The Latest on Iran (23 November): Releases, Rumours, and Battles

NEW Iran: Economics, Missing Money, and Ahmadinejad v. Parliament
NEW Latest Iran Video: Protest at Khaje Nasir University (22 November)
NEW Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen: An Introduction to Conflict
NEW Iran Revelation: Pro-Government MP Admits Election Was Manipulated
Iran Video and Text: Maziar Bahari on His 118 Days in Detention
Video and English Text: Mousavi Interview with Kalemeh (21 November)
The Latest from Iran (22 November): Abtahi Sentenced, Ahmadinejad Scrambles

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

2030 GMT: Punishment Going Up. Reports now indicate that Ahmad Zeidabadi, whose sentencing we reported earlier (1620 GMT), received a six-year prison sentence. In addition, he will spend five years in exile in the northeastern city of Gonabad and be banned from civil activities for life. Bail for his freedom while the case is appealed is $500,000.

2025 GMT: Ahmadinejad in Brazil. That's right, it's a second continent today on the I'm a World Leader, Get Me Out of Tehran tour (see 0635 GMT), though there is little more than a picture to report.

1925 GMT: More on Larijani v. Ahmadinejad. Khabar Online (the online version of the newspaper which either chose to close today in favour of Web publication or which has been suspended by the Government) is schizophrenic over a possible bust-up between the Parliament and the President.

The English-language version goes to great pains to deny tries to curb talk of a rift, with MPs blaming media and anti-Ahmadinejad opposition for the rumours. The Persian-language site, however, highlights a speech by Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani warning against "dictatorship" and defending former President Hashemi Rafsanjani.



1645 GMT: We've posted a video of yesterday's demonstration, one in a series of ongoing protests, at Khaje Nasir University.

And it looks like we might be covering a major emerging story of the conflict between Iran's Parliament, specifically Speaker Ali Larijani, and President Ahmadinejad. The first installment has been posted; more to come after we take a break for academic duties.

1620 GMT: Journalist and reformist activist Ahmad Zeidabadi has reportedly been sentenced to five years in prison and released on $350,000 bail while the verdict is appealed.

1535 GMT: Here's Why Obama's Engagement Lives. Skip the headlines in the "mainstream" US press and go to Halifax, Canada, where Washington's officials are urging Iran to "engage" the West.

On the surface, Ellen Tauscher, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security talked tough to the delegates at the security forum, "We would prefer that the Iranian regime follow through on the opportunity to engage....[Tehran] asked for engagement with the United States. It has it. Now what is it going to do? Is it going to stand up and say that they're going to take our deal... or are they going to use some other flimsy excuse to duck."

The overriding point is, however, that Tauscher's comments were based on a continued engagement rather than cut-off of talks with Iran. Why might that be? The security forum's main item for discussion, Afghanistan, is the blunt answer. Iran is the prevailing outside power in western Afghanistan, so it has a place in the future American plans for the country.

So while some table-thumpers at the gathering like former Bush National Security Advisor, Stephen Hadley, hinted that Israel may strike Iran, don't be fooled. The Obama Administration, caught up in its Afghan conundrum, cannot afford renewed hostility with Tehran.

1525 GMT: More Iran-Russia conflict. The tension between Tehran and Moscow, which is a key motive for the Iranian counter-proposal on uranium enrichment, emerged again today. Iran's deputy foreign minister Manouchehr Mohammadi declared, “The problems regarding the Bushehr plant has a technical as well as a political aspect. The Russians… want to launch the plant under certain conditions, but we will not surrender to them."

1255 GMT: Not Big Politics, Just a Baha'i Temple. Appears that Hamshahri was not closed because of a major political move within the Iranian regime but because it included a tourist advertisement showing a Baha'i temple.

1220 GMT: More Bust-Up, Another Paper Banned. Now it's the principlist newspaper Hamshahri which has been banned.

However, an Iranian activist now reports that Hamshahri will be suspended for only a few hours and will likely reappear today.

1050 GMT: A Shot at Larijani? The word is spreading that Khabar, the principlist newspaper close to Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani has been closed by Government order this morning. I'm sensing a real bust-up between Larijani and the allies of President Ahmadinejad (see 0555 GMT and the separate entry on MP Ali Reza Zamani's revelations).

1025 GMT: Rumour of the Day (Denied). On Sunday we noted that questions were being raised about the whereabouts of former Tehran Prosecutor General Saeed Mortazavi, unseen in public for two months, with the most provocative rumour that he was in Evin Prison.

Still no verification of those claims, but at least one conservative Iranian website has gone to the trouble of noticing and denying them. Parcham says Mortazavi, now one of Iran's Deputy Prosecutor Generals, is being reclusive because he is waiting to be confirmed as the new division chief handling financial crimes.

0905 GMT: Bluster. Of course, even if the air-defence show is propaganda (see 0810 GMT), that doesn't mean the Revolutionary Guard will do it quietly (especially if, as I think, this is being done to undercut those in the Iranian establishment pushing for a deal or, alternatively, to cover up any impression of "weakness" from such a bargain).

"One step out of line and Israeli warplanes will be completely destroyed," IRGC Air Force Commander Amir Ali Hajizadeh declared. "Even if they escape our sophisticated defense system, they will never see their bases again; because our surface-to-surface missiles are on their marks to target Israeli military bases before the dust settles."

0810 GMT: Shrug. The Washington Post devotes its Iran article this morning to Sunday's air defence exercise, loudly announced by Iran's military --- not surprising, given the supposed drama and the "military warning to Israel" theme in the Post's sub-headline.

We had not even bothered to mention the exercise, which was clearly a propaganda move by Iranian commanders rather than a significant military development. If there is any importance here, it lies in the relationship to the more important story: Iran's uranium enrichment talks with the "West". Is the Revolutionary Guard fighting back against those Iranian leaders who want a deal --- which is still very much on the table, despite the Post's limited knowledge of it --- through their aggressive posturing?

0800 GMT: Yesterday Pedestrian posted a most interesting speech from pro-Government, high-ranking member of Parliament Ali Reza Zamani which is a virtual admission of election fraud. We've put up the blog, as well as our analysis, in a separate entry.

0635 GMT: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's I'm a World Leader, Get Me Out of Tehran tour has opened in Gambia with talk of expanding investments in industry and agriculture.

0555 GMT: Mohammad Javad Larijani, the high-ranking judiciary official, has stepped beyond his official brief to intervene on the nuclear issue. He declared Sunday, "Iran has "many reasons 2 distrust West, but they have no reason 2 distrust us," and added:

If the West won't sell 20% enriched uranium [for the Tehran medical research reactor], we will produce it ourselves. To produce 20% enriched uranium we must change orientation of centrifuges. We know how & we will do it.

MJ Larijani, joins his brothers, Speaker of Parliament Ali and head of judiciary Sadegh (who also went beyond his designated position to speak out), in criticising the Vienna deal for uranium enrichment. However, the question is left open: are the Larijanis wiling to accept the Iran Government's counter-offer of a "swap" inside the country?

0545 GMT: For the opposition, Sunday's headline event was confirmation of the release of Mohammad Ali Abtahi from more than five months in detention. The photograph of Abtahi and his family is one of the most joyous pictures amdist and despite the post-12 June conflict.

It should not be forgotten that Abtahi was sentenced to six years in jail and is only free on a very high ($700,000) bail while he appeals. Others were also sentenced this weekend, including the journalist Mohammad Atrianfar, although the prison terms are not yet known.

Still, the symbolism and impact of Abtahi's release should be noted. As the Green movement tries to withstand yet more arrests of activists and student leaders and prepares for the 16 Azar (7 December) protests, the freeing of the former Vice President --- accompanied by his promise to resume blogging --- is a welcome boost.

It also may be a sign that there may be a limited fightback within the regime against the power of the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps. More and more evidence is accumulating, as in journalist Maziar Bahari's account released this weekend, of the Revolutionary Guard's key, perhaps dominant, role in overseeing detentions and eclipsing the power of other agencies like the Ministry of Intelligence and Iran's judiciary. In recent weeks, high-ranking judiciary officials and members of Parliament have been demanding a process to "wrap up" the detentions with formal sentences; since last Tuesday, it seems that the trials and verdicts have accelerated.

Comments

[shangool]

sounds like there is dissension in the ranks, the whole IRI is gonna fall apart sooner or later. A bunch of disloyal servants of a corrupt regime.

[Anahita]

NCRI & ILNA are reporting that Rafsanjani has expressed doubts about the regime's future - About time!

http://ncr-iran.org/content/view/7436/1/

[Observer]

ILNA - Rafsanjani: Ignoring people harms Islamic system - http://bit.ly/4Go7n6

[Barry]

Re the 1925 posting here

The online newspaper does NOT go to great lengths to deny the "rumour" The very first paragraph says this : "Iranian MPs response differently to this question, some immediately deny it without further elaboration; some others confirm it but observe the issue from an expert view; and several others see as it as a political approach originated from the circles inside and outside the Majlis.

In other words -- once again total dissension, discord disagreemnet between people in Iran - this time between Iranian MP's ! What's new???

Barry

[kevina]

You know, completely unintentional, but the way the Obama Admin has handled the nuke talks has been one more aggravating factor in the "conservative" camp in Iran. Simply put, for many reasons (nukes being a small one), these folks CANNOT govern right now. It's a paralyzed state.

[Barry]

NAUGHTY Hamshahri newspaper!!!

Looks like they put a picture of a Bahai temple in their newspaper.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gsfzPlm28ap1d9GI5u7vdQRNGKWQ

Where is Samuel - when I need him. He told me that it is OK to be a Bahai in Iran.

Barry

[Samuel]

Hey Barry,

Your memory is failing you. I mentioned the Jews of Iran and their member of Parliament. I do not deny that the Bahais have been mistreated in Iran and other Muslim countries for hundreds of years. To use your favorite words "there are long and complex reasons" for this. Christians and Jews have been treated differently. I personally do not have any particular animus towards this group.

As for discrimination you never adressed the issue of the Aborigenes in Australia. I asked you in another what you had done for Aborigene rights in Australia but no answer. Interesting.

Such a large country/continent and you could not even share it fairly with the original inhabitants.

I only bring it up since so many of your posts start with "In my country..." Yeah we know what they do to the dark skinned in your country. Let me guess, "there are long and complex reasons..."

[Samuel]

Interesting article about European Union adopting a friendlier stance towards Revolutionary Cuba:

"(CNN) -- A European Union commissioner Monday told CNN's Christiane Amanpour that Europe's policy toward Cuba in the future will place less emphasis on human rights in the island nation than now.

The EU commissioner for development and humanitarian aid, Karel De Gucht, who is just back from a visit to Havana, Cuba, told Amanpour, "We have relations with a lot of oppressive regimes and we have a special regime for Cuba. It makes no sense singularizing them."

His comments come amid indications that Spain, which will hold the presidency of the EU for six months beginning in January 2010, intends to soften the organization's policy toward Cuba. The European Union currently criticizes Cuba's human rights record, but does not support the U.S. trade embargo against Havana."

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/11/23/europe.cuba.us/index.html

_____________________________________________

How does this relate to Iran? Well look at the key quotes:

1. ...will place less emphasis on human rights in the island nation than now."

2. "We have relations with a lot of oppressive regimes and we have a special regime for Cuba. It makes no sense singularizing them."

One can easily substitute the word "Iran" for "Cuba" and it still makes sense.

The truth is that the West uses so called "human rights" abuses as weapons to attack those regimes and nations it does not like, those nations deemed too independent. When was the last time the Americans criticized abuses in Wahabbi Saudi Arabia??? What about Israeli war crimes? Venezuela, Cuba and Iran on the other hand are always targetted by these hypocrites.

To all opponents of American Imperialism it is good to see the Cuban Revolution receiving fairer treatment.

[Samuel]

Interesting Article about the European Union’s policy towards Revolutionary Cuba:

"(CNN) -- A European Union commissioner Monday told CNN's Christiane Amanpour that Europe's policy toward Cuba in the future will place less emphasis on human rights in the island nation than now.
The EU commissioner for development and humanitarian aid, Karel De Gucht, who is just back from a visit to Havana, Cuba, told Amanpour, "We have relations with a lot of oppressive regimes and we have a special regime for Cuba. It makes no sense singularizing them."

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/11/23/europe.cuba.us/index.html

What is the significance of this for Iran? Well let’s look at the two key quotes:

1. Europe's policy toward Cuba in the future will place less emphasis on human rights in the island nation than now.

2. "We have relations with a lot of oppressive regimes and we have a special regime for Cuba. It makes no sense singularizing them."

In each case one can change “Iran” for “Cuba” and the sentence still makes sense.

The truth is that so called “human rights” issues have nothing to do with principles and all to do with politics. When was the last time the Americans criticized “human rights” in Wahabbi Saudi Arabia or Israeli war crimes? Or how about the dictatorship of that great American friend Mubarak in Egypt? Venezuela and Iran on the other hand are always targeted by the Hypocrites in the name of “human rights”.

For all the opponents of American Imperialism it is good to see Revolutionary Cuba about to receive fairer treatment.

[Barry]

Samuel

I have blood of the original Aboriginal inhabitants of Australia in my veins. You should not assume that because I have an obviously English sounding name that I have no Aboriginal blood. I also have other bloods in me - my full- blood Aboriginal G-G-G Grandmother conceived a child ( my G-G-grandmother ) to an Irish convict, who had been sentenced to 14 years transportation to Australia for stealing a sheep.

Let me tell you that you do not know what "they" do to dark skinned people in Australia. All people in Australia now have equal rights - this admittedly was not always so, BUT we have moved on into a more enlightened time. They all have the same rights and priveleges. If anything - it is their very old but valuable culture which can and does hold them apart from 21st Century, in a similar way as your country's Medieval mindset holds you back.

Yes - in all countries there are commonly "long and complex reasons" for why certain situations exist. The BIG difference between me and you - and between my country and your country is that I do not choose to force others to conform to my beliefs, religious or political. My country is "free" - it's people are not subject of a controlling ideology. Religious freedom is total, including the freedom from religion. We no longer have the death penalty. Never could a single person be arrested and held without due legal process, as is happening right now in your country. Many many differences between us.

But - I am wasting my time.

Barry

[Samuel]

Yes your Prime Minister apologized. Very nice but no compensation I see. Even the Americans compensated the Japanese in the camps during the war.

The difference between you and me is that I see a chicken and call it a chicken. You see a dog and explain why there are "long and complex reasons" why it is a goat. And if someone tells you that your "long and complex reasons" are simple biases on your part you call them a German Nazi.

But again why could the country/continent which is so large, so rich, so empty not be shared fairly? Not enough LEBENSRAUM?

[Barry]

Samuel

This forum isn't about me - or you. It isn't really about Iran either - it is called "Enduring America"

Yet - for some reason, Iran seems to have attracted most attention here.

My country is not perfect - but it is not in civil turmoil. Your's is in turmoil. It doesn't have to be. It is your choice - and others like you.

Barry

[Samuel]

Barry,

Fair enough. I often address other topics like the story on Revolutionary Cuba above.

[Barry]

Samuel

By the way - we have quite a lot of Iranians here. Most of them that I have met are Bahai (Smile). They are very harmless as far as I can see and don't ever proselytize

Barry

[Samuel]

Great historical article by Harvard Professor on why American Imperialism is so detested:

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/11/23/on_military_occupation

Why They Hate Us (I): on military occupation
Mon, 11/23/2009 - 11:58am

One of the many barriers to developing a saner U.S. foreign policy is our collective failure to appreciate why military occupations generate so much hatred, resentment, and resistance, and why we should therefore go to enormous lengths to avoid getting mired in them. Costly occupations are an activity you hope your adversaries undertake, especially in areas of little intrinsic strategic value. We blundered into Somalia in the early 1990s without realizing that we weren't welcome; we invaded Iraq thinking we would be greeted as liberators, and we still don't fully understand why many Afghans resent our presence and why some are driven to take up arms against us.

The American experience is hardly unique: Britain's occupation of Iraq after World War I triggered fierce opposition, and British forces in Mandate Palestine eventually faced armed resistance from both Arab and Zionist groups. French rule in Algeria, Syria, Lebanon, and Indochina spawned several violent resistance movements, and Russia has fought Chechen insurgents in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries. The Shiite population of southern Lebanon initially welcomed Israel's invasion in 1982, but the IDF behaved badly and stayed too long, which led directly to the formation of Hezbollah. Israelis were also surprised by the first intifida in 1987, having mistakenly assumed that their occupation of the West Bank was benevolent and that the Palestinians there would be content to be governed by the IDF forever.

Military occupation generates resistance because it is humiliating, disruptive, arbitrary and sometimes terrifying to its objects, even when the occupying power is acting from more-or-less benevolent motives. If you've ever been caught in a speed trap by a rude or abusive policeman (I have), or selected out for special attention crossing a border (ditto), you have a mild sense of what this is like. You are at the mercy of the person in charge, who is inevitably well-armed and can do pretty much whatever he (or she) wants. Any sign of protest will only make things go badly -- and in some situations will get you arrested, beaten, or worse -- so you choke down your anger and just put up with it. Now imagine that this is occurring after you've waited for hours at some internal checkpoint, that none of the occupiers speak your language, and that it is like this every single day. And occasionally the occupying power kills innocent people by mistake, engages in other forms of indiscriminate force, and does so with scant regard for local customs and sensibilities. Maintain this situation long enough, and some members of the local population will start looking for ways to strike back. Some of them may even decide to strap on explosive vests or get behind the wheel of a explosives-laden truck, and sacrifice themselves.

It is sometimes said that Americans don't understand this phenomenon because the United States has never been conquered and occupied. But this simply isn't true. After the Civil War, a "foreign army" occupied the former Confederacy and imposed a new political order that most white southerners found abhorrent. The first Reconstruction Act of 1867 put most southern states under formal military control, supervised the writing of new state constitutions, and sought to enfranchise and empower former slaves. It also attempted to rebuild the south economically, but the reconstruction effort was undermined by corruption and poor administration. Sound familiar? However laudable the aims may have been, the results were precisely what one would expect. Northern occupation eventually triggered violent resistance by the Ku Klux Klan, White League, Red Shirts, and other insurgent groups, which helped thwart Reconstruction and paved the way for the Jim Crow system that lasted until the second half of the 20th century.

Nor should we forget how long a profound sense of anger and resentment lasted. I was recently discussing this issue with a distinguished American journalist who grew up in the South, and he told me that one hundred years after the end of the Civil War, he was still being taught songs that expressed a lingering hatred of what the Yankees had done. Here are a coupl of stanzas from one of them -- "I'm a Good Old Rebel" -- written by a former Confederate officer and first published in 1914:

I hates the Yankee nation, and everything they do,
I hates the Declaration of Independence too.
I hates the glorious Union, 'tis dripping with our blood
I hates their striped banner, I fought it all I could.

Three hundred thousand Yankees lie stiff in Southern dust;
We got three hundred thousand, before they conquered us
They died of Southern fever, and Southern steel and shot,
I wish they was three million, instead of what we got.

Or to take a more recent (1974), less poetic example, from Lynyrd Skynyrd:

Well I heard Mr. Young sing about her,
Well I heard old Neil put her down.
Well, I hope Neil Young will remember,
A Southern man don't need him around anyhow.

This is what defeat in war and prolonged occupation does to a society: it generates hatred and resentment that can last a century or more. Hatred of the "party of Lincoln" kept the South solidly Democratic for decades, and its political character remains distinctly different even today, nearly 150 years after the civil war ended. (Among other things, Barack Obama has favorable job approval ratings in every region of the country except the South). And don't forget that unlike our current presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, the occupying forces of the North spoke the same language and had been part of the same country prior to the war; in some cases, there were even strong family connections on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line. Yet defeat in war and military occupation were an enduring source of division for many years thereafter.

The bottom line is that you don't need to be a sociologist, political scientist, or a student of colonialism or foreign cultures to understand why military occupation is such a poisonous activity and why it usually fails. If you're an American, you just need to read a bit about Reconstruction and reflect on how its effects -- along with the effects of slavery itself -- have persisted across generations. If that's not enough, visit a society that is currently experiencing occupation, and take the time to go through a checkpoint or two. Then you might understand why the local population doesn't view the occupying forces as benevolent and isn't as grateful as occupiers often think they ought to be.

[Rev Magdalen]

@Samuel I see you're pulling out the ol' "Johnny did it too" defense. How dare anyone criticize the brutal torture in Iran when their own reputations are not angelic, right? Yeah, where I come from that excuse doesn't fly.

Nothing that happens in Australia can change the shameful nature of the abominable acts committed in Iran's prisons, against those who were peacefully exercising their human right to voice their dissent and appeal for remedies to their grievances. No "global arrogance" can justify this criminal, un-Islamic regime's behavior.