UPDATED Iran: Today's Shiny Object for Media? Why, It's an Ambassador-of-Death Drone Bomber!

UPDATE 23 August: Another day, another super-shiny, super-scary object. From Bloomberg:

Iran announced it has begun producing two types of missile-equipped speedboat, a day after the country unveiled a long-range drone that can carry bombs.

“Enemies should be careful not to play with fire,” Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi said on state television today at the opening ceremony for the vessels’ production lines. “If they attack Iran our response will not be limited to one region and will be unpredictable.”



The Seraj-1 is a rapid-assault vessel that can operate in stormy weather, while the Zolfaqar can travel at 82 miles per hour and is equipped with the Nasr missile to strike enemy ships, Vahidi said, according to the official Islamic Republic News Agency. Both speedboats will “significantly boost the Iranian navy’s defense capability,” he said.

--

Yesterday it was the Bushehr nuclear plant, but attention spans can be short. So let's see what shiny object has been held up for our attention today....

Why, it's an unmanned drone bomber, courtesy of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Iranian military on Defense Industry Day. Ahmadinejad's pitch played on pre-emptive strikes (since the US did it in Iraq in 2003, why can't Tehran?):

If there is an ignorant person or an egoist or a tyrant who just wanted to make an aggression then our Defense Ministry should reach a point where it could cut off the hand of the aggressor before it decided to make an aggression.

We should reach a point when Iran would serve as a Defense umbrella for all freedom loving nations in the face of world aggressors. We don't want to attack anywhere, Iran will never decide to attack anywhere, but our revolution cannot sit idle in the face of tyranny, we can't remain indifferent.

Iran's Press TV is mighty proud:

The Karrar UAV [unmanned aerial vehicle] is capable of carrying a military payload of rockets to carry out bombing missions against ground targets. It is also capable of flying long distances at a very high speed.

Iran's defense industries have demonstrated spectacular progress in the recent year, launching numerous domestically-built armaments, including aerial and sea-borne military vehicles such as submarines, combat frigates, and various types of missiles.

Iran inaugurated the production line of two domistically-built UAVs with bombing and reconnaissance capabilities.

The two hi-tech drones named 'Ra'd' (Thunder) and 'Nazir' (Harbinger) are capable of performing long-range reconnaissance, patrolling, assault and bombing missions with high precision.

Ra'd, a UAV especially designed for assault and bombing missions, has the capability to destroy specific targets with high precision.

And the Associated Press has a ready-made, over-the-top headline, courtesy of Ahmadinejad. Can you spot which three words below it chooses (clue: it's not "peace and friendship"):

The jet, as well as being an ambassador of death for the enemies of humanity, has a main message of peace and friendship.

The Latest from Iran (16 August): Complaints

2000 GMT: Supreme Leader's Film Corner (Hijab Special). So here was the question put to Ayatollah Khamenei and other senior clerics, "If a film which is to be shown on Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting has been made outside Iran and features women without hijab, what is the ruling?"

The Supreme Leader's response? "One may look at the face, neck, head, and hands of non-Muslim women."

1730 GMT: International Affairs Expert Rahimi Update. The office of first Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi, who has provided some illumination with his recent entry into international affairs commentary (e.g., Australians are cattlemen and South Koreans should be slapped), has issued a clarification.

Rahimi, his staff explained was misquoted because of a "wrong translation" in his comments on "England": he meant to say that not all but only some British politicians are idiots.

1720 GMT: Surveillance and a Lawsuit. Detained journalist Isa Saharkhiz and his son Mehdi have filed a lawsuit in US Federal Court in Alexandria, Virginia against Nokia Siemens Networks and its parent companies Siemens AG and Nokia Inc., alleging human rights violations committed by the Iranian government through the aid of spying centres provided by Nokia Siemens Networks.

NEW Iran Document: Mohammad Khatami on Religion, the Islamic Revolution, and the Republic (15 August)
NEW Iran’s Battle Within: Ahmadinejad Appeals to Supreme Leader (Rafiee)
Iran Feature: Two Faces of Modernity (Vahdat)
Iran Latest (15 August): Revolutionary Guards’ “Election Tape”

1715 GMT: Parliament v. President (cont.). MP Ali Motahari, who has been amongst the leader of the challenge to President Ahmadinejad and his inner circle, has welcomed Sunday's meeting between Ahmadinejad and the heads of Parliament and the judiciary (see 0520 GMT), but he has complained that the Government is blocking files against some high-ranking officials, which might provide information on claims of corruption.

Motahari also coyly noted that some MPs accused him of "insults" against Ahmadinejad, when he only said, "The fact that the President does not recognize the law on metro allocations [Parliament had authorised $2 million for the Tehran metro but Ahmadinejad has refused to accept] opens the way to dictatorship." Motahari added, "I don't know how those handful of MPs who regularly humiliate the Majlis will answer to the people whom they are meant to represent."

1705 GMT: Rahnavard "Some in Iran Government Worse than Saddam". Appearing with her husband Mir Hossein Mousavi in a meeting with veterans of the Iran-Iraq War, Zahra Rahnavard
commented, "Unfortunately I should ask that, while you were in Iraqi prisons, did you even think that when you were freed from Saddam's prison, you would face the imprisonment of hundreds and even thousands of freedom seekers in your own country?"

This university professor referred to the complaint filed by seven senior reformist figures, all detained after the 2009 election, against military officials over last year's alleged manipulation of the vote:

Would you ever imagine that these seven freedom seekers, who I call them the seven warriors, would be imprisoned because they filed a complaint against the actions of the coup agents, while they could have filed their complaint in a just court and received a response with convincing reasons? But the government throws them in jail and does not know that this is the voice of the people, seeking justice and asking [where their votes went], that is raised by these seven brave ones in a form of a complaint. In any case, a part of the ruling power curses at Saddam, while they have treated the people worse than him.

1650 GMT: Parliament v. Ahmadinejad. Looks like the President's letter to the Supreme Letter (see separate entry) might be needed to stave off an appearance before Parliament.

Reformist MP Mohammad Reza Khabaz claims that there are now three independent but simultaneous moves by conservative factions to question Ahmadinejad: “The first move by the principlist members, which succeeded, came from the faction’s clergymen in the form of a collective warning to the President signed by 16 clerical members of the Parliament."

Khabbaz said a pro-government MP was also preparing the draft of a “critical” letter to Ahmadinejad regarding the behaviour of his aide Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai. He claimed that the letter would ask Ahmadinejad about the reason behind his silence with respect to Mashai’s comments over Iran and Islam and his support for the controversial Chief of Staff. “I asked this MP who had been a staunch supporter of the government until two weeks ago, why was he in such a hurry to gather signatures for such a letter and he replied to me that ‘we want to do our duty and to prevent an even more radical by the parliament’. But this conservative MP only gave the letter to [his fellow] Principalist MPs to sign and did not allow the reformist MPs to join,” said Khabbaz.

Khabaz said that in a third move, the Majlis members were planning to sign a motion on calling for Ahmadinejad to be questioned over “the government’s recent acts against the law and its neglect of the parliament’s passed bills, as well as recent remarks made by Mashaei”. He described the three parallel moves against the coup government as “unprecedented” and said that conservative members in the Majlis were competing against one another in “warning and questioning” Ahmadinejad.

When asked about the number of signatories on the critical letter as well as the number of signatories to the motion to question Ahmadinejad, Khabaz said, “I am not aware of the number of signatures but there is great interest for this act and the MPs are still in the process of gathering signatures.”

A total of 74 MPs need to support the motion in order for the president to be questioned in parliament.

1640 GMT: Rumour of Day. Yet another video has been posted --- we have seen several in recent weeks --- of an alleged queue of Iranians for petrol/gasoline. This footage is supposedly from Karaj, Iran's fifth-largest city and just west of Tehran:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_C5kKBFykU[/youtube]

1635 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Kalemeh reports that leading student activist Majid Tavakoli, one of the 17 detainees who recently went on hunger strike --- has been transferred from Evin Prison to Rajai Shahr Prison.

(English translation via Negar Irani)

1615 GMT: Nuclear Tough Talk. I return from vacation to find the non-Iranian media preoccupied with yet another round of sound and fury from Tehran. From Agence France Presse (quickly followed by Associated Press):

Iran is to start building its third uranium enrichment plant in early 2011, as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad signed a new law Monday binding Tehran to pursue the controversial work of refining uranium to 20 percent.

The law, Safeguarding the Islamic Republic of Iran's Peaceful Nuclear Achievements, had been passed by lawmakers last month and it also stipulates that Tehran limit its cooperation with the UN's nuclear watchdog, state news agency IRNA reported.

Iran's atomic chief Ali Akbar Salehi told state television that the search for sites for 10 new uranium enrichment facilities "is in its final stages. The construction of one of these will begin by the end of the (current Iranian) year (to March 2011) or the start of next year, inshallah (God willing)."

Never mind that the Iranian Government has been chest-thumping about "10 new facilities" for almost a year. (Last September, the President was promising 20.) A simple re-statement is enough to start flutters in the "West".

AFP notes the response from the French Foreign Ministry: "We expect Iran to comply with its international obligations. This announcement only worsens the international community's serious concerns about Iran's nuclear programme."

1140 GMT: Nourizad’s "Last Letter" to the Supreme Leader. Mohammad Nourizad, the journalist and documentary maker, who was recently released on bail, has written his sixth and, he claims, last letter to Ayatollah Khamenei (see separate EA entries for earlier Nourizad letters).

The letter, posted on Nourizad's website, declares:

Oh Lord, in the time of Seyed Ali [Khamenei] as the Supreme Leader, the law and abiding the law by officials became insignificant and worthless. The favourite ones used the law as a ladder to climb up in power and gain opportunities. A miserable poor man is thrown into government’s prison over a million toman ($1000) unpaid debt, but the President, his Vice President, as well as some of their ministers and government managers who have taken billions in embezzlement and fraud, in a marathon of deceiving the people, brag about their shirt buttons close to their throats (a sign of being religious among the revolutionary officials) and laugh at the law and the people.

At the end of the letter, Nourizad urges the Supreme Leader, as he is getting to the end of the journey of life, to order the release of innocent political prisoners: this way he may make peace with the people and will not leave a bad name for himself in history.

1125 GMT: The Hunger Strike. Kalemeh reports that families of the 16 political prisoners who recently ended a hunger strike have again been denied visit permits, despite the reported promise of the Tehran Prosecutor General that contact would be restored. The website also claims the prisoners are being held incommunicado in solitary confinement in Ward 240.

0835 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Nima Bahador Behbahani has been released on bail. Aged 17 when he was arrested on Ashura (27 December), far from the protests, he was judged as an adult rather than a minor.

0820 GMT: Execution Watch (cont.). One hundred cities have now joined the campaign against stoning.

The interview by French philospher Bernard-Henri Levy of human rights lawyer Mohammad Mostafaei (see earlier entry) has been posted in English on The Huffington Post.

Mostafaei says of his client Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, sentenced to death --- initially by stoning --- for adultery, "She is a symbol. She is the symbol of all Iranian women who are victims of the family, the society, of their discriminatory laws."

0810 GMT: Parliament v. President. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may have written the Supreme Letter (see separate entry), but that has not settled matters. "Hardline" MP Assadollah Badamchian has daid the President has no authorisation to declare that a ratified law is not in force. Badamchian said Parliament must tell Ahmadinejad that laws endorsed by the Expediency Council, headed by Hashemi Rafsanjani, are legal.

0735 GMT: Execution (Sakineh) Watch. An international group of prominent writers, singers, actors, and activists have issued an appeal for the commutation of the death sentence of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, condemned for adultery.

French philosopher Bernard Henri Lévy has interviewed Ashtiani's lawyer, Mohammad Mostafaei, now in forced exile in Norway.

Feresteh Ghazi, interviewing an attorney involved in the cases, writes that four other women face stoning or other means of execution.

0645 GMT: The Music of Protest, the Protest of Music. Aria Fani writes about artists such as Shahin Najafi to note, "Honoring and emulating (the) tradition of protest verse, a new generation of Iranian singers and rap artists are confronting sociopolitical taboos head on and keeping lit the flame of resistance against a corrupt, totalitarian regime. Their music not only echoes their own defiance, it also voices their generation's demands."

0630 GMT: Shutting Down the Mayor? According to Kalemeh and several bloggers, Iranian authorities filtered “Khabargozarieh Shahr” (City News Agency), a website linked to Tehran Mayor Mohammad-Baqer Qalibaf.

0625 GMT: We have posted the English translation of former President Mohammad Khatami's remarks on Sunday about religion, the Islamic Revolution, and the Republic.

0535 GMT: Who is Mesbah's Target? Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi has proclaimed that "not every unity is good and not every difference is bad". He said that "some who insist on wrong interpretations of Shia don't want to discuss differences, but are devils causing division".

Once upon a time, Mesbah Yazdi, seen by many as the spiritual mentor of the President, would have directed his criticisms at the opposition. Now, given his recent comments on Ahmadinejad's advisors and even the President, the target is not so clear.

0520 GMT: Reconcilation? No. The leaders of the Iran Government's three branches --- President Ahmadinejad, Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani, and head of judiciary Sadegh Larijani --- met Sunday.

There is little in the account of Mehr News beyond the cryptic but telling comment of Ali Larijani that there is no room for “odd interpretation” of law.

Khabar Online says the meeting lasted 2 1/2 hours. but there was "absolute silence" on the outcome.

0500 GMT: We open today with tales of two very different complaints. In a separate entry, we post Bahram Rafiee's report that President Ahmadinejad has written to the Supreme Leader about his escalating dispute with the Parliament.

Rafiee also writes for Rooz Online about a serious complaint against the Government and Ahmadinejad in Friday's open letter by the reformist Islamic Iran Participation Front to the head of Iran's judiciary, Sadegh Larijani.

The letter builds on the news that seven political prisoners, all senior memers of the IIPF and the Mojahedin of Islamic Revolution party, had filed complaints against “lawbreaking military officers during the tenth presidential election”, citing a leaked audio of a senior Revolutionary Guard commander setting out steps against the opposition before and after the election.

The IIPF wrote Larijani:

The widespread distribution of taped statements from Commander Moshfegh, a senior figure at the Sarallah base, removed the curtain from the electoral coup in the tenth presidential election and proved the truth of the green movement leaders’ claim that the election was engineered. This individual, who speaks frankly, ignorantly and with a drunkenness from power, about organizing the coup, clearly admits to actions that cannot be referred to as anything other than a coup in any school of political thought....

Now that it has been uncovered that the person who was introduced as the President reached that post through a coup (and not just fraud), lacking any kind of legal or Islamic legitimacy, it is your duty to forward the matter to the supreme court for investigation.

UPDATED Iran-US Special: The 4-Step Collapse of Obama's "Engagement" Into Confusion

UPDATE 7 August: Stephen Walt jumps in with this analysis....

Right now, Washington simply assumes that Iran won't negotiate unless it is coerced into doing so by outside pressure. At the same time, Tehran has made it clear that it wants to negotiate but refuses to do so under pressure. The predictable result is the current stalemate. You'd think the U.S. government could come up with something creative to try to overcome this impasse, instead of just hoping for a miracle.

UPDATE 0940 GMT: An interesting clue that, amidst the confusion, the discussion of US-Iran talks is very much alive. Alaeddin Boroujerdi, the head of the Iranian Parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, has said that dialogue with Washington requires the permission of the Supreme Leader.

Iran-US Special: Obama Extends His Hand “Engagement, Not Conflict”

This time yesterday I was confidently declaring that President Obama had renewed his approach for engagement with Iran. David Ignatius of The Washington Post was putting out the message, from a specially-arranged briefing of selected journalists: "President Obama put the issue of negotiating with Iran firmly back on the table Wednesday in an unusual White House session with journalists. His message was that even as U.N. sanctions squeeze Tehran, he is leaving open a 'pathway' for a peaceful settlement of the nuclear issue."

Ignatius' narrative fit a pattern which, while interrupted by the breakdown in nuclear discussions last October between Washington, Tehran, and other countries, was far from obsolete. Noting the recent US escalation in Afghanistan and Iran's role in any attempt at a resolution, I assessed, "While the nuclear issue was the first one to be addressed --- given its symbolic position, it had to be resolved before other matters could be tackled --- engagement with Tehran would also pay dividends for US policy in the Middle East, including Iraq, and Afghanistan as well as removing a troublesome issue in relations with Russia and China."

All very logical. Yet, within 24 hours, Obama's initiative has become a tangle of conflicting reports and political counter-attacks, taking us not towards engagement but towards the challenges I identified at the end of yesterday's analysis: "The conflict inside the Administration has taken its toll...The pressure from the US Congress [and opponents outside the Congress] — as well as the war chatter — will not evaporate."

Four Steps to Collapse:

1. THE CONFUSED MESSAGE

If, as Ignatius claims, the President was re-presenting the strategy of negotiating with Iran, others in the room failed to hear this. Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic opens his account: "The session, as envisioned by his aides, was designed to convince his audience that Obama's policy of engagement joined with sanctions is having the desired effect of isolating Iran from the international community even as the country's pursuit of a bomb has not abated."

So pressure, pressure, and only pressure, as Ambinder features Administration optimism that Russia is now on Washington's side. There is not a single word in his report about negotiations.

Robert Kagan recounts, "[Obama] did make clear that the door was, of course, open to the Iranians to change their minds, that sanctions did not preclude diplomacy and engagement, and that if the Iranians ever decide they wanted to 'behave responsibly' by complying with the demands of the international community, then the United States was prepared to welcome them." This, however, is only an annex to the Pressure message: "The 'news' out of this briefing was that the administration wanted everyone to know how tough it was being on Iran."

Peter David of The Economist has perhaps the fullest account of the discussion. Like Ambinder and Kagan, he notes the Administration line that sanctions are pinching Tehran. His presentation on negotiations is not that Obama advocated them but that he pointed to the possibility:

it was important to set out for the Iranians a clear set of steps that America would accept as proof that the regime was not pursuing a bomb: they needed "a pathway". With hard work, America and Iran could thaw a 30-year period of antagonism—provided Iran began to act responsibly.

Mr Obama said that the United States had received no direct contacts from Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or its supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, though high-level officials in Iran had investigated the possibility of re-engaging with the P5-plus-one (the permanent members of
the Security Council plus Germany). America would be willing to talk bilaterally to Iran "in the context" of a P5 process that was moving forward. There should meanwhile be a "separate track" on which America could co-operate with Iran on other issues, such as Afghanistan and drugs, for example.

2. THE ANTI-ENGAGEMENT COUNTER-ATTACK

Ambinder and David have not been amongst those beating the drum for confrontation with Tehran and, while Kagan has been a staunch advocate of an aggressive US foreign policy, including the 2003 Iraq war, he has been supportive of Obama's approach on sanctions.

For another journalist at the meeting, however, the agenda was how to stoke the fire of a showdown with Iran. Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic omitted any reference to negotiations, whether Obama advocated them or merely saw the possibility of discussions. Instead, he fit the confusion of journalists' accounts into this pre-determined conclusion:

I am skeptical, though, about the possibilities of a diplomatic breakthrough, for two reasons, one structural, and one related to the state of Iran's opposition: The structural reason is simple; one of the pillars of Islamic Republic theology is anti-Americanism, and it would take an ideological earthquake to upend that pillar. And then there's the problem of the Green Movement. If the Iranian opposition were vibrant and strong, the regime might have good reason to be sensitive to the economic impact of the new sanctions package. But the opposition is weak and divided. The regime has shown itself to be fully capable of suppressing dissent through terror. So I'm not sure how much pressure the regime feels to negotiate with the West.

This is more than enough ammunition for those wanting to shoot down engagement. Max Boot soon wrote for Commentary: "What’s scary is that the illusions about 'outreach' in the upper reaches of this administration have still not been dispelled, despite a year and a half of experience (to say nothing of the previous 30 years of experience), which would suggest that the mullahs aren’t misunderstood moderates who are committed to “peaceful co-existence.”

3. THE FACTIONS INSIDE THE ADMINISTRATION

So what exactly did happen in the Obama briefing to scramble his message? Different journalists, from their own positions or just human nature, will hear --- and even try to produce --- different messages. Kagan, without naming Ignatius, writes:

Some of the journalists present, upon hearing the president's last point about the door still being open to Iran, decided that he was signaling a brand-new diplomatic initiative. They started peppering Obama with questions to ferret out exactly what 'new' diplomatic actions he was talking about.

There's an even more important factor here, however, one that Kagan points to --- but does not fully appreciate, at least in his column --- in his next sentences:

After the president left, they continued probing the senior officials. This put the officials in an awkward position: They didn't want to say flat out that the administration was not pursuing a new diplomatic initiative because this might suggest that the administration was not interested in diplomacy at all. But they made perfectly clear -- in a half-dozen artful formulations -- that, no, there was no new diplomatic initiative in the offing.

As one bemused senior official later remarked to me, if the point of the briefing had been diplomacy, then the administration would have brought its top negotiators to the meeting, instead of all the people in charge of putting the squeeze on Iran.

Kagan's point is incomplete. The Obama Administration has been split, perhaps since it came into office, between a faction who want genuine discussions with Iran and one that only thinks of discussions as the set-up, once there is an Iranian "rejection", for tougher economic and diplomatic measures.

So those who are on the "positive" side for discussions give their perspective to Ignatius --- thus the important reference to the US involvement as Afghanistan (which is not any other account of Obama's remarks) as a factor, if not a necessity, for conversations with Iran --- and those on the "negative" side become the "bemused senior official" in Kagan's article.

Joe Klein of Time, who was also present, captures the confusion: "This was a pretty strange meeting. The President's comments were on the record; his team's comments were on background, meaning that the individuals speaking could only be identified as 'senior Administration officials'."

And that's not all. For the spinning of the story was also going on beyond Obama's briefing. As I noted yesterday in the anlaysis, one or more unnamed officials sought out George Jahn of the Associated Press, leaking two letters (or selected extracts from the letters) from Iran to the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency. The intent --- supported by Jahn's presentation and failure to put quotes into context, let alone present the letters --- was to rule out any possibility of productive dialogue: "Letters by Tehran’s envoys to top international officials and shared with The Associated Press suggest major progress is unlikely, with Tehran combative and unlikely to offer any concessions."

Such manoeuvres  in turn prop up critics of engagement like Ed Morrissey as they put out the gospel: "Time is running out on stopping the mullahs from their doomsday pursuit, and open hands to the regime have hardly been effective over the last several years, including the last eighteen months.  Either we need to get serious about other options or concede that we’re not serious at all."

4. CAN OBAMA RESCUE HIS ENGAGEMENT?

There's even a black-comedy irony in this story. Flynt Leverett, one of the foremost advocates of a US engagement with Iran for a "grand bargain" on bilateral and regional matters, joins others in dismissing the possibility of productive discussions, not because the Administration is too "soft" (as Goldberg and Boot argue) but because of "the Administration’s maladroit handling of its diplomatic exchanges with Tehran, poor grasp of on-the-ground realities in Iran, and mixed messaging....The President feels he must call in Western journalists to signal Tehran is a sad commentary on the Obama Administration’s failure to develop a discreet and reliable channel through which to communicate with Iranian leaders."

I suspect Leverett, because of his entrenched dislike of US foreign policy, goes a bit far with his unsupported assertion of the "failure to develop a discreet and reliable channel". I'm more than a few miles away from Washington, so I can't prove that the channel is operating, but last year's history is instructive. Between July 2009, when the Administration seized on the possibility of a deal in which Iran's uranium would be enriched in a country such as Russia, and October, a channel was established between Washington and Tehran. It was not direct but rather through third parties, including the International Atomic Energy Agency, European parties, and Turkey. And it led to face-to-face talks between US and Iranian representatives at Geneva in the autumn.

Even though that effort at an agreement ran adrift, the channels were not set aside. Ankara and the European Union have been used in recent weeks to pass Washington's thoughts to Tehran (and vice versa). Obama left more than a clue in his briefing: "High-level officials in Iran had investigated the possibility of re-engaging with the P5-plus-one [US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, and China]." Time's Klein offers further support that the process of 2009 --- contact at working levels --- is being repeated, although he fails to recognise it is two-way:

The President confirmed that "high level" Iranians have reached out to the Obama Administration over the past months, hoping to get a dialogue restarted. The President emphasized that neither the Supreme Leader nor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have attempted to contact us, and his aides later insisted that nothing concrete was in the works.

And in Tehran, once you get past President Ahmadinejad's more outlandish postures in recent weeks, he too has been putting out references to both indirect communication with the US and to direct talks in the near-future.

The problem is not that the channel for engagement does not exist; it is the interference that distorts and even scrambles it. The President and his advisors are putting out signals , not just to Tehran but to the US Congress, to their anti-engagement critics, to Israel, and to other countries. No surprise that those signals often clash, especially when the Obama Administration has the faction within that does not even believe in engagement.

Last November, I fretted, "The US President [may] be back in the cul-de-sac: pressed by some advisors and a lot of Congressmen to pursue sanctions which offer no remedy for — and no exit from — the political dilemma of his failed engagement."

This week, with those sanctions now reality, Obama tried to get out of the cul-de-sac with his high-profile briefing. Initially I thought he had a chance; 24 hours later, I am thinking that his effort --- at least in the context of domestic politics --- never made it around the corner.

War on Terror: How the US Avoided the Law and Hid Its Detainees (Apuzzo/Goldman)

Matt Apuzzo and Adam Goldman report for the Associated Press:

Four of the nation's most highly valued terrorist prisoners were secretly moved to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in 2003, years earlier than has been disclosed, then whisked back into overseas prisons before the Supreme Court could give them access to lawyers, The Associated Press has learned.

The transfer allowed the U.S. to interrogate the detainees in CIA "black sites" for two more years without allowing them to speak with attorneys or human rights observers or challenge their detention in U.S. courts. Had they remained at the Guantanamo Bay prison for just three more months, they would have been afforded those rights.

"This was all just a shell game to hide detainees from the courts," said Jonathan Hafetz, a Seton Hall University law professor who has represented several detainees.

Removing them from Guantanamo Bay underscores how worried President George W. Bush's administration was that the Supreme Court might lift the veil of secrecy on the detention program. It also shows how insistent the Bush administration was that terrorists must be held outside the U.S. court system.

Years later, the program's legacy continues to complicate President Barack Obama's efforts to prosecute the terrorists behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The arrival and speedy departure from Guantanamo were pieced together by the AP using flight records and interviews with current and former U.S. officials and others familiar with the CIA's detention program. All spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the program.

Top officials at the White House, Justice Department, Pentagon and CIA consulted on the prisoner transfer, which was so secretive that even many people close to the CIA detention program were kept in the dark.

Read rest of article....

UPDATED Iran-US Special: Obama Extends His Hand "Engagement, Not Conflict"

UPDATE 6 August: Now see our new analysis, "The 4-Step Collapse of Obama’s 'Engagement' Into Confusion".

UPDATE 1345 GMT: Oops, looks like some official in Washington (or London or Paris) is out to cause trouble for Obama. He/she has leaked Iran's official replies, concerning possible uranium enrichment talks, to the "Vienna Group" and to the International Atomic Energy Agency. The lucky reporter, George Jahn of Associated Press, then puts out the "correct" line (as opposed to Obama's "correct" line in the Ignatius article):

As Iran and world powers prepare for new nuclear talks, letters by Tehran's envoys to top international officials and shared with The Associated Press suggest major progress is unlikely, with Tehran combative and unlikely to offer any concessions. Two letters, both written late last month, reflect Iran's apparent determination to continue the nuclear activities that have led to new rounds of U.N., EU, and U.S. sanctions in recent weeks over fears that Tehran might be seeking to develop nuclear arms.

At the same time, world powers preparing to talk to Tehran are unwilling to cede ground on key demands concerning Iran's uranium enrichment activities, dimming prospects that the new negotiations will ease tensions.

Because the quotes from Iran's letters (e.g., ""This kind of [Western] behavior ... is absolutely unacceptable") have been ripped out of context, there is no way of telling if Tehran is in fact being intransigent. You, and presumably President Obama, will just have to accept the word of the "Western diplomat" who went to Jahn.

(A side note for the reporter and Associated Press: if you were really hoping to bring out helpful information for readers to evaluate, instead of providing the conclusions from the diplomat, wouldn't you just print Iran's letters --- or at least paragraphs from the letters --- in full?)

---

David Ignatius of The Washington Post, who is often used by Administration officials to put out the "right" line on US foreign policy, serves as an important messenger today:

President Obama put the issue of negotiating with Iran firmly back on the table Wednesday in an unusual White House session with journalists. His message was that even as U.N. sanctions squeeze Tehran, he is leaving open a "pathway" for a peaceful settlement of the nuclear issue.

"It is very important to put before the Iranians a clear set of steps that we would consider sufficient to show that they are not pursuing nuclear weapons," Obama said, adding: "They should know what they can say 'yes' to." As in the past, he left open the possibility that the United States would accept a deal that allows Iran to maintain its civilian nuclear program, so long as Iran provides "confidence-building measures" to verify that it is not building a bomb.

The renewed opening to Iran also included a proposal for talks on Afghanistan. Obama said he favored a "separate track" for discussion of this issue, in which the two sides have a "mutual interest" in fighting the Taliban. He urged that, as part of Afghan President Hamid Karzai's push for "reintegration" with the Taliban, Iran should be included in regional talks about stability. "Iran should be a part of that and could be a constructive partner," he said.

Why is Obama talking engagement with Iran when many analysts are debating the growing risks of a military confrontation? Administration officials cite two factors: First, the sanctions against Iran are beginning to bite, making Tehran potentially more interested in dialogue; and second, U.S. intelligence reports indicate that the Iranians have had technical troubles in their nuclear-enrichment program -- which allows more time for diplomacy.

The White House chose an unusual way to send its signals to Tehran. A small group of journalists was invited to a "background session" on Iran policy with "senior National Security Staff." The briefer turned out to be Obama. An official said later that the president plans more of these unscripted, informal meetings.

The only error in these paragraphs is Ignatius's implication that this is a change in approach, at least on the part of the President. Obama has always favoured a dialogue with the Iranian regime: while the nuclear issue was the first one to be addressed --- given its symbolic position, it had to be resolved before other matters could be tackled --- engagement with Tehran would also pay dividends for US policy in the Middle East, including Iraq, and Afghanistan as well as removing a troublesome issue in relations with Russia and China.

This approach has been hindered by another faction in the Administration which has always seen discussions as a preliminary --- since they believe Tehran will not reach agreement --- to tougher measures. It was set back last autumn by the breakdown of the talks with Iran, which reached a high point in Geneva in October, over uranium enrichment. At that point, Obama and those who favoured "engagement" had to turn their attention to the pressure from the US Congress --- and from Israel --- for a get-tough signal with sanctions packages not only the UN but from Washington.

Those sanctions have now been adopted, so the President and other advisors can now turn back to the possibility of dialogue. What's more, they can use the rationale --- which has some support in fact as well in rhetoric --- that Iran has been hurt economically by disinvestment and restrictions on trade, especially in the energy sector. So the impression will be given that the US is bargaining from strength with Iran almost as a supplicant, rather than a equal at the table.

So is there anything new in the report, besides the headline of Obama briefing journalists directly? Yes, but it is in these words, "a proposal for talks on Afghanistan".

The Afghanistan dimension has always been a significant factor pushing the US towards engagement with Iran. Advisors like Richard Holbrooke, Obama's special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, and his assistant Vali Nasr have always put forth the argument that co-operation with Iran is essential, especially in areas like the west of Afghanistan, if there is to be a lasting political resolution.

That need has only become greater with the escalation of military and political difficulties for the US in Afghanistan. Washington has effectively (though quietly) scrapped the commitment to withdraw combat forces by mid-2011, but other countries such as Holland are pulling out. That only elevates the significance of getting some agreement with some outside actors on the way forward.

This is not to say, of course, that the path will be any easier than it was last year. The conflict inside the Administration has taken its toll, with the top State Department specialist on Iran, John Limbert, leaving. The pressure from the US Congress --- as well as the war chatter --- will not evaporate. And Tehran is unlikely to put out an unclenched fist if it believes the image is one of Iran approaching the US on its knees.

Still, with President Ahmadinejad --- in one of the under-appreciated stories of the week --- putting out the line that Tehran is ready to talk with Washington as well as with other countries on the nuclear issue, it looks like Obama may have signalled, "Welcome back, Mahmoud, where have you been?"