Middle East Inside Line: US Missile Defense "in Israel", Israeli Views of Obama

Missile Defence in Israel and Turkey: Poland’s Wyborcza newspaper claims that the Obama Administration is not going to place an American missile defense system in Poland and Czech Republic. Instead, interceptor missiles on ships and bases in Israel and Turkey, as well as a possible location in the Balkans, are being considered.

The article quotes Riki Ellison, chairman of the Missile Defence Advocacy Alliance, a Washington-based lobby group, "The signals that the generals in the Pentagon are sending are absolutely clear: as far as missile defence is concerned, the current US administration is searching for other solutions than the bases in Poland and the Czech Republic."

Ellison claims Moscow's objections are behind the change in plans, "The outcome of this debate, it has been increasingly clear, will see the Polish and Czech option abandoned… the new administration pays more attention to Russia's arguments."

Israel's Verdict on Obama: According to a Smith Research poll taken this week on behalf of The Jerusalem Post among 500 Jewish Israelis, only 4 percent see the Obama Administration’s policies as pro-Israeli. Just over 50 percent consider them more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israeli, and 35 percent stated that they are neutral.

However, it appears that a lot of those who see Washington as neutral also favour some concessions from Tel Aviv. When Israeli Jews were asked whether they would support settlement freeze for a year as part of an American deal, forty-one percent said “yes” whereas fifty percent said “no.” The large minority supporting the freeze is somewhat surprising, given that 85 percent of respondents consider Obama’s demand for a settlement freeze as a potential threat to Israeli interests.

Israel-Palestine Trade Up: According to the Customs Administration of the Israel Tax Authority, Israeli-Palestinian trade has been steadily growing and almost reached New Israeli Shekel 20 billion ($5.28 billion) in 2008, despite the global economic crisis. Of this amount, NIS 14.6 billion ($3.85 billion) was domestic trade between the State of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, while NIS 4.6 billion ($1.21 billion) was Palestinian imports and exports through Israeli ports.

The Tax Authority also stated that the trade has been continuously increasing in the first half of 2009. Three years ago, Israeli-Palestinian trade was NIS 15.6 billion ($4.2 billion). ($11.1) billion.

The Latest from Iran (27 August): Catching Breath

NEW Iran: The Regime’s Knockout Punch? Not Quite.
NEW Iran’s Nuclear Programme: Talks, Threats, and Propaganda

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



2120 GMT: Well, unless the unexpected happens, it looks like all will be quiet until tomorrow morning's setpiece of President Ahmadinejad's speech introducing Friday prayers in Tehran.

2110 GMT: We took an evening break to recharge but, to be honest, we've returned to a standstill --- no  political developments.

There is, however, curious (and darkly humourous) goings-on at Press TV. The website has repackaged the Supreme Leader's Wednesday night speech under the headline, "Leader urges support for Ahmadinejad's strong suits", and the first paragraph: "The Leader of the Islamic Revolution sheds light on the recent course of events in Iran, urging the nation to stand by the administration of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."

That opening is superimposed on paragraphs 2-9, which are truer to the original account of the speech (and thus not so warm towards Ahmadinejad, with the exception of one sentence --- not included here --- which has been heavily edited and thus distorted):

Be sure that no crime or atrocity will go unpunished, but with issues of that importance the judiciary should rule based on solid evidence....The establishment [the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran] should take broad actions only after taking into consideration all aspects of the issues, and avoiding assessing the situation only from one dimension....Irregularities and atrocities have been committed during the aftermath of the elections, crimes that will be certainly dealt with....Irregularities and atrocities have been committed during the aftermath of the elections, crimes that will be certainly dealt with.

Question: who made Press TV stick on a "better" headline and opening paragraph, which have little to do with the rest of the article?

1730 GMT: Catching Up With The Story. We had a pop at Michael Slackman and The New York Times earlier today (1320 GMT), so it's only fair to note that Slackman is now up to speed with developments, including the Supreme Leader's statement last night. In "Iran’s Supreme Leader Softens Accusations Against Reformists", just posted on the Internet, and presumably to be published in the print edition in the morning, Slackman writes:

Ayatollah Khamenei’s comments were the latest in a series of small, if significant, steps that appear aimed at slowing President Ahmadinejad’s drive to consolidate power and define members of the reform movement as enemies of the state.

Slackman's article should also be read as the prevailing opinion of US-based analysts like Abbas Milani and Karim Sadjadpour, both of whom are quoted.

1500 GMT: It's All Because the West Hates Me. There is one political statement to note this afternoon. At his eftar dinner breaking the daily Ramadan fast yesterday, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad explained the cause of the post-election crisis: "[Western countries] have been humiliated in the last four years and, therefore, wanted to take revenge by encouraging continued unrest....Like you have been slapped in the face by the Iranian people in the last three decades, you have also been slapped this time."

The President then offered a deal to his enemies, "Although they [the West] did not act rationally, I still hope they can make amends for their mistake by making a global commitment not to interfere in Iran anymore."

Hmm....Apparently, Ahmadinejead hadn't received the message that, just before his dinner, the Supreme Leader was denying that the Western countries were behind "continued unrest".

1400 GMT: By far the quietist day in the post-election crisis, with next to nothing coming out of Iran on political and legal manoeuvres. The reformist site Norooz is highlighting new photographs of the alleged site of secret burials of 40 protestors at Behesht-e-Zahra cemetery. Reuters is running, from Parleman News, the statement from an unnamed MP: ""Raping of some detainees with a baton and soda bottle has been proven to us."

1320 GMT: How Twitter is Overtaking Mainstream Media. I've just had an interesting exchange with some correspondents, appropriately enough via Twitter, on its use for reporting and analysis. My position is that Twitter is invaluable in finding and putting together and interpreting the latest news, as opposed to the position --- held by some "mainstream" broadcasters --- that it is primarily useful to give the reactions of readers/viewers, since it is unreliable as a source for news.

In that context, a note. Enduring America, following up Twitter leads, first reported on the Supreme Leader's important speech to student leaders at 1845 GMT yesterday. We had an interim analysis up by 1915 GMT, and it was a key part of today's in-depth analysis, "The Regime's Knockout Punch? Not Quite", posted at 0655 GMT.

CNN's first mention of the Supreme Leader's speech? "US, UK Not Meddling in Iran", published at 1256 GMT today.

1040 GMT: US Media to Iranian Protestors, "You're Pawns in Our Nuclear Game."

It's bad enough that supposedly top-quality US media are now well behind the story in Iran. In today's New York Times, Michael Slackman writes that "aides to Iran’s president lashed out publicly at two former presidents" on Wednesday but still seems unaware that Hashemi Rafsanjani was attacked the day before in the Tehran trial.

What's really unsettling, however, is that The Washington Post isn't bothered any longer to consider the story as one of Iranians seeking changes to their Islamic Republic. At least Slackman and The New York Times tried today to assess the political situation --- the Post doesn't bother with an article.

Instead, the Post launches into an editorial attack instead on the "sickening spectacle" of the "Stalinist mass show trial". It does so, however, not out of concern for the rights of the defendants, detainees, or demonstrators. Three days ago, the newspaper seized on dubious propaganda spread by "Western officials" to demand that the International Atomic Energy Agency disclose information supposedly proving that Iran is pursuing The Bomb. Today, for the newspaper, any concern is reduced to that all-important nuclear question and "the challenge for Washington in engaging with a regime of questionable legitimacy, dubious lines of authority and an uncertain grip on power".

1010 GMT: Professor Alireza Farshi has been released on bail from detention. It is also reported that lawyer Abdolfatah Soltani is free on bail after 72 days in prison.

0900 GMT: To be honest, after the dramatic twists of the last 48 hours, there is very little to report this morning. So we've concentrated on our analysis of the Ahmadinejad Government's failure to knock out the opposition with Tuesday's trial and on another developing story, the propaganda around Iran's nuclear programme ahead of an important international meeting on 14 September.

One very disturbing incident to note, however, with the sudden re-appearance of the blog of former Vice President Mohammad Ali Abtahi (pictured). It's an obvious propaganda move by the Government, with Abtahi generously allowed to resume his writing while still in detention: "I said, 'Anything that I write must be my own. You can only tell me what things I should NOT write.' [The interrogator] agreed."

Maryam at Keeping the Change reprints the blog entry with a short, sharp analysis: "While the blog entry does include a call for the release of the political prisoners, the overall pro-Establishment message seems clear....The government is likely to keep Abtahi in detention and blogging, for some time."

Iran: The Regime's Knockout Punch? Not Quite.

The Latest from Iran (27 August): Catching Breath
NEW Iran’s Nuclear Programme: Talks, Threats, and Propaganda

The Latest from Iran: Responding to the Trial (26 August)
The Latest from Iran (25 August): The Trials Resume
The 4th Tehran Trial: The Tehran Bureau Summary
Video: The 4th Tehran Trial (25 August)
The Tehran Trial: The Regime Goes After the Reformists AND Rafsanjani

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

To appreciate how dramatic the regime's move was on Tuesday with the biggest of the four Tehran trials, in significance if not number of defendants, rewind 12 days to Saturday, 15 August. The regime had dodged a potential bullet the previous day when Hashemi Rafsanjani declined to lead Friday prayers in Tehran, but then it faced a torrent of disturbing news. The Supreme Leader, overruling opposition from the President's camp, pushed through the appointment of Sadegh Larijani as head of Iran's judiciary. The "Karroubi letter", demanding action on the abuse of detainees, was now circulating publicly. Mir Hossein Mousavi announced the "Green Path of Hope". Conservative members of Parliaments and newspapers were criticising key Ahmadinejad allies like Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi, as doubts circulated over the President's still-to-be-declared Cabinet. Even Ayatollah Khamenei was not above the battle, with a group of clerics and former MPs (who met former President Khatami) raising the invocation of Law 111 to question the Supreme Leader's qualifications for his post.

This was more than a spectre. Only 10 days after the President had been inaugurated, the Ahmadinejad Government faced a challenge to its legitimacy as great as that of the immediate response to the 12 June elections. It might face not only the Green wave but also a renewed judiciary ready to challenge its (ab)use of the legal system for detentions, confessions, and trials, a Supreme Leader who was no longer ready to back Ahmadinejad to the full, and conservative and principlist MPs alienated by stories such as the death of Mohsen Roohulamini. And there was still the haunting question: what would Rafsanjani now do?

So, would the Ahmadinejad regime back down and accept compromise, to the point of crippling its authority? Or would it make an even more aggressive charge to knock back its opponents once and for all?

Tuesday's trial was the answer. This was the equivalent (for our American readers) of "swinging for the fences" in baseball and (for all others) of trying to land a one-punch knockout in the boxing ring. The crushing of the reformists, headlined by the non-Iranian press, was only one goal. This was also the occasion to put away the Rafsanjani challenge for good. It may even have been the declaration to the Supreme Leader that this was no time for his concessions --- token or real --- to the protests inside and outside the Establishment. No more Larijanis in key positions with power, no more apologies for detention centres like Kahrizak Prison.

Was it a knockout? At the end of Tuesday, the Government's challengers looked very wobbly. Apart from the "non-confession" of Abdollah Ramezanzadeh, the reformist leaders had been paraded and humiliated. The prosecutor mentioned the death penalty. Saeed Hajjarian had been forced to resign from his political party and to lay out --- as one of Iran's premier political theorists --- the designs of "velvet revolution". Tajzadeh, Aminzadeh, Nabavi, Atrianfar had all been put forth to show that there would be no backing down. (And, as a bonus, here was an Iranian-American, Kian Tajbakhsh, on trial and testifying to the "velvet revolution", linking billionaire George Soros and former President Mohammad Khatami.)

Here were the charges of "corruption", which had been raised by Ahmadinejad against Rafsanjani before the election, not only renewed but redoubled. Rafsanjani's son Mehdi Hashemi, nephew, and brother-in-law were all tarred in court for diversion of funds, electoral manipulation, and disinformation. While they were not amongst the defendants, they also faced a death penalty with the ending of their public lives. Mehdi Hashemi's attempts on Tuesday night to get some forum for a rebuttal showed how shaken he was. But was his father?

When we went to bed Tuesday night, it seemed that the referee might --- for the first time in 2 1/2 months, be counting out the opposition.

Yesterday, however, the challengers got off the mat.

Inevitably, there were regime opponents who were never going to be silenced, if only because there is little more that can done to them. Grand Ayatollah Montazeri put out an open letter defying a regime which "is neither Islamic nor republic". For the most part, however, the Green Wave/Path of Hope marked time yesterday. Mohammad Khatami denied the allegations against him, and Hossein Karroubi, describing his own court appearance on Tuesday, represented his father by declaring that the initial meeting with MPs over the detainee abuse inquiry was "very good". Mehdi Karroubi revealed that he had written the head of judiciary, Sadegh Larijani, asking him for“the implementation of the Constitution, the legal defense of freedom and citizenship rights, and the maintenance of legal justice to defend the dignity of the system”.

Instead, the first real twitch came yesterday morning in a small but significant step. The Rafsanjani camp posted the audio of the former President's Saturday statement to the Expediency Council: the call for unity behind the Supreme Leader but also the call for justice and for Government officials to follow the Constitution and proper guidelines. At the time, it appeared to be only a clarification of Rafsanjani's statement but it may have been the prelude (keep reading) to a more dramatic statement.

By the afternoon, Rafsanjani's office was being less subtle. Mehdi Hashemi continued to declare his innocence and then turned "corruption" against Ahmadinejad, declaring that the President, as Mayor of Tehran, had "lost" millions of dollars. More importantly, I suspect, the Rafsanjani camp took the fight to Ahmadinejad's ally and Chief of Staff, Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai, attacking his "hallucinations" and calling on both Rahim-Mashai and Ahmadinejad to back up their criticisms of Rafsanjani in court.

And then last night came the dramatic challenge to the President, from a most unexpected challenger. We had wondered on Tuesday whether the Supreme Leader was behind the fourth trial, especially given the attacks on Rafsanjani. In a speech to student leaders, he gave the answer: the opposition had not been engaged in a foreign-directed "velvet revolution" against Iran. For anyone thinking of more arrests, including leaders like Mousavi and Karroubi (and, less likely but still possible, for those throwing around spurious indictments in trials), “We should not proceed in dealing with those behind the protests based on rumours and guesswork. The judiciary should only give rulings based on solid evidence, not on circumstantial evidence.”

A three-word summary. Back. Off. Mahmoud.

Now it could be that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is playing a very clever double game. He could have allowed the fourth trial to proceed, with the criticisms of Rafsanjani, and then pulled back last night. That way, both Ahmadinejad (enough is enough) and Rafsanjani (you had your warning) would be strongly encouraged to pull back and let the Supreme Leader put the regime's house in order.

I take another view, however, based on the Supreme Leader's signal from 19 June. In that Friday prayer address, the only one he has made since the election, he made clear that he preferred the political views of the President but that he also found Rafsanjani an honourable man and leader. And he specifically criticised Ahmadinejad's pre-election charges of corruption. The message had been given: shake hands, boys.

Rafsanjani may have crossed that line on 17 July when he led prayers, but with his general caution, even circumspection, before and after that speech, I think he has tried to ensure that he did not cross Khamenei. (Once again, note last Saturday's address to the Expediency Council. And note that the audio was released on Wednesday morning, just to make it clear where Rafsanjani stood.) Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, went well over the line. So who has to be pulled back?

On the surface, and if you limit your gaze to the Supreme Leader, Ahmadinejad (and, behind him, the Revolutionary Guard), and Rafsanjani, the situation is easily repaired. No more sledgehammer allegations of corruption from the Government, and Rafsanjani keeps his distance from the Green opposition.

But this conflict is no longer "on the surface" and it certainly is not just around this trio. The 4th Tehran trial was just the latest, more dramatic assertion of Presidential authority, following detentions, beatings, purges of some ministries, and attempts to control others. So now there are contests within the Establishment: what happens to those 20+ officials who were forced out of the Ministry of Intelligence and who now "supervises" its work? Does Sadegh Larijani, put in by the Supreme Leader, have real authority to "correct" the abuses of the system by the Ahmadinejad camp (and, again, the Revolutionary Guard)?

Already the next public display is upon us. Tomorrow the President, on Government Day, introduces the Friday prayer address in Tehran. No doubt he will point to his dedication and service in upholding the Islamic Republic and no doubt, given that the confirmation votes in Parliament on his Ministers begin on Sunday, he will declared that his Cabinet nominees are just as honourable and dedicated.

Ahmadinejad might win that short-term battle within Parliament (although I think that is far from certain). But, even if he does, that is only one punch in a 15-round contest. His regime connected with a blow on Tuesday, but it was far from a knockout.

Which leaves a warning to Mahmoud: when you thrown a punch that big and don't win immediately, you have to swing even harder next time. Or you have to put your hands up and ask for a referee's decision.

The Middle East/Iran Inside Line: Hezbollah In, Lieberman Out, France-Germany Making a Difference?

Iran’s Nuclear Programme: Talks, Threats, and Propaganda
Israel-Palestine: After Mitchell Meeting, Netanyahu Presses His Advantage

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

Lebanon: Hezbollah in Government: Prime Minister-designate Sa'ad Hariri declared on Wednesday: "The national unity government will include the [ruling] March 14 alliance, and I also want to assure the Israeli enemy that Hezbollah will be in this government whether it likes it or not because Lebanon's interests require all parties be involved in this cabinet."

France and Germany Speak Out on Middle East, Iran: On Wednesday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s met Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then reiterated Germany’s call for two-state solution: "We shouldn't let the window of opportunity pass… The time is absolutely right. Let us do everything to use it."

Meanwhile, spokesmen for the Germany Government emphasised, "The German government advocates that no further settlements in the occupied territories be built. The federal government has emphasized repeatedly this position, and it has not changed." The spokesmem refused to give details on discussions over Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier held in Gaza, "strongly appealed to his kidnappers to release him as fast as possible [as] his martyrdom has already lasted too long".

French President Nicholas Sarkozy, also on the scene, endorsed the German call for a halt to Israeli settlement expansion. He then switched to Iran, publicly warned that France would support further sanctions on Tehran if it did not stop uranium enrichment: "These are the same leaders, in Iran, who tell us that the nuclear program is peaceful and that the elections were honest. Frankly, who believes them?"

Sarkozy is due to meet with the leader of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, in Paris next week.

Israel: Foreign Minister in Trouble?: Haaretz’s Aluf Benn has pointed out the “damage” Foreign Ministry Avigdor Lieberman is causing to Israel's reputation and called on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to replace him with a “real statesman”.

Benn argues that Lieberman’s has not furthered his country’s national interests in diplomatic exchanges with other countries and has, indeed, alienated them thanks to his “aggressive” statements. Lieberman has put his Prime Minister in a “foolish” position and endangering the peace process by calling it a “dangerous folly”.

Iran's Nuclear Programme: Talks, Threats, and Propaganda

The Latest from Iran (27 August): Catching Breath

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

On the diplomatic calendar for Iran's nuclear programme, the date of 14 September has a big red circle around it. That's the day when 150 nations convene in the general convention of the International Atomic Energy Authority.

And that's why we are in the midst of manoeuvres and propaganda that put even the US-Iran contest of the Bush years to shame.

Two weeks ago, Iran proposed that the 14 September conference ban attacks on any nation's nuclear facilities. This was followed on 18 August by a declaration by Iran's envoy to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, "Talks without preconditions is Iran's main stance in negotiations on the nuclear issue."

However, Tehran backed away from Soltanieh's statement and "Western and Israeli officials" struck back a day later: “The International Atomic Energy Agency under Director General Mohamed ElBaradei was refraining from publishing evidence obtained by its inspectors over the past few months that indicate Iran was pursuing information about weaponization efforts and a military nuclear program.”

What has followed has been a battle of spin, not between Iran and the US/Israel but amongst "Western officials". Those trying to keep talks with Iran on the rails let it be known that Iran had not expanded the number of centrifuges enriching uranium at its Natanz nuclear site since the end of May. Those opposed to engagement countered with the "news" that Iranian leaders had received and rejected in May a proposal calling for a halt to Iran's nuclear enrichment program in exchange for no new United Nations sanctions.

Beyond the propaganda, what is next? Tehran says it is ready for nuclear talks without preconditions but is decided not to stop its uranium enrichment facilities. Despite the Obama talk of engagement, others in Washington and European capitals are threatening to expand sanctions if Tehran does not shelve nuclear enrichment by the end of September. Israel continues its lobbying, moving between hints of military action and support for the toughest possible economic restrictions. Russia and China, sceptical of and often opposed to such sanctions, remain silent.

For now, just keep retracing that circle around 14 September.