New York.

“We have today an extraordinary opportunity to directly engage” Mr. Ahmadinejad, said John Coatsworth, a dean at Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs, in an atmosphere of “civility and restraint,” the audience was told. Mr. Ahmadinejad arrived in the United States on Sunday and addressed people invited by the Iranian mission in a closed event at the New York Hilton.

The university was a scene of divergent views today: A group of Iranian-Americans taped a large Iranian flag in the middle of campus and taped up printed and hand-written fliers focusing on positive aspects of the Iranian government.

“There are Muslim, Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian representatives in Iran’s Parliament,” said a pink hand-written sign that was hanging on the side of Lerner Hall, where Mr. Ahmadinejad will be speaking.

“We want to show some of the positive things about Iran because we think there are a lot of the pictures in the past days that just create hatred and bigotry,” said Maryam Jazini, 23, who graduated from Columbia last year.

Another unsigned flier read: “Bollinger, too bad Bin Laden is not available. You could have presented him with some tough questions too.”

Mr. Ahmadinejad is allowed under international law and diplomatic protocols to travel freely within a 25-mile radius of Columbus Circle. But the police said last week that Mr. Ahmadinejad would not be allowed anywhere near Ground Zero during his trip.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/24/world/worldspecial/24cnd-iran.html?hp=&pagewanted=print
JPTF 24/09/2007

"Irão exibe poder militar" in Guardian, 22 de Setembro de 2007

The Iranian president was talking on the eve of his departure from Tehran, amid a storm of opposition to his visit to New York and growing international alarm over his country's nuclear ambitions. He is poised to deliver a defiant address to the UN General Assembly this week.
The Iranian military showed off a new long-range ballistic missile called the Ghadr - Farsi for 'power'. In a speech marking the event, Ahmadinejad shrugged off US and regional concerns about Iran's more assertive role, saying: 'Iran is an influential power in the region and the world should know that this power has always served peace, stability, brotherhood and justice.'

But with the Iranian leader expected to arrive in New York on Sunday for the annual meeting of the 192-member assembly, diplomats said his visit was likely to raise the temperature further surrounding international moves to curb Iran's nuclear enrichment programme.
Members of the UN Security Council have been informally consulting on the possibility of a new and tougher resolution in the wake of the Iranians' refusal to abandon its uranium-enrichment.

Last week, the French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner warned the Iranians that if diplomatic efforts failed to halt Iran from becoming a nuclear power, war was a possibility.

Speaking to The Observer, the British foreign secretary, David Miliband, played down that prospect, and interpreted Kouchner's remarks as a move to convey to Iran 'the depth of feelings' about 'the dangers of setting off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.'

He said both Britain and its EU allies were '100 per cent committed to a diplomatic solution.' But when asked whether he thought the issue 'will be solved by diplomatic means,' he stopped short of saying yes. He replied instead: 'I think it can be solved by diplomatic means.'

Ahmadinejad's visit has already sparked bitter opposition in New York.

He has been forced to cancel plans to 'pay respects to the American nation' at the 'Ground Zero' site of the September 11 terror attack on the World Trade Center amid protests from relatives of some of the victims.

On Friday, the president of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, overruled its School of International and Public Affairs and rescinded an invitation for Ahmadinejad to speak at its World Leader's Forum. The invitation had prompted widespread criticism in the light of Ahmadinejad's remarks calling for Israel's destruction and questioning the facts of the Nazi Holocaust.

Bollinger said the school could still have Ahmadinejad speak to faculty and students in a less formal and high-profile forum, but there appeared no immediate plans to revive the invitation
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2174956,00.html
JPTF 22/09/2007

"A guerra por ‘procuração‘: tropas britânicas enviadas para a fronteira iraniana" in The Independent, 12 de Setembro de 2007

British forces have been sent from Basra to the volatile border with Iran amid warnings from the senior US commander in Iraq that Tehran is fomenting a "proxy war".

In signs of a fast-developing confrontation, the Iranians have threatened military action in response to attacks launched from Iraqi territory while the Pentagon has announced the building of a US base and fortified checkpoints at the frontier.

The UK operation, in which up to 350 troops are involved, has come at the request of the Americans, who say that elements close to the Iranian regime have stepped up supplies of weapons to Shia militias in recent weeks in preparation for attacks inside Iraq.

The deployment came within a week of British forces leaving Basra Palace, their last remaining base inside Basra city, and withdrawing to the airport for a widely expected final departure from Iraq. Brigadier James Bashall, commander of 1 Mechanised Brigade, based at Basra said: "We have been asked to help at the Iranian border to stop the flow of weapons and I am willing to do so. We know the points of entry and I am sure we can do what needs to be done. The US forces are, as we know, engaged in the 'surge' and the border is of particular concern to them."

The mission will include the King's Royal Hussars battle group, 250 of whom were told at the weekend that they would be returning to the UK as part of a drawdown of forces in Iraq.

The operation is regarded as a high-risk strategy which could lead to clashes with Iranian-backed Shia militias or even Iranian forces and also leaves open the possibility of Iranian retaliation in the form of attacks against British forces at the Basra air base or inciting violence to draw them back into Basra city. Relations between the two countries are already fraught after the Iranian Revolutionary Guards seized a British naval party in the Gulf earlier this year.

The move came as General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador to Iraq, made some of the strongest accusations yet by US officials about Iranian activity. General Petraeus spoke on Monday of a "proxy war" in Iraq, while Mr Crocker accused the Iranian government of "providing lethal capabilities to the enemies of the Iraqi state".

In an interview after his appearance before a congressional panel on Monday, General Petraeus strongly implied that it would soon be necessary to obtain authorisation to take action against Iran within its own borders, rather than just inside Iraq. "There is a pretty hard look ongoing at that particular situation" he said.

The Royal Welsh battle group, with Challenger tanks and Warrior armoured vehicles, is conducting out regular exercises at the Basra air base in preparation for any re-entry into the city. No formal handover of Basra to the Iraqi government has yet taken place and the UK remains responsible for maintaining security in the region.

The Iraqi commander in charge of the southern part of the country, General Mohan al-Furayji, said he would not hesitate to call for British help if there was an emergency.

While previous US military action has been primarily directed against Sunni insurgents, it is Shia fighters, which the US accuses Iran of backing, who now account for 80 per cent of US casualties.

For the British military the move to the border is a change of policy. They had stopped patrols along the long border at Maysan despite US concerns at the time that the area would become a conduit for weapons into Iraq.

The decision to return to the frontier has been heavily influenced by the highly charged and very public dispute with the United States. British commanders feel that they cannot turn down the fresh American request for help after refusing to delay the withdrawal from Basra Palace. They also maintain that the operation will stop Iranian arms entering Basra.

Brigadier Bashall said: "We are not sitting here idly at the air bridge. The security of Basra is still our responsibility and we shall act where necessary. We are also prepared to restore order in Basra City if asked to do so."

The US decision to build fortifications at the Iranian border, after four years of presence in Iraq, shows, say American commanders, that the "Iranian threat" is now one of their main concerns.

Maj-Gen Rick Lynch, commander of the US Army's 3rd Infantry Division, said 48 Iranian-supplied roadside bombs had been used against his forces killing nine soldiers. "We've got a major problem with Iranian munitions streaming into Iraq. This Iranian interference is troubling and we have to stop it," he told The Wall Street Journal this week.

Meanwhile at a conference in Baghdad on regional co-operation, Iran claimed the US was supporting groups mounting attacks from Iraqi territory in the Kurdish north.

Said Jalili , Iran's deputy foreign minister, last night said: "I think [the US and its allies] are going to prevaricate with the truth because they know they have been defeated in Iraq and they have not been successful. And so they are going to put the blame on us, on the other side."
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2953462.ece
JPTF 2007/09/12

"Esposas temporárias ou prostitutas?" in El Pais, 1 de Julho de 2007

Mehdieh y Siavosh se han prometido amor... por un mes. Así se lo permite el matrimonio temporal (sigheh) que contempla el islam chií. Pero ni siquiera su incorporación a la ley tras la Revolución Islámica ha logrado vencer los recelos que suscita en la sociedad iraní, tal como ha probado la polémica desatada por las recientes declaraciones de un ministro partidario de promoverlo. Dado que en Irán las relaciones sexuales fuera del matrimonio están prohibidas y penadas, el sigheh ofrece una cobertura legal a jóvenes como Mehdieh y Siavosh que no pueden afrontar una boda. Sin embargo, muchos iraníes temen que sirva para promocionar la prostitución.

Maryam hace un gesto de desconfianza cuando la periodista le menciona el matrimonio temporal. "Sí, en el islam existe esa posibilidad, pero en nuestros días las mujeres lo rechazan", explica. Más allá de cuestiones religiosas, el énfasis que la sociedad iraní pone en la virginidad de las novias (con chequeo ginecológico incluido) convierte la opción en una hipoteca de su futuro. Aunque nadie hace alarde de ello, el sigheh es aceptado para viudas y divorciadas, pero una virgen necesita el permiso de su padre, algo altamente improbable.

"Nosotros hemos sorteado esa dificultad porque mi padre está enfermo", confía Mehdieh, de 23 años y a punto de concluir sus estudios universitarios. "De acuerdo con el islam, basta con nuestro compromiso personal; es la sociedad la que nos exige firmar un documento", añade Siavosh, de 28, un hombre muy religioso que parece bastante incómodo con el arreglo. Su trabajo en un puesto de kebabs no le da para alquilar un piso, una condición sin la cual no puede pedir la mano de Mehdieh. "Si tuviera el dinero, iría ahora mismo a hablar con su familia", asegura. De momento, mantienen su matrimonio en secreto.

Su angustia es compartida por millones de jóvenes. Por un lado, la ley islámica vigente en Irán prohíbe las relaciones sexuales fuera del matrimonio. Por otro, el paro (que oficialmente ronda un 10%, pero que muchos economistas sitúan en un 30%) y las dificultades económicas han retrasado la edad de la boda. Según las autoridades la media es de 23 años para las mujeres y de 26 para los hombres, pero un reciente estudio del Comité de Ayuda Imam Jomeini afirma que en las zonas rurales, sacudidas por una fuerte emigración masculina a las ciudades, las mujeres se están casando a los 30. La mitad de la población está por debajo de esa edad.

Con ese trasfondo, el ministro del Interior, el hoyatoleslam Mustafa Purmohamadi, sugirió a principios del mes pasado promover el sigheh entre los jóvenes para evitar "los problemas sociales que se derivan de la imposibilidad económica para contraer matrimonio". Su propuesta desató tal polémica que el portavoz del Gobierno, Gholamhosein Elham se vio obligado a tomar distancias. "No es una idea de la administración. El ministro se expresó en su calidad de clérigo", dijo. Hace 15 años ya hubo un intento oficial de promover el matrimonio temporal como alternativa a las relaciones extramaritales, pero la reacción social obligó a retirarlo.

"Quienes lo critican es por falta de conocimiento", asegura el hoyatoleslam Ali Teimuri, un clérigo autorizado a firmar contratos matrimoniales, que señala las condiciones de la costumbre. "El hombre no puede desatender a su esposa, si ya está casado, y debe contribuir al pago de los gastos corrientes de su nueva pareja". El islam permite el matrimonio hasta con cuatro mujeres, algo cada vez más infrecuente en Irán. No hay limitación para el número de sigheh, una institución que sólo acepta la rama chií de esa religión.

¿Y si una joven universitaria virgen a la que su novio ha propuesto un matrimonio temporal le pide consejo? "Le preguntaría si ve un futuro en esa relación, si cree que puede desembocar en algo permanente y la formación de una familia", responde. "Pero si el chico sólo pretende disfrutar de su cuerpo, entonces le aconsejaría que no destruya su vida". No sólo la suya. Los posibles hijos de esas relaciones quedan a expensas del reconocimiento paterno, a falta de lo cual se les considera ilegítimos y carecen de derecho a la herencia.

"Renovamos nuestro compromiso ante Dios de mes en mes para no olvidarnos de nuestro acuerdo", interviene Siavosh cuando se menciona esa posibilidad. "Somos adultos, pensamos en el futuro". Mehdieh confía en Siavosh y la actitud cariñosa y protectora de éste, que en todo momento se refiere a ella como "mi mujer", parece respaldarla.

Otros han buscado una aplicación más utilitaria del sigheh. Una agencia de viajes ha anunciado vacaciones en el Mar Caspio para las parejas que deseen un matrimonio temporal. El paquete incluye alojamiento y un clérigo para registrar el contrato. Y es que ocasionalmente algunas jóvenes liberadas también utilizan la fórmula para viajar con sus novios y poder dormir en la misma habitación de hotel, o evitarse problemas con la policía moral

Pecados legalizados
El hoyatoleslam Ali Teimuri, clérigo autorizado a firmar contratos matrimoniales, trata de explicar las bondades de esta polémica entre los iraníes. "Si uno pasa delante de las universidades, los institutos o los parques, ve a chicos y chicas que hablan y se tocan. No sólo pasa en Irán sino en todas partes. El islam dice que hay que legalizar esa relación para que no sea pecado (haram)", expone, "no podemos castigar a los jóvenes por esa necesidad".

Teimuri compara el sigheh con una medicina. "Al enfermo no le gusta tomarla, pero ve que le ayuda", argumenta. En su opinión, "las mujeres están sensibles al respecto; tenemos que trabajar para que lo acepten sin que ninguna se ofenda". Para él, se trata de una forma de matrimonio tan legítima como el convencional.

"No se trata sólo de que el hombre siga sus impulsos sexuales, sino también de atender las necesidades afectivas de la mujer y de ayudarla en sus necesidades económicas", precisa el religioso. Teimuri rechaza además un sigheh por horas. "Eso no es aceptable. No les daría tiempo ni a salir de mi despacho; para una semana, no tendría problemas, pero por dos horas no es lógico".
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/sociedad/Esposas/temporales/prostitutas/elpepuint/20070701elpepisoc_6/Tes
JPTF 2007/07/01