Editorial: Verdicts of guilt merit an outrage

Friday, July 7, 2000 | 9:59 a.m.

Last week an Iranian revolutionary court convicted 10 Iranian Jews, claiming that they spied on behalf of Israel. Despite the fact that Israel denied the accusations, and no credible observer believed those on trial were guilty, the prison terms ranged from four years to 13 years. So much for the "new" Iran, which lately has tried to suggest it is more open to democratic and legal reforms.

To get an understanding of how repressive the Islamic regime continues to be, some diplomats told the Washington Post that it could have been worse, noting the defendants could have received the death penalty. But recent pronouncements that Iran was ready to make the transition to a more tolerant nation certainly seemed to be off the mark, considering that the trial was a joke, bereft of any notion of due process -- in Iran, judges also serve as prosecutors. In addition, the evidence against the defendants was kept secret and the trial was closed.

The sentences also confirm that Iran's hatred for Israel and Jews remains unabated. For instance, while two Iranian Muslims also were alleged to have been part of the same spy ring, they received lesser sentences, of two years each, compared to the minimum four years the Iranian Jews did. The explanation for the disparity? The provincial judiciary chief contended the Muslims were "duped" into cooperating.

Last month the State Department decided to no longer apply the term "rogue state" to nations such as Iran, instead opting for the more benign label, "state of concern." The new appellation might fit some nations on the road to democracy, but in the case of Iran, "rogue state" still is a better fit.