Iran: MPs Call For Impeachment Of Ahmadinejad

Twelve Iranian MPs have called for the impeachment of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for numerous violations of laws approved by parliament.

Parleman News published this story but did not include the names of the 12 signatories demanding Ahmadinejad’s impeachment.

According to Article 233 of parliament’s regulations, at least 10 people must sign a demand for impeachment of the president or ministers, which then must be taken up by the head of parliament and processed within 10 days.

The MPs’ action against Ahmadinejad comes as Iranian media report that the president has refrained from attending cabinet meetings in protest of Ayatollah Khamenei’s overruling of his decision to accept the resignation of the intelligence minister.

Recently, Heydar Moslehi, the intelligence minister, submitted his resignation to Ahmadinejad due to what analysts believe was a dispute between Moslehi and the president’s chief of staff, Esfandiar Rahim Mashai. Two hours after the news broke that Ahmadinejad had accepted the resignation, the media reported that Ayatollah Khamenei has overruled the president’s decision and Moslehi would continue in his post.

In the meantime, the pro-Ahmadinejad Dolatyar website wrote that persistent “attacks and pressure” against the government could turn Iran into “a bloody scene of clashes.”

Yesterday, a number of Iranian media outlets reported that Ahmadinejad has announced he will return to his office only if “intelligence minister Heydar Moslehi as well as Saeed Jalili, member of the National Security Council, are removed from office and Esfandiar Rahim Mashai is appointed as his vice-president.”

However, a conservative MP told Borna News Agency yesterday that Ahmadinejad visited the Supreme Leader Monday night to discuss “his concerns.”

Some conservative figures have accused Ahmadinejad of resisting the orders from Ayatollah Khamenei.

Ayatollah Khamenei confirmed his difference of opinion with Ahmadinejad over the leadership of ministry of intelligence but described it as a minor dispute of no importance.