The Islamic Republic has been promoting unity for forty years: Marzieh Hashemi

TEHRAN – Press TV anchor Marzieh Hashemi says the number of Islamic unity conferences held by the Islamic Republic of Iran demonstrates that Iran has been stressing the importance of unity from the very beginning.

“We have enemies who are trying to say that Iran is a divisive entity, but the facts speak way beyond that and what Iran is doing,” she told the Tehran Times on the sidelines of the International Islamic Unity Conference in Tehran on Thursday.

“We know that the Palestinians are not Shia, so it is not about Shia or Sunni, it is about what is right as well as fighting against oppression,” Marzieh Hashemi tells the Tehran Times.

Ms. Hashemi, who converted to Islam in the aftermath of the Islamic Revolution, also said the most important way to overcome Islamophobia in Western countries is through person-to-person contact between Muslims and non-Muslims.

The transcript of the interview is presented below:

Q: What’s the significance of the International Islamic Unity Conference and how can this event promote unity between Sunni and Shia Muslims?

A: I think the International Islamic Unity Conference is very important and of course we’ve been seeing it take place for years now. It is important that we continue to stress that sense of commonness between the Sunnis and the Shias and that Islam is what’s important. We have to make sure that we’re strong and that we’re united and that we stand together, especially during these times that the enemies are trying to divide us. If we stand together, with the population that we have in our Islamic Ummah, victory is promised to us and there’s no way that we can be defeated. The defeat will only come if we allow others to divide us. Whether it’s dealing with ethnicities or nationalities, we know that as Muslims we must be above that and that Islam is our priority. Inshallah we will be able to be even more united and Inshallah we will have the ultimate victory. 

Q: Some countries say Iran is a divisive entity that divides Muslims by following sectarian policies. What’s your thought?

A: What we have seen in the forty-year history of the Islamic Republic, from the Islamic Revolution on, is the opposite of that. We have seen policies coming out of Iran that definitely encourage unity. If we go back to the time of Imam Khomeini at the beginning of the Revolution and what happened right after that, we see that actually the Israeli embassy under the time of the Shah was given to the Palestinians after the Revolution. We know that the Palestinians are not Shia, so it is not about Shia or Sunni, it is about what is right as well as fighting against oppression. And I think the Islamic Republic has proven itself time and time again that it is definitely not trying to divide the Ummah, but it is bringing it together. We have enemies who are trying to say that Iran is a divisive entity, but the facts speak way beyond that and what Iran is doing, for example this conference right now. If Iran was promoting division, then why would it continue to encourage unity? And I believe this is the 33rd conference, so it’s not new. This demonstrates that from the very beginning, Iran has been stressing the importance of unity. Again, it’s with unity that we will have the ultimate victory.

Q: Isalmophobia and anti-Muslim bigotry are currently very prevalent in Western societies. How can such conferences help resolve those issues and promote more nuanced views of Islam and Muslims?

A: I think by bringing Muslims together from all over the world, we realize we’re not alone and we are a very very large community. When we’re dealing with these countries – these Western countries – it is important to note how we carry ourselves as Muslims. We have to have that Akhlagh (ethics), that personality that we learned from Rasoul Allah Hazrat Muhammad (PBUH), and I think that attracts people. With people in the West, of course, the goal of the hegemonic powers is to try to portray Islam in a negative way. But interestingly, what’s happening in so many places is that people who have relationships with Muslims – whether as neighbors or colleagues – see that the reality is something else. They see that Muslims are not what they’re portrayed to be. So, I think it’s this person-to-person contact that is actually changing that perception, and we as Muslims are changing it. For example, in the United States and in other places, at the end of the day we’ve had more and more people convert to Islam, in spite of the peak of Islamophobia that followed 9/11. 

Iranian Spying, or Neocon War Crimes Cover-up?

The really free press in not headquartered in the US

Kevin Barrett

In February 2013, in the lobby of the Parsian Azadi Hotel in Tehran, I spoke extensively with Monica Witt, a whistleblowing ex-Air Force officer who was participating in the Hollywoodism Conference, a section of the Tehran Film Festival. While I don’t remember specific details, I do remember Ms. Witt saying she had been forced to witness and participate in horrific war crimes.

Six years later, on February 13, 2019, the Justice Department charged Monica Witt with two counts of espionage. The indictment alleges that Witt moved to Iran in Summer 2013 and later shared secrets she had learned in the Air Force.

The hysterically Iranophobic Trump regime is leveraging its indictment of Monica Witt to try to smear Tehran-based English-language news outlet PressTV and annual-conference-sponsoring NGO New Horizon. Back in 2012 and early-2013, when Witt was just another US government whistleblower, PressTV interviewed her, and New Horizon or the Tehran Film Festival invited her to the Hollywoodism Conference. According to the Trump regime narrative, these completely transparent actions conducted openly and in the glare of the public spotlight, were somehow part of a dastardly plot to recruit Witt as a spy.

A month ahead of the Monica Witt indictment, the FBI kidnapped PressTV anchor Marzieh Hashemi and held her for ten days under circumstances bordering on torture. The rationale for kidnapping Ms. Hashemi was the claim that she was a “material witness” to Monica Witt’s alleged spying. Why? Apparently because she had interviewed Witt. But Ms. Hashemi was never charged with a crime. After several interrogations, she was released without charge. Yet the indictment of Monica Witt states that “Individual A” who can only be Ms. Hashemi “engaged in acts consistent with serving as a spotter and assessor on behalf of the Iranian intelligence services.”

Obviously, if there were any actual evidence that Marzieh Hashemi was so employed, she never would have been released without charge. So we may assume that “acts consistent with” really means, “Marzieh Hashemi is a journalist who reports critically and fearlessly on American issues, and in so doing interviews sources who might be characterized as whistleblowers or dissidents.” In other words, Hashemi regularly commits a crime called “journalism.” And just as journalist Glen Greenwald, in the course of his journalistic duties, interviewed a whistleblower who wound up living in Russia (Edward Snowden) it seems that Marzieh Hashemi may have interviewed a whistleblower who wound up living in Iran (Monica Witt). But, contrary to US claims, neither Greenwald nor Hashemi is a spy. Both are journalists who, unlike certain mainstream media hacks, actually do their jobs.

Like the Justice Department’s implied case against Marzieh Hashemi, the Treasury Department’s explicit case against the New Horizons NGO is unsupported by any evidence. The official narrative seems to be that Witt had such a wonderful time at the Hollywoodism Conference that she later decided to move to Iran (and supposedly spill some secrets). If that were true — and I can testify that just about everybody who attends Iran-based conferences has a wonderful time — the conference organizers would be guilty of the crime of hosting a wonderful conference. Last I checked, that wasn’t grounds for Treasury Department sanctions.

Could New Horizon conferences really be about recruiting spies, not ex-changing ideas? The notion is preposterous. Just look at the participants’ lists! Virtually none of the conferees are people who could be expected to hold any secrets. On the contrary, the many New Horizon conferences I have attended have featured hundreds of leading intellectuals and alternative journalists, but (until last May’s Palestine conference in Mashhad) were remarkably bereft of US military and intelligence veterans.

I know the New Horizon organizers fairly well, and even helped them on more than one occasion by suggesting prospective guests. When I repeatedly suggested that they invite such patriotic American ex-military/intelligence types as Veterans Today editors Gordon Duff and Jim Dean, former CIA officer Philip Giraldi, ex-State Department issuer of visas for al-Qaeda Mike Springmann, former US Army counterterrorism and PsyOps expert Scott Bennett, and others from USG backgrounds, I was told that while the New Horizons NGO would love to do so, the Iranian government makes it hard for such people to get visas.

Finally, in May 2018, in an attempt to foster goodwill and trust, the Iranian government relented. Giraldi, Springmann, Bennett, Dean, and Michael Maloofwere invited and attended. On the final day of that Conference, Bennett and others spearheaded an attempt to convince the Iranian government to bring 9/11 truth into an American federal courtroom.

Former US-Air Force officer Monica Witt was indicted on espionage charges by the Trump regime for sharing secrets with Iranian intelligence one month after PressTV anchor Marzieh Hashemi was forcibly held as a material witness in the case. Ms. Hashemi was not charged with a crime, and it appears that Ms. Witt is also being accused on spurious evidence.

I believe the real reason for the witch-hunt against New Horizon and Marzieh Hashemi is New Horizon’s and PressTV’s success at fostering dialogues that include voices that are suppressed and censored in the US and the rest of the West. The 9/11 truth movement, in particular, obviously terrifies the Establishment. When the May 2018 New Horizon conference in Mashhad nearly persuaded the Iranian government to throw its full support behind a major 9/11 truth initiative — one that could have led to discovery proceedings forcing suspected 9/11 perpetrators like Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and others to testify under oath — the neoconservative element of the Establishment must have panicked. The current witch-hunt is their way of lashing out.

Think about it: if this is really about Monica Witt supposedly spilling secrets, why did they wait so long? According to the feds, Witt, supposedly possessing vital national security secrets, has been living in Iran as a Muslim convert since summer 2013. Since Witt was on US authorities’ radar screen as a dissident and potential whistleblower long before that, it seems obvious that damage limitation measures would have commenced by mid-2013 at the latest. Any operations Witt could have compromised would have been shut down or revamped at that time, if not earlier. So the narrative that Witt has gravely damaged US national security, and we are only hearing about it now, seems implausible. Instead, the timing of the indictment, and the simultaneous persecution of Ms. Hashemi and sanctioning of New Horizon, suggests that the neocon Deep State is panicking over PressTV’s and New Horizon’s success at fostering dialogue on suppressed issues like 9/11 truth — dialogue inclusive of loyal and patriotic US military and intelligence insiders. Presumably the neocon Deep State has invented a fake tale of Monica Witt’s alleged spying as an excuse to try to persecute and silence truth-loving journalists and intellectuals.

But let’s consider all the possibilities. In the unlikely event that Monica Witt really has spilled important US secrets to Iranian intelligence — this according to the neocon Deep State tale that the entire mainstream media has swallowed uncritically — who would really deserve the blame? Journalists who covered her whistleblowing? Conference organizers who offered her a completely transparent platform? That’s the propaganda line. But it’s preposterous.

Anyone who has conversed with Monica Witt knows that she is a highly intelligent, deeply sincere person who was horrified and traumatized by the war crimes in which she was forced to participate. The New York Times cites her classmate Cory Ellis, “She would talk about how she couldn’t sleep at night, the stuff she saw and was a part of,” said Mr. Ellis. Ms. Witt, he remembered, would mention drone strikes, extrajudicial killings and atrocities against children, all of which she claimed her colleagues in the military would brag about.

As a whistleblower, Monica Witt discussed some of these atrocities with journalists, including Marzieh Hashemi, and apparently also approached WikiLeaks. And of course she participated in the Hollywoodism Conference in Tehran.

So who is really at fault here? The journalists? The conference? Or the war criminals who rape and dismember children, massacre women and children in drone strikes, and engage in sexual assault against their fellow service members with impunity?

If the US government wants to prosecute the people responsible for Monica Witt’s decision to move to Iran, they should begin by investigating the US military personnel who committed the atrocities she witnessed — the atrocities that traumatized her and forced her to follow her conscience, wherever it may have led her.

Silence of the Lambs: The Case of Marzieh Hashemi

by RANNIE AMIRI

Drawing by Nathaniel St. Clair

In the wake of the outcry after the abduction and murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi—in a foreign country and under the directive of a rogue Crown Prince—one would think the threshold to condemn the detention of an American journalist in the United States without charge or trial would be quite low. Unfortunately, it has proven to be nearly insurmountable.

Marzieh Hashemi, a US citizen and anchorwoman of Iran’s English-language news station, PressTV, had been held under these circumstances for 10 days beginning shortly after her arrival to St. Louis Lambert International AirportJan. 12 to work on a documentary on the Black Lives Matter movement. She was finally released, again without charge, on Wed Jan. 23.

Hashemi was purportedly an alleged material witness in an as-yet unspecified investigation. She was forced to remove her headscarf and offered pork to eat, both against the tenets of her religion, before being transferred to Washington, D.C. to an unknown location.

As such, the muted response of those organizations whose primary purpose is to stand for press freedoms and human rights and against religious intolerance was rather remarkable.

The Committee to Protect Journalists “expressed concern” in their statementon the situation but simultaneously found it necessary to add that, “Iran routinely jails journalists” as if to provide pretext for the US to do likewise.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the self-proclaimed largest US Muslim civil rights advocacy organization, called onthe Department of Justice to merely “explain” why an American citizen living in Iran was deprived of her religious and due process rights. Indeed, CAIR’s national executive director politely asked law enforcement officials to just “clarify” the matter.

The incarceration of Hashemi was nowhere to be found on the Reporters Without Borders action page. Even the American Civil Liberties Union was seemingly mum on the case despite its salient “No Charges? No Trials? No Justice” article on Indefinite Detention.

The FBI and federal officials confirmed Hasehemi was not accused of or charged with any crime although little else is being said. The allowance that a witness may be so held if they are considered a flight risk, unwilling to respond to a subpoena or testify in a criminal proceeding of vital importance is more properly debated in legal circles (never mind that the myriad of legal experts routinely appearing on the various US cable news channels have not said anything on Hashemi but had the time to speak at length about CNN’s Jim Acosta’s ban from White House press briefings). However, the circumstances of Hashemi’s detention, that she is employed by an Iranian television station and in the context of the bellicose rhetoric adopted by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Advisory John Bolton against Iran, made her confinement more than suspect.

Regardless of the legal ramifications and precedent set, the silence of groups and organizations regarding her ill-treatment and custody set an equally dangerous one. It highlights what little courage it takes to condemn atrocities committed abroad by foreign governments yet the mistreatment of an American journalist on domestic soil by US authorities will go unchecked.

It is this duplicitous, timid, half-hearted-to-absent response which requires “explanation” and “clarification” for us all.

Rannie Amiri is an independent commentator on Middle East affairs.

The Brazen Detention of Marzieh Hashemi, America’s Newest Political Prisoner

by STANLEY L. COHEN

Drawing by Nathaniel St. Clair

Any discussion of the detention of journalist Marzieh Hashemi must begin in the historical context that all presidents have used the Department of Justice for constitutionally prohibited personal ends. The calculated seizure and political intimidation of Mrs. Hashemi and her family in the United States is but the most recent flagrant instance.

Whether it’s the deportation of political enemies during the Palmer Raids of the early 1900’s, or the COINTELPRO attacks a half a century later upon dissidents of color through assassination, mock show trials and indefinite detention of political prisoners, or the post 9-11 hysteria that drove hundreds of thousands of Muslims from the United States, or the targeted attack on whistle blowers and construct of the surveillance state by the last president, all have seen their executive power as essentially boundless, and their thirst to use it . . .  largely unrestrained.

Yet none before has been so public, indeed brazen, as is the current one in his utter contempt for the settled rule of law and procedure. Indeed in Trump’s view the Department of Justice exists as but a mere extension of his own political thirst and agenda and may be employed as a tool to implement personal and political reprisal. In this light, the lawless seizure of Marzieh Hashemi was as predictable as it is ominous in both process and substance.

The history of the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) has largely lain dormant with few prosecutions, if any, for violations and none before that have triggered the seizure of an American journalist pursuant to the subterfuge of a material witness order, here employed as little more than political handcuffs.

As of now there has been no official comment by the Department of Justice as to the nature of the grand jury dodge that served for the illegal and unnecessary seizure of Mrs. Hashemi when she recently de-boarded a flight in St. Louis, Missouri.

Initial grounds for the unprecedented seizure of the highly respected anchor for Press TV swung wildly, ranging from leverage to obtain the release of other Americans “held” in Iran to a US investigation into possible violations of the recently re-imposed political sanctions against Iran to OFAC violations (Office of Financial Assets Control) arising from her unlicensed work for a designated foreign state.

If, as it turns out, the seizure of Mrs. Hashemi finds its genesis in an unprecedented criminal investigation of a news outlet pursuant to FARA, to understand just how calculated and arbitrary a step it is, one need only look at its very different  application against the Russian state owned media outlets Sputnik and RT.

Cast in the light of the hysteria over alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election, Congress and various government agencies turned their attention to both outlets. Claiming the need to provide listeners with notice as to their partisan bent, in point of fact FARA was used against Sputnik and RT as so much a legislative bully-pulpit in a readily transparent effort to “purify” if not control the message of these two foreign owned outlets.

Yet, if FARA triggered the stunning seizure of Marzieh Hashemi, that precipitous step bears no likeliness whatsoever to the procedural and substantive approach employed by the US government with regard to like violations by Sputnik and RT.

In neither case were journalists of the networks seized by the government for possible violation of FARA. In neither case were the networks targeted for grand jury investigation.  In fact, unlike here, both media outlets were given ample opportunity to raise objections to the applicability of FARA to their activity and when their arguments proved unavailing a chance to either register with it or to cease operations within the United States. Failing this, the government threatened but did not, at any time, undertake criminal prosecutions or arrests of employees, let alone journalists, who worked for the outlets.

That is not what has apparently happened here with Press TV. In this regard there is no evidence that Press was put on notice that it’s “presence” within the United States or acquiring and using information it received in and about controversial US issues for airing in Iran, and elsewhere, triggered FARA oversight let alone a criminal violation of its reach. Nor, does it appear, Press was given an opportunity to challenge a claim that its activity fell within the rubric of FARA. Finally, there is no evidence Press was given an option to either register with FARA or to cease its operation or a warning that failure to do so could result in the prosecution of the network or the arrest of its journalists.

In this light it is palpably clear that the Department of Justice has employed a double standard between its approach to the application of FARA to Sputnik and RT and to that applied as against Press TV.

Given a grand jury investigation into Press for an alleged criminal violation of FARA and the arrest of one of its most respected journalists, it is beyond cavil that the US government has chosen to selectively enforce and punish it for political reasons driven, no doubt, by an Oval Office agenda.

Can it be that this double standard is as much the result of the administration’s conscious effort to curry favor with the Russian government at the same time it seeks to punish Iran for the temerity of its political will and social independence?

Putting aside the government’s arbitrary application of FARA to Press, there can be no informed debate that the seizure and detention of Mrs. Hashemi pursuant to a material witness order is not just well beyond the norm, but here borders on political kidnapping.

As a rule subpoenas are served many thousands of times each year in the United States during the course of federal criminal or civil proceedings to ensure the availability of witnesses before grand juries or at trial who possess material and relevant information that is probative of a fact or an issue in controversy.

For those who, without legal challenge, simply refuse service of a subpoena or who seek to avoid or evade it the government or a private litigant may seek relief from the court to enforce compliance. Known as a material witness order, that relief compels the recalcitrant witness to appear before the court to determine for itself whether any further judicial intervention is necessary to ensure compliance with the subpoena.

A rare, by design, intimidating exception to the rule, a material witness order can only be issued pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 3144following a sworn fact based assertion that the necessary witness will not make herself available for testimony pursuant to normal process of law. Generally an affirmative showing must be made that the witness has by voice or conduct attempted, or will attempt, to flee or place herself beyond the reach of the court and thus unavailable to provide testimony in a given proceeding.

Once issued, a material witness order does not allow for indefinite detention of a witness but simply permits federal agents, in this case the FBI, to temporarily detain and present the witness to the court forthwith for a determination as to what steps, if any, must be taken to ensure the on-going availability and appearance of them as needed.

Although not charged with a crime, the court essentially considers the same factors for release or detention of a witness that it would weigh and balance if they had otherwise been arrested for an offense.  Among other things it must consider whether she is a flight risk or poses a danger to the broader community if released. It considers whether the witness is a citizen or lawful resident and if he or she has ties to the community such as family and employment. It may consider what affirmative acts if any have been taken by the witness to avoid process and appearance and what steps the government undertook before seeking judicial relief to obtain their availability before the grand jury or at trial.

Most important, the court must keep in mind that the witness has not been charged with an offense and should undertake such examination as is necessary to determine to the degree possible whether she will in fact appear for testimony of her own volition, thus militating against the need for imposition of any court imposed conditions.

Should the court remain unsettled over the willing availability of the witness to appear at a future proceeding, it has at its disposal a full range of coercive but non-custodial options ranging from bail or secured bond to home confinement or supervised release including reporting to pre-trial services and electronic monitoring such as an ankle bracelet. Typically, if released, the court will require that the witness surrender travel documents including any passport and restrict domestic transit during the pendency of the proceeding to the district where she is to reside and to that where her testimony is compelled.

Although the law varies from circuit to circuit there is generally a presumption that detention of a prospective witness especially long-term incarceration should be used sparingly and only as a last resort and where there is no less burdensome alternative. Nowhere is that more applicable, than here, where Marzieh Hashemi  is a US citizen with extensive family and life-long ties to the United States and who has made frequent travel to her home and community for family and professional reasons.  Indeed, there is nothing before us that indicates that she would willingly avoid or evade the jurisdiction of the court or has indicated any failure to comply with the lawful requirements of a duly issued subpoena.

To the contrary it beggars the imagination that Mrs. Hashemi would travel to the United States to visit with her children and grand children and to continue working on a documentary apparently long under way and, yet, without more, pose a risk of non-compliance with a subpoena for her testimony while here.

The voluntary arrival of Marzieh Hashemi in St. Louis Airport under her lawful name, with her duly issued passport and high profile persona puts the lie to any government claim that she is a fugitive, evasive or unwilling to voluntarily comply with lawful process of any court. Yet upon arrival, this prominent journalist and long standing critic of US policy at home and abroad was seized by the government and essentially disappeared as so much an unconstitutional domestic rendition. That she subsequently appeared before a court does little to salvage her abduction at the hands of government agents.

The public record with regard to the arrest and detention of Mrs. Hashemi is sparse indeed.  In this light it is, at this point, impossible to discern the basis for any claim that a material witness order was appropriate or necessary to assure her appearance before the grand jury.

Under the law, the government cannot seek nor can the court issue a material witness order on the basis of mere soothsay that non-compliance is expected at some future date on the part of a witness once served with a subpoena. Nor can it argue that it anticipates a potential witness will seek to avoid service or lawful obligation at some future date. To hold otherwise would be to empower the government to ignore long settled and basic procedure to obtain the testimony of a witness without resort to rank force and encourage its use as a systematic tool of coercion and intimidation.  Yet that is precisely what appears to have occurred with regard to Marzieh Hashemi.

Under the law it is not possible that the government could have been in possession of a material witness order for Mrs. Hashemi’s arrest upon arrival in St. Louis in the absence of any evidence that she had previously evaded service of a subpoena or fled the United States to avoid one only later to return. Nor is there any evidence that while living in Iran the US government attempted to serve a subpoena upon her or through counsel for some future appearance which she willfully ignored.

Under these circumstances it is well grounded to assume that as a Muslim and a popular Iranian employed journalist long critical of the United States, Mrs. Hashemi was, at some point, added to a list of political dissidents to be detained upon her return to the United States.  Once here, she was moved quickly by the government from dissident status to that of presumptive disobedient witness and arrested.

Marzieh Hashemi has appeared before a federal grand jury in the District of Columbia at least once, if not twice, yet remains detained in isolation under severe conditions that violate her fundamental religious rights and practices–a political prisoner, perhaps indefinitely.

There is simply no compelling reason that she remain in custody. As a United States citizen with no criminal history, and strong ties to her family and community here, there is no lawful basis upon which to conclude that she cannot and should not be released immediately under conditions that are routinely accorded to persons accused of federal crimes, at times even serious breaches of law.

Years ago in the shadow of 9-11 hundreds perhaps thousands of Muslims were rounded up and detained in political sweeps throughout the United States under the talisman and license of material witness orders as judges became blind gavels for government repression. Among them were citizens, resident aliens and lawful tourists. The one criterion that united all victims of the political frenzy was their faith and little else. I represented more than a few who sat frozen in federal detention facilities from coast to coast searching for truth and justice; for many, none was to be had for years to come. Others, upon release, fled the United States seeking refuge elsewhere from its mindless fear and blind hate.

Almost two decades later the political rage of this administration against Iran has once again unleashed its Justice Department as so much a partisan batter and little else.

Today Marzieh Hashemi sits alone.  Isolated and entombed deep in a government catacomb, she stands charged with no offense but in the eyes of this administration guilty as charged . . . a Muslim, a journalist, and a US ex-pat who has found shelter from its storm in Iran.

Why Marzieh Hashemi?

By Sondoss Al Asaad

BEIRUT - Marzieh Hashemi, aka Melanie Franklin, is a veteran American-African journalist who has converted to Islam, in the wake of the 1979's Islamic revolution and has worked as a journalist in the Islamic Republic of Iran, since 2008.

Last week, Mrs. Hashemi was abducted by those who day and night preach on freedom and democracy. In her recent flight to the U.S., in which she wanted to visit her ailing brother, Mrs. Hashemi has fallen the victim of Washington's racist, bigoted and arrogant imperialist practices. Her rights have been blatantly infringed firstly as a citizen (specifically black), secondly as a Muslim woman and thirdly as a journalist.

One who knows Mrs. Hashemi recognises her distinct humanitarian sense and great personality. She has been inspired by the political and social tremor that shook humanity in the early eighties; led by Imam Khomeini, the founder of the system, which sponsors human rights, supports the oppressed and empowers women.

The Islamic Republic of Iran was an outlet for an active woman such as Mrs. Hashemi, who is sincerely concerned about others and their righteous causes. On Press TV, she has frequently appeared to transparently and objectively dissect and analyse news and political events. She has often interacted, shown her passion and cried over the subjugated and the oppressed because she is a human being who embodies the principles of sympathy, consideration, and compassion, and which are specifically authentic Islamic values.

A revolutionary woman, with every sense of the word, who has armed herself with the Hijab in the course of her missionary work. She has been keenly aware of the greatness of this crown that has singled out Muslim women and reflects their moral, religious and political identity. Mrs. Marzieh Hashemi has not limited herself to journalism; however, she has devoted her youth and strength to the Islamic missionary work and to reflect the oppression of African-Americans.

Mrs. Hashemi has worked to disseminate the values of authentic Islam and refuted all the radical currents that violate the core teachings of this religion. She is a beacon of resistance for her determination, perseverance, courage, and patience. For this reason, Mrs. Hashemi is abducted today just like every woman who follows the line of Sayyedah Zainab (PBUH). The latter, 7th Century revolutionary heroine of A'ashura uprising, constitutes a role model for every Muslim woman, they arm themselves by her brilliant stances and dedicate their lives like her to the service of their nation.

Obviously, Mrs. Hashemi has revealed Washington's mask, which on daily basis allegedly claim to be sponsoring freedom and democracy. She has revealed the hypocrisy of this Machiavellian administration, which unfortunately some still bet on. Mrs. Hashemi has spoken loud about the atrocities committed by the imperialists.

It is now crystal clear who is behind fanaticism, terrorism, and racism. It is the United States of America, the colonial imperialist empire, the cradle of Islamophobia. Today, Mrs. Hashmi is unlawfully tried because of her Islamic principles, which never distinguish between a white and a black, between a woman and a man; which protects women and preserves their rights since the 7th century.

 No one will move today to exploit Hashemi's case, along with Esra al-Ghomgham (Saudi activist), Hajar Mansour, Amira al-Qasa'ahmi (Bahraini activists) and the wife of Sheikh al-Zakzaki, and many other women who are illegally detained, in the dungeons of the arrogant regimes, as they have exploited the runaway Saudi teenager Rahaf al-Qunun's case.

 Regardless of the credibility of what this teenager claimed; who was already living under a system that does not reflect the original Islamic teachings; she has sparked the hypocritical West's attention because her case is a good investment for twofold purposes: to 'milk' the Saudi regime and to misrepresent Islam. Rahaf takes no notice that she has moved from prison (A) to prison (B), where she would be protected by no one and where the phantom of Western 'Freedom' would cost her dear. 

The Hijab of Mrs. Hachemi, and other illustrious revolutionary women, is undoubtedly feared even before her righteous voice since she is perpetuating the steadfastness and resistance methodology of Sayyedah Zainab; put in her echoing words while addressing the arrogant oppressor of her time, "I swear by God that you shall never be able to erase our memories."

Mrs. Hachemi has been providentially freed by the authentic Islam that the Islamic Republic of Iran upholds; the Islam which relies on empowers and honours women. This agitates the coloniser, who works studiously to fragment Muslim societies, through its Soft War propaganda.  Just the opposite, Iran regard women as put by Imam Khomeini's words, in which he equates women with the Holy Qur’an. The late Imam Khomeini maintains that both the Holy Qur’an and women "build the character of human beings."

Women, like Mrs. Hachemi, tutor courageous scholars, leaders and devoted martyrs of truth. The U.S. administration wants to make women cheap commodities in its most dangerous war; the war of minds, as when women are absent, weakened and marginalised; the nation collapses and deteriorates.

 Unlike the criminal terrorist Mariam Rajavi who led the terrorist Munafikin-e Khalq Organisation (MEK or MKO), who has so far killed thousands of innocent people; Hashemi has always fought terrorism and racist policies in her own unique strategies. The terrorist Rajavi is backed and sponsored by the U.S. for she serves their interests; summarised by demolishing counties, spreading chaos and committing atrocities.

 What Rajavi orchestrates is criminal conspiracies, whilst what is managed by Mrs. Hashemi is a huge media project aims at uncovering the false allegations and refuting mainstream media fake news sponsored by American, British and Saudi governments. Mrs. Hashemi has been the sound of free journalists, who were murdered, merely for they had settled, to tell the truth, such as her late colleague and compatriot, the American Press TV's correspondent Serena Shim.

 Currently, there has been speculation that Mrs. Hashemi is incarcerated in connection with her latest documentary, entitled  'Black Lives Matter.' For God's sake, tell me if highlighting the sufferings of her African-Americans fellows is a crime, what shall we call, for instance,  the August's the U.S. supplied airstrike that killed 40 children on Yemen school bus, in which a 227kg laser-guided bomb made by Lockheed Martin was used? What shall we call selling the Saudi criminal regime billions of dollars worth weapons? What shall we call the murder of Jamal Khashoggi?

Today, Mrs. Marzieh Hashemi is persecuted in the same brutal way that her African-American ancestors were persecuted. Her freedom of expression and faith are shamefully violated in flagrant breach of the international conventions that guarantee freedom of belief and conscience. In addition, she is unlawfully prosecuted without any clear and explicit charge.

Whatsoever, this great journalist has now become a thrust to each and every journalist to confront arrogance and its tools with utmost strength, determination and perseverance; armed with their full Zainabi Hijab. Our least duty is to be her voice, to tell her words and to reflect her persecution until her freedom, Insha'Allah.