The Latest from Iran (9 August): Once More on Trial

NEW Video: Hillary Clinton on Iran (9 August)
Iran Special Analysis: The Tehran “Foreign Plot” Trial as a Political Weapon
More Iran Drama: Will Rafsanjani Lead This Friday’s Prayers?
Iran: Ayatollah Sistani Intervenes
How Not to Help Iran: The Folly of US Sanctions
The Latest from Iran (8 August): Regrouping

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



1915 GMT: In a meeting that could offer significant clues to his political future, President Ahmadinejad
"will attend the  [Parliament] session on Monday to exchange views and interact with lawmakers," according to Principlist MP Vali Esmaeili.


1650 GMT: Fars News English says two more citizens of Western European countries have been arrested for "recording an illegal gathering in Vanak Square [in Tehran] using a hi-tech camera." The pair allegedly also had "footage of some Israeli towns" from a 10-day visit to Israel.

1640 GMT: Etemade Melli, the newspaper of Mehdi Karroubi's party, has summarised a letter written by Karroubi to Hashemi Rafsanjani "10 days ago". Karroubi asked the former President to ensure an investigation was launched into the abuse of detainees, including allegations of rape of women and young boys.

1635 GMT: The Threat Against Mousavi. The move by a bloc in Parliament to convict Mir Hossein Mousavi of "leadership" of post-election rioting has been complemented by the head of the political office of the Revolutionary Guard, Yudollah Javani. Writing in the weekly Sobheh Sadegh, affiliated to the Guard, Javani declared, "If Mousavi, [Mehdi] Karoubi and [Mohammad] Khatami are main suspects behind the soft revolution in Iran, which they are, we expect the judiciary...to go after them, arrest them, put them on trial and punish them".

1625 GMT: To Fire Two Ministers is a Misfortune, To Fire Four is a....The civil war within the Ministry of Intelligence, which we've been following as a marker of even bigger battles inside the Government, continues. Apparently, it is no longer two Deputy Ministers --- as well as the Minister, Gholam-Hossein  Mohseni Ejeie, who have gone. According to Mazin News, "the purification project is continuing" with the dismissal of the Deputies for Parlaiment and for Technical Affairs.

1315 GMT: Setting Up a Firebreak. A "firebreak" is where you deliberately burn out a rows of trees to establish a line to check a forest fire. In Iran, this weekend's firebreak is the head of Kahrizak prison, who has just been fired and put in jail (1230 GMT). Getting rid of him draws a line of the head of police, Esmail Ahmadi-Moghaddam, the man who announced the firing, because a leading the "principlist" bloc, which holds the most seats in Parliament, has put responsibility on Ahmadi-Moghaddam. Hamid-Reza Katouzian said, “Unfortunately, the gross misconduct of Kahrizak officials have resulted in the murder of scores of young people. The Iranian Police Chief is duty bound to provide a clear explanation in this regard.”

1230 GMT: Another Limited Concession. In another sign that the Government is balancing pressure on the opposition with some acknowledgement of its errors by sacrificing lower-level officials, Reuters reports, via the Islamic Republic News Agency, the statement of Iran police chief Esmail Ahmadi-Moghaddam  "The head of the [Kahrizak center has been sacked and jailed. Three policemen who beat detainees have been jailed as well."

Ahmadi-Moghaddam also repeated the statement of chief prosecutor Ayatollah Dorri-Najafabadi (0750 GMT) that some post-election detainees had been abused in the prison.

1200 GMT: We've separated out this morning's initial update as a special analysis on the political meaning of the Tehran trial. There is also an analysis of an important criticism of the Supreme Leader by the influential Iraq-based Ayatollah Sistani, and the latest news on whether Hashemi Rafsanjani will lead Friday prayers in Tehran.

1000 GMT: Getting the Story Straight. Last week President Ahmadinejad reportedly told a gathering in Mashaad that he wanted to "take [the opposition] by the collar and slam their heads into the ceiling". This, however, may have been a bit off-line. Forget the impression that Ahmadinejad might have been condoning the rough treatment of detainees: could you picture the President trying to power-lift Hashemi Rafsanjani?

So Ahmadinejad has revised the script to fit the "foreign plot" trial: "After speaking at the meeting a number of media outlets reported that I was referring to my opponents, but I was in fact referring to the bulling and interfering powers."

0955 GMT: Just in case folks hadn't figured out the purpose of the Tehran "foreign plot" trial, a group of pro-Government members of Parliament have lodged a complaint against Mir Hossein Mousavi "as the driving force behind the recent turmoil which swept across the country".

The story, which is on Press TV's website, is very sketchy. The initiators of the complaint are labelled vaguely as "the influential clerics' bloc in Iran's parliament along with a number of other Majlis representatives", with a member of the National Security Commission, Mohammad Karami-Rad,  taking the lead: "We are pursuing the complaint against Mousavi and soon this letter of complaint will be handed to the judiciary so that the legal proceeding is conducted [on the matter] and the rioters are brought to justice."


0930 GMT: The Tehran Times reports a statement from the Deputy Head of Majlis [Iranian Parliament] National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, Hossein Sobhaninia, that the commission would discuss the case of three detained Americans in its weekly meeting on Sunday. The trio were picked up by Iranian security forces after crossing the border while hiking in Iraqi mountains.

0830 GMT: While Ahmadinejad is choosing his Cabinet, he may want to have another word with his staff handling Iranian media. After pro-government outlets claimed that Ayatollah Nasser Makarem-Shirazi sent a congratulatory message to the President, an official from the Ayatollah's office stated, "His eminence has not congratulated Ahmadinejad and does not intend to do so. These [claims] are perversions of the truth emanating from individuals who until now have been applying pressure to us and are now forced to manufacture and propagate falsehoods."

0810 GMT: During a visit to "the club of young reporters" on Saturday, President Ahmadinejad said that he will introduce his cabinet at the beginning of next week. He promised, "The young will have a prominent presence in the new cabinet."

0750 GMT: The New York Times, however, isn't concerned with Chief Prosecutor Dorri-Najafabadi's statement on Saeed Hajjarian (0740 GMT). Instead their newsflash, overtaking even coverage of the Tehran trial, is that Dorri-Najafabadi "Acknowledges Torture of Protesters". They highlight the passage in the press conference where the prosecutor said, “Painful accidents [had occurred] which cannot be defended, and those who were involved should be punished.”

Dorri-Najafabadi specifically talked about “the Kahrizak incident”, referring to the detention centre whose closure was ordered by the Supreme Leader. He insisted, “Maybe there were cases of torture in the early days after the election, but we are willing to follow up any complaints or irregularities that have taken place.”

0740 GMT: One piece of news which, in the smallest of ways, cuts against the Government's latest moves to break the opposition.Iran's head prosecutor, Ayatollah Dorri-Najafabadi, has recommended that Saeed Hajjarian should be moved and kept under control in his own home. Hajjarian was transferred from detention in late July to a residence owned by the Iranian Government.

Dorri-Najafabadi added that, despite the recommendation of Hajjarian's physician that his patient be released due to his physical state, Hajjarian is in good health.

Video: Hillary Clinton on Iran (9 August)

The Latest from Iran (9 August): Once More on Trial

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

An extract from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhnh8TyC5gg[/youtube]

Transcript II: National Security Advisor Jones on North Korea and Pakistan (9 August)

Video and Transcript I: National Security Advisor Jones on North Korea, Pakistan, Iran (9 August)
Transcripts III: National Security Advisor Jones on Afghanistan, Pakistan, and North Korea (9 August)

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

CHRIS WALLACE: General, welcome to “FOX News Sunday.”

JONES: Thank you, Chris. Good to be here.

WALLACE: Is Baitullah Mehsud, the leader of the Taliban inside Pakistan, dead?

JONES: Well, we think so. The Pakistani government has believed -- believes that he is, and all evidence that we have suggests that. But there are reports from the Mehsud organization that he’s not. But we think -- we think that it looks like he is.

WALLACE: Let me ask you to clear up another matter. There were reports yesterday of a gun fight between two leading contenders to replace Mehsud and that one where both of them had been killed in a gun fight.

But this morning, one of those two people who was allegedly dead reportedly called Reuters news service to say that he’s alive and well and there was no fight. What do you know about that?

JONES: Well, we’ve heard -- we’ve heard stories about that. We can’t -- I can’t confirm it. But it certainly is -- appears to be that there was some dissension in the ranks. That’s not a bad thing for us.

And it goes to show that I think the strategy that we’re engaged with with Pakistan is actually having some effect. And that’s good.

WALLACE: Well, I was going to ask you, assuming that Mehsud is dead, what does it say about the president’s war on terror?

JONES: Well, I think in terms of Pakistan, it means that the Pakistani government and the army is -- and our relationships with the army are having good effect, and I think that we’re moving in the right direction.

Mehsud is -- was a very bad individual, a real thug, responsible for a lot of violence, a lot of innocent people losing their lives. And I think that if there’s dissension in the ranks and that if, in fact, he is, as we think, dead, this is a positive indication that in Pakistan things are turning for the better.

WALLACE: Well, let me ask you about that. Regardless of who’s in charge, there’s still up to 20,000 Taliban fighters inside Pakistan. Is this a key moment for the Pakistanis to go after them? And are we pressing the Pakistani government and military to do just that?

JONES: Well, for the last several months, Chris, we’ve had a very, very good engagement with the Pakistani government. The Pakistani army has acquitted itself quite well in the Swat region, showing sensitivity for refugees as well.

We have a growing relationship in terms of intelligence sharing, and I think the relationships between the two -- the two countries are on the -- certainly very positive right now -- and also the relationships with Afghanistan.

Don’t forget this is a theater-wide engagement. This is an important moment. I won’t say it’s a tipping point, but it certainly shows that we’re having some success.

When you can take out a leader like Mehsud, you do show -- you do have some dissension in the ranks, and it reduces their capability to organize, regardless of how many they have.

This is a strong message. Pakistan deserves to be -- to be credited for its role. And we hope that we continue the pressure and we don’t -- we don’t let up.

WALLACE: Afghanistan -- you say it’s a theater-wide issue. Afghanistan is scheduled to hold national elections on August 20th. With the Taliban active in about half of that country, will that election go off? And what are the chances of serious disruptions?

JONES: Well, all indications right now are that the elections are going to go off, that they’re going to be fair. They’re going to be secure in most parts, secured by lot of Afghan forces, with international forces forming the outer ring of security. We are paying a lot of attention to that.

It looks like they’re having a good debate going into the elections. And so the signs are positive now. We’re quite sure that there will be -- there will be some efforts out there to disrupt them, but we hope to keep that to a minimum.

WALLACE: The new U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, reportedly wants more U.S. troops sent to Afghanistan.

But according to the Washington Post, you told our top brass in late June that the president was done sending additional troops. And I want to get to the quote. “If there were new requests for force now, the president would quite likely have a Whiskey Tango Foxtrot moment.”

Everyone in the room caught the phonetic reference to W-T-F, which in the military and elsewhere means “what the expletive.”

JONES: Right.

WALLACE: General, did you say that?

JONES: I did say that, but in the context of the overall strategy. We -- this is not, Chris, simply about the number of troops.

This -- I have been involved in Afghanistan for the better part of six years of my life, initially as a NATO commander. And in my two years of retirement, we conducted a major study about Afghanistan. And now I’m back into it.

What is not lacking in Afghanistan is a comprehensive strategy. We have published the strategy that not only is agreed to here by everyone in the nation’s capital, but also by lot of our international allies.

Essentially, there are three prongs to the strategy. There’s a security prong. That is -- that is about troops. But economic recovery and cohesion with the security strategy is important. And better governance and rule of law, from Kabul all the way down to the local townships is extremely important.

So my point in saying what I said was that it is not simply about troops. Now...

WALLACE: But are you ruling out more troops for Afghanistan?

JONES: As you know, as you mentioned, General McChrystal is doing a comprehensive assessment, which is what any military commander does when they take over a significant job.

And the secretary of defense has heard his preliminary report, has asked some questions. It will come up through the chain of command, and then we’ll see what...

WALLACE: But if he asks for more troops, you’re not ruling it out?

JONES: Not ruling it out at all.

WALLACE: OK. There have been a flurry of recent reports, including a comment over the last couple of days from the new British army chief of staff, that to secure Afghanistan will take at least -- at least -- another decade.

First of all, do you agree with that? And secondly, is the president prepared for that kind of long-term commitment?

JONES: Well, I know Sir David Richards quite well. He was the commander of ISAF when I was his senior commander at NATO.

And I think that what we have in place right now is a comprehensive strategy. We have yet to go past the first milestone of evaluating it.

But I think the strategy that the president has agreed to and announced that all allies have agreed to, that emphasizes the three prongs that I just mentioned -- our -- and also, it also emphasizes more role for an increased capacity in the Afghan army and also the Afghan police.

If we do that, I think we will -- we’ll see indications very quickly that we’re turning in the right direction. And I think that the Afghans will be able to control their own destiny much quicker.

WALLACE: Do you want to give us a time line for that?

JONES: I don’t want to give -- I don’t want to predict a time line, just like we couldn’t predict a time line in Iraq. But you get to that tipping point. If you -- if the pieces are all organized correctly, you get to that tipping point a lot quicker, and then it becomes irreversible.

WALLACE: President Obama has made it part of his policy to try to reach out to Iran. Are we still prepared to negotiate with President Ahmadinejad after what seemed to be widespread reports that he stole the election?

JONES: In the context of the international P Five -- what we call the P Five-Plus One negotiations, we have -- we have extended an open invitation to Iran to join the talks, which we would -- we strongly hope they do.

They have not responded to that invitation. That’s been on the table since April. We hope that they do. The...

WALLACE: The fact -- let me just ask -- you say we hope they do. The fact that we -- that...

JONES: We hope that they respond.

WALLACE: But the fact that Ahmadinejad may have stolen the election makes no difference?

JONES: Well, the fact of the election really makes a difference to the people of Iran. They are the ones that have to decide on the legitimacy of it.

We have to deal with this -- the -- whatever the central authority is. If it turns out to be the same individuals, then that’s who we have to deal with.

But the issues on the table are so important, in terms of nuclear weapons -- I might say North Korea as well -- that when they respond, if they respond, we’ll have to deal with them. That’s just the fact of life. WALLACE: A report this morning that the Revolutionary Guard in Iran wants the political candidate, presidential candidate who lost, to go on trial for unrest after the elections. How would we regard that?

JONES: With regard to Iran, there’s obviously some internal difficulties in that country. We have basically taken the stance that since we can’t, obviously, affect it one way or another, nor should we, that we will deal with the Iran as this thing shakes out.

But it is obvious that there’s some internal difficulties. We’ll just watch and see what happens.

WALLACE: General, what have you learned from President Clinton’s trip to North Korea this week to bring back those two journalists? Did Kim Jong-il or any of the other top officials in their meetings indicate they want a new relationship with the U.S.?

JONES: Well, as you know, Chris, this was a private mission and one that the -- I think the -- we’re all grateful to the former president for taking it on. Certainly the families -- the joyful reunion was something we all celebrate.

And by the way, we would like to see the same kind of reunion in South Korea with the detainee that the North Koreans have, and also with the Japanese abductees that are still in North Korean prisons.

But the former president and the leader had about a 3.5-hour discussion. Reportedly, they discussed the importance of denuclearization in terms of weapon systems of the North Korean Peninsula -- of the Korean Peninsula, and -- in addition to, you know, talking about other things that the former president may have wished to discuss.

WALLACE: But did -- in that meeting -- as you say, it was over three hours. Did the North Koreans indicate they want a new relationship with the U.S.? And did they specifically ask for direct talks rather than going back to the six-party talks?

JONES: North Koreans have indicated that they would like a new relation -- a better relation with the United States. They’ve always advocated for bilateral engagement. We have put on the table in the context of the talks we would be happy to do that if, in fact, they would rejoin the talks. So we think the...

WALLACE: We would have -- be willing to have bilateral talks in the context of the six-party...

JONES: Within the context of the -- of the six-party talks.

WALLACE: What did we learn about Kim’s health and his hold on power from the Clinton trip?

JONES: Well, we’re still very much debriefing the party that went with President Clinton. But preliminary reports appeared that the -- that Kim Jong-il is in full control of his organization, his government. The conversations were respectful and cordial in tone.

WALLACE: But he’s still in charge?

JONES: And he certainly is -- he certainly appears to still be the one who’s in charge.

WALLACE: Can you assure the American people that all that the North Koreans got from this trip in exchange for the two American journalists -- that all they got from this trip was the photo-op, that there were no secret concessions from the United States?

JONES: I can do that with absolutely a straight face. There was no official message sent via the former president, and there were no promises, other than to make sure that the two young girls were reunited with their families.

WALLACE: A couple of final questions. Will the president meet his deadline for closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay by next January?

JONES: Well, we have every intention of doing so, and there’s a lot of work going on every single day to make sure that we find the right solution. And I’m confident that we’ll be able to meet that deadline.

WALLACE: Finally, let’s talk a little bit about Jim Jones, because I think it’s fair to say that you have been lower profile than some of your predecessors as national security adviser, particularly Henry Kissinger and some of the others.

But you’re not seen in public all the time hovering right next to the president. You’re not seen as the gatekeeper who controls all the foreign policy types who get in to see the president. Do you have a different view of your job?

JONES: I do. I think this is also a different century. And I think the national security adviser runs an organization that deals from everything starting with climate change and energy all the way to cybersecurity, including the normal threats that we associate with the job.

So it’s very complex. We have economic issues that we’re concerned about. And so I think...

WALLACE: But particularly in terms of your role.

JONES: I think -- I think, first of all, there’s no problem with me seeing the president on any matter that he wants to discuss or I want to discuss. That is -- that is not a problem.

I believe that there’s a -- there’s a new way of doing business, to tee up the issues that are very complex and span a huge, huge array of subjects that each day the president has to deal with.

And I think that getting the right people in to see the president at the right time to brief him on a daily basis on these issues is the right thing to do. It’s just...

WALLACE: And you’re not threatened that...

JONES: I don’t -- I don’t -- at the principal’s level, with Secretary Clinton and Secretary Gates, we talk every day. We talk with Susan Rice up at the -- up at the U.N. We have a very collaborative team. There’s no dissension. There’s no -- there’s nothing but trust and confidence. And that’s the enjoyable part of the job.

So I don’t -- I want to make sure that the president gets the best advice he can. If I need to put my particular spin on it, I have -- I have no problem doing that.

I just -- I just think that I serve the president better by presiding over an organization that tees up the issues in the right way. We have a good process, I think, to make sure that the president gets the advice that he needs, that -- we vet it. We tear it apart. We fight over it if we need to.

But when we come to see the president, we have a -- we have a -- he gets -- he gets the pros and the cons. And if I -- as the national security adviser, if I need to say something either privately or with my colleagues, I do so. I don’t have any problem with that.

WALLACE: General Jones, we want to thank you so much for coming in today. Please come back, sir.

JONES: I appreciate it. Thank you, Chris.

WALLACE: Pleasure.

JONES: Thank you.

Iran Special Analysis: The Tehran "Foreign Plot" Trial as a Political Weapon

The Latest from Iran (9 August): Once More on Trial

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

The significance of the renewed Tehran trial, as with the initial hearings a week earlier, is not in the purported evidence; it is in the display that the regime is not going to compromise --- not yet, not as long as these proceedings persist, and possibly never, given the impact of this trial --- with much of the opposition.

Yesterday, another set of defendants were "introduced" with a description of the charges against them. They included the Frenchwoman Clotilde Reiss, Hossan Rassam, an Iranian employee of the British Embassy, Nazak Afshar, an Iranian employee of the French Embassy, and advisors to Mir Hossein Mousavi  including former Member of Parliament Ali Tajernia, , Javad Emaam, the head of Mousavi's campaign office in Tehran, and Shahabeddin Tabatabaee, the national head of Mousavi's young supporters committee.

This, however, was just the rationale for prosecutor Abdolreza Mohabati to repeat the regime's standard allegation of a foreign-directed conspiracy:

Some British diplomats took part in illegal Tehran gatherings. The political section of the British embassy was collecting information about officials, the Revolutionary Guards, Basij militia....It formed a working group to monitor news and the local staffers and diplomats made provincial trips. The embassy also sent local staffers to scenes of unrest.

The prosecutor accused the US of running an "exchange programme where members of the Iranian elite were sent to the United States for higher education....The programme aimed at changing views in Iranian society ... infiltrate the social layers, weaken Iran's government to eventually topple the regime. Voice of America radio and social-networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook also allegedly played a role in spreading the unrest.

This, of course, is why the Frenchwoman Reiss, a graduate student and assistant teacher at Isfahan University for five months, had a "starring" role yesterday. In the words of the Islamic Republic News Agency, she is "accused of collecting information and provoking rioters, and played an active role in the unrest by giving information to foreign embassies". She will be a face of the foreign plot for regime change, even if the testimony published in the state media points to a woman who, naively, took some photographs of the dramatic events that unfolded after the 12 June election and just before the end of her stay in Iran:

I had written a one page report and submitted it to the cultural department of the French embassy. I was planning to leave Iran, but I took part in rallies of June 15 and 17 in Tehran and took photographs. I did this out of curiosity, and to be aware of the political situation.

The rest of the Government's case is no stronger than it was last week, when it portrayed US-based academics as masterminds of the plan to topple the Islamic Republic. There was a "member of a terrorist group", Mohammd Reza Ali Zamani, speaking of the plans of the "Iran Kingdom Association", "We had received the formulas to make a strong bomb with the purpose of creating explosion and insecurity in Iran....We had the mission to attack and bombing some holy and crowded places." (Remember the state media's claim of a "suicide bomb attack" of Imam Khomeini's tomb in south Tehran during the demonstrations of 20 June, a claim which subsequently vanished?)

There was Reza Rafiee Foroushani, who supposedly  was spying for the US and United Arab Emirates intelligence services. There were the plans to penetrate the Karoubi election campaign and to disrupt one of Mir Hossein Mousavi's lectures with a bombing (presumably blaming this on the Government or pro-Ahmadinejad forces). And above all of this was a devious American scheme, through an "exchange project", in which Iranian individuals and groups were brought to the USA "with exorbitant costs" and then reinstalled in bases Dubai, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Britain, and Germany to implement the "velvet revolution".

The point, of course, is not the prosecution's case which is, frankly, ludicrous, but the political assault launched through this trial. Having been on the defensive for most of the last month, the Government is clearly trying to re-establish authority, intimidating the opposition and shoring up support through the "foreign threat" narrative. The question, of course, is whether the tactic has more than short-term effect. Indeed, each step up in both public display and rhetoric also carries the risk that the Government's advantage turns into further difficulties, as concern and anger over detentions, abuse, and confessions builds. One analyst, Pirouz Mojtahed-Zadeh, said, “It’s gone too far. You can’t treat a vice president[[Mohammad Ali Abtahi] in this manner, stripping him of his cloak. [He] is a mullah, an ayatollah, and on television we saw him in an ordinary shirt. That’s a big disrespect."

Mojtahed-Zadeh, who is far from a radical operative of the "velvet revolution" --- he is a professor at Tarbiat Modares University in Tehran --- offers the advice, “Perhaps the regime would be wise enough to put some facade of legality on this, because these show trials are not acceptable in any way, by anyone.”

Iran: Ayatollah Sistani Intervenes

The Latest from Iran (9 August): Once More on Trial
How Not to Help Iran: The Folly of US Sanctions

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

After two months, Ayatollah Sistani, the Iranian-born clerical leader in the holy city of Najaf in Iraq, has intervened, albeit in an oblique fashion, in the post-election controversy. He did so through answers to "questions from the faithful"

1) What is your eminence's opinion about [Iran's] religious supreme leadership (velayat-e-faqih)?

"Leadership in what Islamic jurists call "everyday affairs" exists for any qualified expert in Islamic jurisprudence. However [leadership] in public affairs that play a crucial role  in the order of the Islamic society, depends both upon personal qualifications of the expert and also upon other issues  including the fact that the expert must be acceptable for the public."

2) If a pronouncement  of another Marjaa [senior clerical leader] opposes that of a Supreme Leader what must be done?

"In general the pronouncement of a person that has religious supreme leadership in public and society affairs etc. supersedes all (including other Marjaa) unless the pronouncements are proven to be wrong or the pronouncements are proven to be against what is in the Koran or in Religious Tradition."

Interpretation? Sistani just told Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that he is not untouchable. Whether or not Sistani meant his reference to "personal qualifications" to flash back on Khameni's rise to Supreme Leader, even though he was not a marjaa, there will be those in Iran who immediately see the context. And "acceptable to the public" and "proven to be wrong" do not need even that level of analysis.

Beyond the intervention, here's a question to ponder: it was widely reported that, before agreeing to lead Friday prayers in Tehran on 17 July, Hashemi Rafsanjani had gone to Najaf to see Sistani. So, given the Iraq-based Ayatollah's continuing influence amongst many Iran faithful, has the former President --- due to lead prayers again this Friday --- received another boost?