Iran: A Note About the Voice of America, NIAC, and the "Journalism" of The Washington Times

The Washington Times, never a shy paper in its assertions and opinions, leaves no doubts about its position in an editorial, "Voice of the Mullahs". With the supporting headline, "Public Diplomacy Takes A Pro-Islamist Tilt", the opinion pieces begins, "The Voice of America is becoming the Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran."

Inflammatory stuff, and the newspaper keeps pouring on the gasoline. After giving big space to a letter to President Obama from 70 legislators requesting that the White House "investigate reported mismanagement and bias at Voice of America's Persian News Network (VOA-PNN)", two cases are cited:

1. On March 29, VOA-PNN interviewed Hooshang Amir-Ahmadi, "an anti-sanctions activist called "Iran's pseudo U.S. lobbyist" by Iranian democracy groups. Mr. Amir-Ahmadi expressed the view that Iran's belligerent posture and nuclear program are the natural results of being surrounded by U.S. missiles and bombs; hence, progress can come only through the United States softening its policies toward Tehran.

2. On April 1, VOA gave airtime to Trita Parsi, head of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), which has received millions of dollars in federal funds to promote democracy in Iran. Mr. Parsi expressed various odd positions, such as that Israel prefers to have hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in power in Tehran, that members of the Obama administration know sanctions won't work but pursue them only as a bargaining position, and - most strangely - that even if Iran succeeded in establishing a democracy, the United States would nevertheless keep sanctions in place. VOA gave Mr. Parsi preferential treatment by banning callers while he was on the air even though he appeared on a call-in show; those who later took issue with his views were quickly cut off.

Allegations that the US Government's media outlets appease or even support the enemy are far from new. The Voice of America was a prime target for Republican Congressmen, including Senator Joseph McCarthy, and even Radio Free Europe, which pressed for "liberation" in Eastern Europe, came under fire in the 1950s.

This time, however, the VOA is just the whipping boy for the bitter conflict between The Washington Times and NIAC. We noted last autumn that one of the newspaper's reporters had channelled the claims of Hassan Daioleslam, who is being sued by Parsi over a series of allegations, that NIAC was an unregistered lobbying firm. The implication soon follows that NIAC is not only lobbying but doing so on behalf of the current Iranian Government.

There is no need to take a position on those claims, which have split Iranian-American activists in the US, to note the shallowness of The Washington Times' latest assault. I haven't come across recordings of the two cases, but even the newspaper's attacking spin is shaky. One does not have to agree with "Iran's belligerent posture and nuclear program are the natural results of being surrounded by U.S. missiles and bombs" to note the argument that Washington's perceived hostility in measures such as the Nuclear Posture Review could prompt Tehran to respond with aggressive statements.

Parsi's supposed statement that "members of the Obama administration know sanctions won't work but pursue them only as a bargaining position" is a distortion of his position, set out in other articles, that US officials may not think that a toughened international sanctions regime will not be possible through the UN but take that line to achieve other goals. One might note, for example, EA's own analysis that the public posture on sanctions covers the "real" story, which is disinvestment by private firms who are quite likely to be in contact with Western Governments.

(Someone at the newspaper might want to reflect, if only for a few seconds, on the effectiveness of a broadcaster which provided only those views which were supportive of the official line of the US Government and/or those --- like The Washington Times --- who advocate military action against Iran.)

Irrespective of one's opinino on NIAC, even more important in this attack piece is The Washington Times' wilful attempt at collateral damage. This histrionic assault on the Voice of America does no good for a broadcaster which continues to provide news and analysis despite the serious restrictions on media by the Iranian regime. If the newspaper is really saying that the broadcasting services funded by the US Government are actually propaganda outlets for Tehran, then be honest and provide evidence for that sensational charge.

The Iranian Government claims VOA is part of America's "soft war" for "regime change"; The Washington Times claims VOA is not Washington's voice but that of Tehran.

Sometimes self-constructed paradoxes speak even more loudly than polemic posing as journalism.

(Full disclosure: I appeared in March on a panel at the US Senate organised by NIAC. I did so in a personal capacity, presenting my views on the internal situation in Iran and on US foreign policy towards Tehran. At no point did NIAC try to "steer" my comments.)

The Latest from Iran (14 April): Ahmadinejad's Struggle

1720 GMT: Ahmadinjead Brings Culture to the World; Students Aren't Sure. The President's adivsor, Somreh Hashemin, has told university students that "world discourse" has changed because of Ahmadinejad's statements --- therefore it now has culture, science, and ethics.

Students at Allameh Tabatabei University may not have been convinced, however, as both reports and video indicate:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKuNhRZsJQA[/youtube]

Iran’s Nukes: Can Tehran and the US Make A Deal?
The Latest from Iran (14 April): Ahmadinejad’s Struggle

1715 GMT: Out of Jail and On-Line. Former Vice President Mohammad Ali Abtahi, jailed for several months after the election and selected for a high-profile "confession" in August, has resumed blogging.


1710 GMT: Economy Watch. MP Alireza Mahjoub has predicted a continuation of the poor situation, with 40% inflation, poverty, and economic "suffocation".

1700 GMT: Absence or Protest? Khabar Online reports that one-third of MPs were missing from the Majlis today.

1555 GMT: The Corruption Case. MP Elyas Naderan, the leading Parliamentary critic of First Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi, has sarcastically thanked the Government for accusing him of making false charges. Naderan assured that he will continue to press the corruption case.

1545 GMT: The Row Over the 15 June Demonstration. Morteza Tamaddon, the Governor of Tehran Province, may have denied his reported statement that the large 15 June protests were authorised. Kalemeh, the website of Mir Hossein Mousavi, however, is persisting with the claim. The website documents Tamaddon's apparent approval of 15 June rally.

1525 GMT: The "Other" Khamenei. Continuing his show of support for reformist leaders, Seyed Hadi Khamenei, the brother of the Supreme Leader, has visited Mohsen Mirdamadi, the chairman of the Islamic Iran Participation Front. Mirdamadi is on temporary release from his prison sentence.

1510 GMT: But China Eases the Pressure? And while there is the ongoing public show over Beijing's will-it-won't-it join international sanctions, this news --- coming as other oil firms stop imports to Iran --- is striking:

State-run Chinaoil has sold two gasoline cargoes for April delivery to Iran, industry sources said on Wednesday, stepping into a void left by fuel suppliers halting shipments under threat of U.S. sanctions....

While others back out, Chinaoil has sold a total of about 600,000 barrels worth around $55 million to the Islamic Republic.

The cargoes were Chinaoil’s first direct sales to Iran since at least January 2009, according to Reuters data. Chinese firms have previously sold through intermediaries, traders said.

1445 GMT: Is Third-Party Enrichment Back On? Reading President Ahmadinejad's bluster in recent days, we asked (1040 GMT), "Is the President actually holding the door open for another push at a deal on uranium enrichment?"

Well, have a look at Iranian state media's presentation of the latest words from the head of Iran's atomic energy organisation, Ali Akbar Salehi, in an interview with a Russian newspaper:

The head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) says Tehran would accept a nuclear fuel swap, should the West manage to win back its trust.

The US-proposed UN-backed deal requires Iran to send most of its low-enriched uranium abroad for further processing and conversion into fuel rods for Tehran's research reactor....

Salehi said that Iran had agreed to the IAEA-backed proposal [for third once it was proffered but needed guarantees from the West that it would deliver the fuel in a timely manner — a demand shrugged off by the West.

"We did not refuse. We agreed at once and we agree now. The only problem is guarantees. They suggested that we hand over a thousand pounds of our 3.5% low-enriched uranium. And wait until the entire amount of uranium has been enriched to a level of 20%," he said. 'Suppose we have given all our uranium. But where is the assurance [that we receive the fuel in a timely manner]?"

1430 GMT: The German Squeeze. The German carmaker Daimler has announced that it will
almost entirely cease business in Iran.

Daimler's chief executive Dieter Zetsche  told shareholders, The policies of the current Iranian leadership have compelled us to put our business relationship with that country on a new footing. In general, our business activities with Iran will now be limited to meeting our existing contractual obligations and continuing our cooperation with established customers."

Daimler will relinquish its 30 percent stake in Iranian Diesel Engine
Manufacturing, a subsidiary of Iranian Khodro Diesel.

The move is further testimony that behind the public rhetoric of leaders, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel, for state-based sanctions on Iran, the real pressure is coming from the disinvestment of private companies. Daimler's move following the pullout from Iran of two of Germany's largest insurance companies.

1110 GMT: And, cutting through the Presidential rhetoric and posturing, we've posted an analysis by Julien Mercille on the possibility of a US-Iran deal on enriched uranium for Tehran's medical research reactor.

1040 GMT: Blowing Smoke. How many dramatic foreign policy pronouncements do we get to enjoy from President Ahmadinejad this week?

Following his assessment of foreign leaders as "retarded" and his letter to the United Nations implying that the US Government set up 9-11 for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the President has said that "[US President Barack] Obama cannot do anything in Palestine, they won't let him do anything and he has no chance" and there is no possibility of success in Iraq and Afghanistan: "What can he do in Iraq? Nothing. And Afghanistan is too complicated."

So Ahmadinejad concludes, "Mr. Obama has only one chance and that is Iran. This is not an emotional comment, it's scientific."

Which only leaves the question, success with Iran through what? Is the President actually holding the door open for another push at a deal on uranium enrichment?

1000 GMT: The 15 June March. Still some confusion over whether Iranian authorities --- specifically, Morteza Tamaddon, the Governor of Tehran Province --- said they had authorised the mass demonstration three days after the election.

The Green Voice of Freedom repeated the claim of Parleman News, itself taken from an alleged Tamaddon interview with a magazine, that the march "was actually held with legal authorisation". It appears, however, that GVF has not noted Tamaddon's subsequent denial, which we reported yesterday, of the supposed statement. His line remains that the protest, which brought hundreds of thousands and possibly millions on the streets, was illegal.

0245 GMT. Rafsanjani Watch. Make of this what you will: Hashemi Rafsanjani has made a well-publicised visit this week to Seyed Hassan Khomeini, the grandson of the late Ayatollah Khomeini.

Hassan Khomeini has been under sustained pressure from the Government throughout the post-election crisis over his apparent support for opposition demands,

0240 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Ashura protester Hossein Vahed has received a two-year prison sentence.

0230 GMT: Economy Watch. Khabar Online reports that Iran has "lost" $2 billion on oil fields.

0215 GMT: You Can't Keep A President Down (Or Can't You?).

The President-Parliament battle over economic plans escalates. Ahmadinejad has insisted that all changes will be implemented this year.

Key legislators and Ahmadinejad critics are not being so positive, Ahmad Tavakoli has declared that an agreement between two or three MPs and the President doesn't mean an agreement between the Majlis and the Government. That line is also taken by Elyas Naderan.

How serious is the dispute? Vice President Fatemeh Badaghi has threatened MPs by asserting that immunity for their actions exists only in Parliament.

Iran's Nukes: Can Tehran and the US Make A Deal?

Julien Mercille, writing in Asia Times Online, assessed whether a Washington-Tehran settlement on enriched uranium for Iran's medical research reactor could defuse tensions over the nuclear issue:

The latest chapter in the Iranian nuclear crisis revolves around a possible "nuclear fuel swap" through which Iran would send most of its low-enriched uranium stocks (LEU at 3.5%) abroad, possibly to Russia and France, which would further enrich it (making it LEU at 19.5%) and then turn it into fuel rods. The fuel rods would be sent to Iran, which could use them in the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR) to produce much needed medical isotopes. The problem for Iran at the moment is that the TRR was last refueled in 1993 by Argentina, but it will soon run out of fuel (perhaps in a few months).

The Latest from Iran (14 April): Ahmadinejad’s Struggle

The swap deal could be a win-win for both Iran and the West. The West should be pleased by the removal of a good portion of enriched uranium from Iranian soil since this will reduce the possibility that Tehran could decide to use it to make nuclear weapons (nuclear weapons require highly enriched uranium, HEU at 90%). For Iran, fuel for its TRR would allow it to keep producing important isotopes used in the medical field and on which hundreds of thousands of Iranian cancer patients rely.



However, there has been some confusion among experts on whether Iran is currently producing its own medical isotopes, or is it only importing them from other countries? It is important to clarify this issue since the ways in which the latest crisis can be resolved depend in part on what exactly Iran is doing.

Flynt and Hillary Leverett, well known analysts of Iran, wrote recently that Iran was not producing any medical isotopes domestically and that it imported all of its requirements. So did Geoffrey Forden writing at Jeffrey Lewis' blog. But others say that Iran is now producing isotopes, although they don't give many details.

When asked about the issue an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) representative said the agency is not commenting ''at this time".

So what's the situation?

Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran's ambassador to the IAEA, was asked about Iran's activities in the field of medical isotopes production and his statements cross-checked by reviewing a March 2010 article by Iranian scientists from the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran in the journal Nuclear Technology, published in the United States by the American Nuclear Society [1]. The two accounts appear to match, and are as follows.

Iran now produces two important medical isotopes with the TRR: technetium-99 and iodine-131. Since recent media stories have emphasized production of technetium-99, this is worthy of focus.

Technetium-99 is obtained from molybdenum-99 (Mo-99), perhaps the most important medical isotope in the world. Four countries - Canada, Belgium, South Africa and the Netherlands - meet 95% of the world's Mo-99 demand, using highly enriched uranium (HEU at 90%) to produce it.

Up until 2007, Iran bought its Mo-99 on the world market, but it has now developed a way to produce it domestically, through irradiating Mo-98 in the TRR. This leads to the production of Mo-99, which is then used to produce technetium-99. Apparently Iran does not currently import Mo-99.

As an aside, Iran is also producing other medical isotopes, notably isotopes of thallium and gallium, at its cyclotron facility near Tehran. This production process does not involve uranium, however, so it is not part of the current nuclear "crisis" with the West.

The problem today is that Iran's TRR is running out of fuel (which is made of LEU at 19.5%) and the production of isotopes is therefore at risk. The way to solve this problem is at the origin of the current crisis.

Several solutions are possible for Iran:
1. Buy the fuel for the TRR on the world market.
2. Receive fuel in exchange for most of its LEU stocks (this is the swap deal).
3. Enrich its own LEU to 19.5% (currently it is only enriching at 3.5%) and produce the TRR fuel domestically.
4. Stop producing its own isotopes and buy them on the world market (it would therefore not need fuel for the TRR to produce isotopes).

Any one of those solutions, if implemented, would provide Iran with medical isotopes and ensure its patients receive appropriate care, and therefore, solve the crisis. But they all have some problems, either real, or related to international politics:

1. Buying fuel on the market: Iran has actually said this would be its preferred solution, since it would allow it to keep its own LEU, rather than exchanging it for the fuel under a swap deal. As a member of the NPT (nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), Iran does have the right to purchase the fuel on the open market. However, as Scott Ritter has noted, "The United States and Europe have held any such sale hostage to Iran's agreeing to suspend its indigenous uranium enrichment program." Since Iran also has the right to enrich uranium according to the NPT, the obstacle here appears to lie in Western capitals, and this explains why they have preferred a swap deal in which Iran would give up its stocks of LEU.

2. Swap deal: From Iran's perspective, one problem here is that by sending most of its LEU stocks to Russia and France, Tehran runs the risk of never receiving the fuel, or, at least, this would give Russia and the West an important bargaining chip in future negotiations. One can easily conceive how the West, in possession of Iran's stocks, could lay out conditions for Iran to receive the fuel, such as asking for a full suspension of uranium in Iran.

There are historical reasons for Tehran to be worried: in the 1970s, under the US-allied Shah, Iran invested more than $1 billion in Eurodif, a consortium enriching uranium in France. This was supposed to give Iran the right to obtain part of the fuel produced by the consortium. However, the 1979 Iranian Revolution led France to renege, and Paris has since then refused to deliver Iran's share of the fuel or to reimburse it with interest. The fact that nuclear hardliner Nicolas Sarkozy is now in power only adds to Iran's fears that France could break the deal.

Partly because of such concerns, Tehran proposed that the swap should take place on Iranian soil and the LEU would leave Iran only when the fuel was delivered. As Siddharth Varadarajan put it, this would look something like this:

At a certain date, when French fabrication of the TRR fuel starts, the IAEA could take into its custody an equivalent amount of Iranian LEU and hold it, in escrow, inside Iran. When the TRR fuel is ready, the Iranian LEU could be loaded onto a plane, which would take off once the French fuel lands inside Iran. At the end of the day, the outcome for the US from a simultaneous swap would be the same as from a sequential swap: Iranian LEU stocks would have been depleted.

But US President Barack Obama, instead of jumping on the opportunity to close the deal, said he was disappointed with Iran, and called for sanctions - for a change.

3. Iran enriches LEU at 19.5%: In February 2010, Iran announced that it would enrich its own uranium up to 19.5% in order to make the fuel rods itself. One question mark here is whether Iran has the technical expertise for doing so. It could always reconfigure its centrifuges to produce 19.5% instead of 3.5% uranium, but Tehran has never before attempted to produce fuel rods out of enriched uranium.

Another potential problem is that Iran's enrichment process is plagued by the fact that its domestic uranium is contaminated with molybdenum and this makes enrichment more difficult (the molybdenum here is a separate issue from the medical isotopes of molybdenum). Further, the prospect of Iran enriching its uranium to an even higher level does not please the West.

4. Importing isotopes: Iran's announcement that it would attempt to reach the near 20% enrichment level led US officials to accuse Tehran of threatening the lives of its patients, since, if Iran was more reasonable, it would simply buy the isotopes on the world market and that would settle the crisis. For instance, Glyn Davies, the US ambassador to the IAEA, asked: "Why is Tehran gambling with the health and lives of 850,000 Iranian cancer patients in pursuit of ever more dangerous nuclear technology," a move he said was "callous and chilling".

Davies said that "to address the humanitarian needs of Iran's people, we are prepared to facilitate Iran's procurement of medical isotopes from third-country sources", maintaining that the American proposal was a "faster, cheaper, and more responsible alternative than enriching to 20%".

But one problem with importing isotopes is that world supply in the future may not be as reliable as it once was; and even if it remains reliable, Iran could still prefer to be self-sufficient and produce its own isotopes. Is the US right to say that it would be more responsible not to enrich uranium to 20%? One could certainly argue the case - but there is a stronger argument that it would be more responsible for states that have nuclear weapons to eliminate them, their obligation under the NPT, and convince Israel to eliminate its own nukes and join the NPT. That would certainly contribute to defusing the crisis.

The latest chapter in the Iranian nuclear dossier can be solved in more than one way. Although technicalities are important, we should nevertheless not forget that there would be no crisis if Western governments, and primarily the United States, had not created it in the first place.

Note

1. Ghannadi Maragheh et al., "Industrial-scale production of 99mTc generators for clinical use based on zirconium molybdate gel", Nuclear Technology Vol. 169, March 2010. See also Davarpanah et al., "Influence of drying conditions of zirconium molybdate gel on performance of 99mTc gel generator", Applied Radiation and Isotopes Vol. 67, 2009.

The Latest from Iran (13 April): Getting Beyond the Sideshow

1830 GMT: Economy Watch. It is reported that, in the "slow death" of domestic production because of Chinese-made goods, more than 75% of Iran's imports are now consumer items.

1815 GMT: Rubbing It In. The President's "establishment" opposition are crowing over his supposed retreat over the subsidy cut and spending proposals: they claim that Ahmadinejad has begged the Parliament to let him have a free hand in implementing the plan.

Iran: Mousavi to Students “Spring is Unstoppable”
The Latest from Iran (12 April): Signals from Mousavi & Rafsanjani?

1800 GMT: The 15 June Dispute. Some Government officials have been saying, rather curiously, that the mass marches of 15 June, three days after the election, had been granted a permit by the authorities.

Morteza Tamaddon, the Governor of Tehran Province, has issued a denial, carried in Khabar Online: there was no permit for the "fitna" (sedition) rally.


1150 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Journalist Emad Bahavar has told his wife that he is still being kept in solitary confinement.

1140 GMT: Labour Watch. More than 50 workers of the Abadan municipality have gone on strike to protest over more than three months of unpaid wages.

1130 GMT: The Latest on Scholarship. Rah-e-Sabz reports that a Government-sponsored conference on "Nuclear Iran" at Elm-o-Sanat University was boycotted. Two university has also expelled two more professors.

1110 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. An Iranian activist is reporting that Abdollah Momeni, a leading member of the student organisation Advar-e Takhim Vahdat, has been summoned to court and rearrested.

Momeni has been out on $800,000 bail. Last week he was a prominent participant in a meeting with Mir Hossein Mousavi.

1040 GMT: Militarising the Judiciary? Rah-e-Sabz is pondering the significance of a General Muhammad Bagher-Zolghadr being nominated as the new cultural, social, and anti-crime deputy of Iran's judiciary.

Last September, Zolghadr outlined the notion of “soft war” in a speech: “In a hard war, the line between you and the enemy is clear, but in a soft war there is nothing so solid. The enemy is everywhere.”

1030 GMT: Handing Out Justice. The head of Iran's judiciary, Sadegh Larijani, has assured a Parliamentary commission that, "if culpable, even my relatives would be persecuted".

I don't think this means that Ali Larijani should watch his back. Instead, Sadegh Larijani is trying to fend off growing pressure for the prosecution of First Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi over corruption allegations.

1025 GMT: The Battle Within. While we wait for confirmation of the reports, in Press TV (see 1010 GMT) and Khabar Online, that the President has backed down in the fight over the subsidy plan, more signs that all is not well within the dominant "principlist" faction:

As the members of the Principalist fraction of Iranian Parliament Majlis have expressed different views on the actions taken by the faction’s presidium, Majlis speaker Ali Larijani is to settle their dispute.

....Mohammad Ali Bozorgvari a member of the Principalist fraction of the Parliament delivered a speech last week blasting the members of fraction's presidium and Larijani in particular. He asked them to give clear answers to those criticisms.

Significantly, the report is in the pro-Larijani Khabar Online.

1015 GMT: When Sideshows Get Silly. Here is one reason why we were somewhat dismissive of press coverage of the first day of the Obama nuclear summit (see 0850 GMT), which converged on the line that China was ready to back a US-led sanctions resolution in the UN. For months, Beijing has played the cautious game of appeasing American sentiments by saying, Yes, We'll Talk, while in complementary statements saying, No, We Don't Do Anything Drastic.

So, hours after reporters fed by US officials were declaring Washiington-Beijing unity on the sanctions path, this from the Chinese Foreign Ministry: "We believe that the Security Council's relevant actions should be conducive to easing the situation and conducive to promoting a fitting solution to the Iranian nuclear issue through dialogue and negotiations."

Bless 'em, Reuters are still trying to wedge that tactically convoluted statement into their Monday story-line that All is Going Well: "[The] comments appeared to leave scant doubt that Beijing accepts that fresh Security Council action over Iran is coming, even if China wants room to negotiate over the sanctions proposed by Western powers."

1010 GMT: A Presidential Subsidy Climbdown? Rooz Online offers a lengthy analysis, "Continuation of Conflict Dangerous", but Press TV may have put up the signal that the battle is ending with a Parliamentary victory.

The website reports that, at the start of the Majlis session today, Deputy Speaker Mohammad Hossein Abu Torabi announced, "In a meeting with a group of Iranian MPs, the President has agreed to facilitate the implementation of the subsidy bill without introducing a complementary bill."

That would seem to indicate that Ahmadinejad has given up his attempt to get $40 billion in extra spending from subsidy cuts, rather than the $20 billion authorised by Parliament.

1000 GMT: Now to Important Matters --- Karroubi. The latest statement of Mehdi Karroubi has slipped under the radar, with his meeting last Thursday with the reformist Mojahedin of Islamic Revolution party only emerging on his website yesterday.

Karroubi criticised the recent speech of Ahmadinejad in Azerbaijan: “The language used is by no means appropriate for a president....[It is] an insult to thousands of years of Iranian civilisation.” He dismissed the President's attempt to focus attention on the US v. Iran. American threats against the country “were not something new” and, in the event of any attack, “we will all defend the country”:

Creating enemies is not a big deal. A big deal would be to respond to threats with reason and logic so that the public opinion of nations and [the opinion] of governments are drawn towards the truth such that threats are eliminated and turned into opportunities.

Bringing attention back to the domestic front, Karroubi warned of the consequences if Ahmadinejad continued putting down the Parliament and its importance: “If he degrades the Majlis today, tomorrow, the Parliament will lose all respect,” Denouncing the treatment of political prisoners and arguing for the respect of women's rights, he asserted, “We demand the implementation of the Constitution and stand even more firm than ever before.”

0900 GMT: Economy Watch. On another public-relations, Press TV tries to whip up some hope over Iran's international economic position:

Brazil has opened its doors to Iranian businessmen and welcomes any project, which will help the economy and encourage trade between the two countries.

"Iran is a big country in the region and enjoys considerable capacity to develop cooperation with Brazil," Brazilian Development, Industry and Foreign Trade Minister Miguel Jorge said Monday in Tehran after visiting his Iranian counterpart Ali Akbar Mehrabian.

0850 GMT: OK, let's deal with the sideshow now so we can concentrate on other matters later in the day.

The "nuclear summit" in Washington, at least for the mainstream press, turned into an All About Iran festival. Laura Rozen, one of the best journalists for inside information in the US capital, turned herself into a spokesperson for that line: "On summit sidelines, many conversations about Iran". That's courtesy of a "Washington Gulf expert" --- “With the Chinese, Russians and Turks, folks that need to come along on the sanctions track", the show is all about a forthcoming UN resolution --- and National Security Council staffer Jeff Bader: "The President in the meeting made clear the sense of urgency, and the Chinese made clear that they are prepared to work with us." (Bader is also probably the unnamed "US official" in other reports optimistically pointing to China's support.)

Of course Mahmoud Ahmadinejad didn't take this lying down, not with the opportunity to substitute US v. Iran for any internal matters. From his measured description of foreign leaders as "retarded people" to his call on the UN to investigate how the US Government used the 11 September attacks to set up wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, it was a red-letter day for finger-pointing by the Iranian President.

Ahmadinejad's declarations are propped up by Iranian state media by other signs that the sanctions hammer won't fall on Tehran: there is a speech outside the summit from Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan that there is "no evidence indicating that Iran's nuclear activities include efforts to acquire a nuclear weapon".

The Latest from Iran (12 April): Signals from Mousavi & Rafsanjani?

2120 GMT: Dramatic Gesture of the Day. It looks like it was not enough for the Iranian President to call foreign leaders "retarded" over the nuclear issue. The Islamic Republic News Agency is reporting that Ahmadinejad has claimed the high ground on "terrorism".

Writing United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad urged the UN to condemn the support of foreign forces in Afghanistan for the Jundullah insurgency's activities in Iran.

"We expect your Excellency....to condemn NATO's support for terrorism in the (Middle East) region and those who have supported this criminal [Jundullah leader Abdolmalek Rigi, captured by Iranian authorities]."

NEW Iran: Mousavi to Students “Spring is Unstoppable”
Iran: A List of 107 Killed in Post-Election Violence
The Latest from Iran (11 April): Checking In

As for alleged terrorism upon other countries, Ahmadinejad called for an investigation into the 11 September 2001 attacks on the United States which he said were "used as a pretext for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq".


2115 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Human rights activists reports that 17 detainees in Orumiyeh prison are on hunger strike.

1420 GMT: Ahmadinejad "Nuclear Weapons & Retarded People" Shocker. In what of course is not at all a diversionary statement (see 0950 GMT), the Iranian President used a domestic tourism industry event to pronounce on the Obama-led nuclear summit thousands of miles away:

World summits being organized these days are intended to humiliate human beings...These foolish people who are in charge are like stupid, retarded people who brandish their swords whenever they face shortcomings, without realizing that the time for this type of thing is over.

1240 GMT: The Clerical Challenge. An interesting interview in Tehran Bureau with Professor Said Arjomand on relations between the state and senior clergy: "Let me answer your question as to whether this challenge to the legitimacy of velāyat-e faqih and its official interpretation is new and serious."

1205 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Concerns are growing over the physical condition of journalist Mehdi Mahmoudian, who helped exposed the Kahrizak Prison abuses. Mahmoudian suffers from lung diseases and prison officials have allegedly not treated him.

Mohsen Safaei Farahani, a senior member of the Islamic Iran Participation Front, has been sentenced to five years in prison following appeal.

Safaei Farahani, a former head of the Iranian Football Federation, was arrested on 20 June and charged with “acting against national security”, carrying out propaganda against the system, insulting state officials, and creating public anxiety. He was temporarily released earlier this year on a bail of more than $700,000.

The six-year sentence of Ali Tajernia, another IIPF member, has been reduced to a year in prison following appeal. He was convicted of assembly and collusion to endanger public security and of propaganda against the Islamic Republic.

Student activist Mahdiyeh Golrou has been sentenced to 28 months in prison.

1145 GMT: Economy Watch. Peyke Iran claims that
Zagros Terminal workers and bus drivers in Ahwaz have not been paid for several months.

1140 GMT: The Corruption Case. Looks like Iran's head of judiciary, Sadegh Larijani, is walking a political tightrope. He has insisted that the judiciary "has no fear" in pursuing big cases, i.e., the Fatemi Avenue insurance fraud and alleged involvement of First Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi, but he has also insisted that those who make public claims for political reasons will be prosecuted.

1130 GMT: Did We Mention Signals? The Green Movement is picking up not only on Rafsanjani's meeting with leading reformist Behzad Nabavi (see 0950 GMT) but also on a Sunday statement in which the former President that it would be best if people again had confidence in the elections.

Rafsanjani again was careful to emphasise his "excellent understanding with the Supreme Leader" --- the battle is with the Ahmadinjead Government --- and said he would again lead Tehran's Friday Prayers when he felt the need for it. Rafsanjani has not made a Friday prayer address since 17 July.

Meanwhile, signals from another political quarter: we have a summary of Mir Hossein Mousavi's meeting with student activists: "Spring is Unstoppable".

1025 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Tahereh Saeedi, the wife of detained film director Jafar Panahi, has told Rooz Online that she has met with Tehran Prosecutor General Abbas Jafari Dolatabadi but received no answers about Panahi's condition. (See separate entry for Saeedi's recent letter expressing her concern about the harsh treatment of Panahi and the effect on his health.)

Saeedi added that "making a film without a permit and wearing a green scarf at the Montreal World Film Festival" are among the charges against her husband.

1015 GMT: Economy Watch. And this little item might also deserve a think, in light of the connections between economic approach and power in the regime:

Iran has transferred shares in six petrochemical plants and power stations to a social welfare investment organisation of the Islamic Republic's armed forces, state-owned Press TV said on its website.

"The transfer was reported to have been in lieu of the government debt to the Armed Forces Pension Fund," Press TV, an English-language satellite station, said on Friday evening.

The stakes, transferred following a cabinet decision, ranged from 23 percent to 100 percent, it said. The companies included Bushehr Petrochemical Company, Marun Petrochemicals and Pars Petrochemicals.

"In return, SATA (Armed Forces Social Welfare Investment Organization) is obliged to complete and commission the Bushehr petrochemical project within four years," Press TV said.

0950 GMT: A later start today because of the time difference while I'm in the US. Many thanks to EA readers for getting the day out to a start with their discussion on yesterday's LiveBlog.

Another case today, on the 10-month anniversary of the June election, of keeping eyes open for developments inside Iran. Most of the non-Iranian press are now comprehensively distracted by the nuclear issue. Even Nazila Fathi, one of the best reporters for a US paper on Iranian topics, is swept up by the postures of Washington and Tehran on the nuclear issue. Following the Sunday statements of the Supreme Leader and Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani, she leads with the Foreign Ministry's spin:

A large majority of Iranian lawmakers, angered over the Obama administration’s new nuclear weapons policy that conspicuously makes Iran and North Korea possible targets, urged their government on Sunday to formally complain to the United Nations in a petition that called the United States a warmonger and threat to world peace.

Unsurprisingly, the nuclear fuss is playing into the hands of those who would prefer attention anywhere except the internal situation in Iran: Race for Iran, the website supporting the legitimacy of the Ahmadinejad Government, is already proclaiming, "Iran Reacts to Becoming a US Nuclear Target".

So where else might one look for news? Well, of course, there's the far-from-minor skirmish over corruption, with First Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi the target of charges by key MPs. There's the ongoing battle over the subsidy and spending plans. There is the matter of hundreds of political prisoners. And there is this:

Mohammad Hashemi [the brother of former President Hashemi Rafsanjani] confirmed reports about a meeting between senior reformist Behzad Nabavi and Hashemi Rafsanjani in the holiday resort of Kish Island.

No further information on the discussion, as many were distracted by Hashemi's denial that Rafsanjani had met the head of Iran's judiciary, Sadegh Larijani, to discuss whether Rafsanjani's son, Mehdi Hashemi, must return from London, possibily to face charges.

Consider, however, that Rafsanjani's discussion with Nabavi, who is still out on bail after the imposition of a long prison sentence, follows the former President's meeting last week with leading reformist MPs. And spare a moment, from all the nuclear chaff, to consider, "What is the signal?"