1000 GMT: US, Iran, and Rights. We’ve put our snap analysis of a possible shift in US policy on Iran into a separate ent

NEW Iran Snap Analysis: A Rights-First Approach in Washington?
NEW Iran Video and Summary: Karroubi’s New Year Message
Latest Iran Video and Transcript: Obama’s Nowruz Message (20 March)
Iran Appeal: Japan’s Deportation of Jamal Saberi
Iran Analysis: Ahmadinejad Fails in Qom? (Verde)
Iran: Inside the Mind of the Interrogator
The Latest from Iran (20 March): Nowruz

0900 GMT: The Ruling of the Umpire. The Iran-based blogger Persian Umpire is back after an absence with three entries: one on the events of 22 Bahman (11 February), one on waiting outside Evin Prison for a detained friend, and one on last week’s Chahrshanbeh Suri (Fire Festival) ceremonies.

The summary of the festival offers one of the classic observations of this post-election crisis: “No one gave a certain rodent’s bottom for the fatwa [of Ayatollah Khamenei]. In fact it solidified people’s resolve to come out and celebrate.”

0700 GMT: As Iranians celebrate Nowruz, they have been greeted by messages for the New Year. And there is more than a bit of politics behind the best wishes. The most pointed intervention may have come from Mehdi Karroubi, who derided the regime (a “small barge” not a “galleon”) as illegitimate. We have the video and a summary.

President Ahmadinejad offered his own message, but the question is whether it has been overshadowed by events which do not point to 1389 as his happiest year. Consider….

As EA’s Mr Verde predicted, the President got both a slap and a warning with the release of Hashemi Rafsanjani’s relative and political ally Hossein Marashi from prison. Officially, the freedom is only temporary for Nowruz — Marashi was jailed on Thursday after an appeals court upheld a one-year sentence for “propaganda against the regime”. Beyond the official, the political significance will be whether Marashi goes back to prison; if not, it will be a dent in the authority of the Government.

Rooz Online echoes Mr Verde’s assessment of an Ahmadinejad failure in his Thursday mission to Qom to get the support of senior clerics, claiming “the chief authorities refused his presence”. (Rooz adds a name to those who did meet with Ahmadinejad: Ayatollah Makarem-Shirazi.)

In Tehran three lawmakers, prominent in economic discussions, criticised Ahmadinejad for his Friday suggestion of a referendum on his subsidy reform and spending plans, saying he is legally obliged to execute the economic reform plan approved by the Parliament. Gholam Reza Mesbahi Moqaddam, Ali Tavakkoli, and Elyas Naderan  said in ajoint statement, ”The president does not have the right to disobey a law which has been approved by the Parliament.”

That in itself might not be stunning were it not for context and timing:

The Latest from Iran (21 March): Happy New Year, Mr Ahmadinejad

1. At Parsi’s NIAC hearing 10 days ago, the panel on US-Iran relations was totally focused on the nuclear issue and a possible “grand settlement” with Iran. There was scarcely a word on rights. Parsi seems to be promoting a policy beyond that “realist” promotion.

2. But it may not just be Parsi; it may be folks inside the US Government. Beyond Barack Obama’s Nowruz message calling on Tehran to accept the rights of its people, there are signs that this might be part of a new policy and not just rhetoric.

Indeed, it may be possible that the US Government is now letting Iran dangle on the engagement of nuclear talks precisely because it does not think a deal should be the be-all and end-all, given the internal tensions in the country. That would explain why the State Department has been so stand-offish on weeks of Iranian signals that it wanted to reopen discussions on an uranium swap.

More in an analysis later this week….

Nothing annoys me more about New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman than his tendency to scuttle his occasionally insightful commentary with fabricated assumptions to fit his narrative.

This makes it really hard for me to like him.

You know that irritation that grows under your skin when somebody is making a lot of sense and then suddenly — wham — they hit you with a doozy so ridiculous you feel disproportionately deflated?

Well, that is my Friedman experience time and time again. Not always though — sometimes I am irritated from the get-go.

In his latest column on Tuesday, Friedman shines a light on a very true Middle East reality — one that quite deliberately gets downplayed in Washington’s power centers: The Mideast is now, for the first time since the Cold War ended, largely defined by two blocs of influence and their respective worldviews.

The first, is the US-led bloc consisting of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan — the latter three often ignominiously referred to as the “moderate” Arab states. The second, is the grouping sometimes referred to as the “resistance” bloc that consists of Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas.

Friedman’s column posits that there are five key actors in the Israeli-Palestinian equation today: Israel, America, the “moderate” Arabs, Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, and the resistance bloc.

Look, I can give him that — I don’t have a fundamental problem with the fact that he only includes one key individual from the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority to represent the entire Palestinian side. Fatah, on its own, is rather irrelevant these days, except in the minds of the US bloc. And kudos to Tom for recognizing this nuance.

Friedman then makes his main thrust, which is that only two of these actors actually have clear strategies for a Palestinian-Israeli solution:  Fayyad, the former World Bank economist who, peace or no peace, wants to create a de facto Palestinian state on the ground within two years — and the resistance bloc. That’s true enough. Friedman goes on to press the other three players to forge a clear, unified strategy — preferably backing Fayyad’s plan — which can foil the agenda of the resistance bloc.

And then I did my double take. Iran… Hezbollah… Hamas… Where was Syria?

Ah, Thomas. You did that doozy-thing.

The Alliance of Syria, Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas

It is more than abundantly clear that in Washington, Tel Aviv, Riyadh and Cairo, all efforts are being made to wrest the reluctant Syria from this “resistance” bloc. It is equally obvious for those who live in the real world, that Syria has no intention of parting ways with its longtime friends.

When US President Barack Obama moved ahead with plans to reinstate an American ambassador in Damascus in 2009, the gleeful thinking in Washington was that Syria would prostrate itself in gratitude, jump at bilateral peace talks with Israel and walk into the US bloc’s fold. Increasingly, however, even US analysts are grumpily acknowledging that the chances of this now happening are akin to Sarah Palin embracing a vegetarian diet.

But not our Thomas. He decided that this is how he wanted things to be, and so — voila — it just was.

As an opinion writer, Friedman still has the responsibility to convey the facts as they are – he can always spin his analysis around them or not include them in his deliberations if he wants to produce substandard commentary. But to just unilaterally change the facts? That isn’t just wishful thinking -Friedman is trying to create the facts. And here is why his exclusion of Syria from this bloc is so completely disingenuous:

Syria Makes Its Position Clear

Renewed Syrian-US relations, rapprochement between Damascus and Riyadh, and Syria’s disengagement from Lebanon brought hopes last year that the government of Bashar Al-Assad would take a more independent regional stance. When speculation reached a fevered pitch, Assad decided to nip it in the bud by staging a photo op worth a thousand words.

Last month, he convened a high-profile meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejadand Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah just to underline the cohesiveness of this bloc and quash all speculation of potential rifts.

The message, according to savvy, Damascus-based political analyst, journalist and author Sami Moubayed, was two-fold. Firstly, it was a warning for Israel to abandon all thoughts of launching another war in the region — as in Gaza in 2008/9 and Lebanon in 2006: “The meeting de-escalated tension in the region and served as a deterrent by reminding all parties that the amount of destruction that would result from any war would be too much to bear.”

Secondly, the meeting represented a clear signal to the US that this alliance will stand firm and cannot be ruptured because of the will of external players. Moubayed explains:

You don’t sever relations just because another party wants you to — you only do so when you have been wronged or there is a state of war, and those conditions don’t apply at all to Syrian-Iranian relations.

In fact, throughout the 1990s Syria enjoyed relationships with Iran, Saudi Arabia and the US — relationships with one party never precluded relations with another. That is not the way of diplomacy.

London-based Syrian diplomat Jihad Makdissi concurs: “We have always enjoyed good relations with both Iran and the West, so why is there suddenly a necessity to break links? This Iranian-Syrian relationship is devoted to the stability and security of the region, and the West should take advantage of this friendship instead of antagonizing both countries.”

Invest, Not Divide

What does this mean? In the world of realpolitik, far, far away from Friedman’s Mideast musings, this means that the US and others can “use the leverage that Syria has within this group to moderate them”, says Moubayed.

He believes that after over a year of active engagement with Syria, the US bloc has in effect tacitly surrendered to the notion that “if they can’t break this alliance, the best possible alternative is to invest in it instead.”

There is evidence of this “investment” already: in the past two years, Syrian backdoor diplomacy has gained the release of high-profile Western captives in both Iran and Gaza. And recognition of Syria’s role has come from the highest quarters in European capitals.

As Moubayed notes, the departure of US troops in 2012 will leave a vacuum in Iraq, which Iran and Saudi Arabia will compete to fill. Secular Syria is in the enviable position of enjoying a “cross-confessional network of allies (read Shiites and Sunnis) which it can use to stablilize and normalize Iraq – to the collective benefit of Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United States”.

Even if the Syrians and Israelis struck a deal to swap the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights for peace — highly unlikely given the make-up of the current, right-wing Israeli government — Jihad Makdissi insists that nothing would fundamentally change in relation to an alliance with Iran:

In Syria’s view, for normality to prevail in the Middle East, Israel needs to withdraw from all occupied Arab land. The occupation is the problem in the region, not Iran.

So, Tom — peace talks or not, nuke talks or not — Syria is an active adherent of the increasingly popular regional worldview that includes Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas. All the wishful thinking in the world won’t alter a relationship that has outlasted five US presidents, and provides vital strategic value to its participants.

In all fairness, Friedman is just doing something that has been a hallmark of US policy in the Middle East for decades. Denying inconvenient facts that have left us deaf, dumb and blind to the realities we face in the region. It is no wonder we cannot claim any lasting victories.

Blind spots everywhere, and then we wonder why we fail.

Amidst the Nowruz messages inside and outside Iran, Mehdi Karroubi made his contribution yesterday. There was a lot more beside New Year Greetings — Mr Verde analyses:

Karrroubi says that he does not believe in an Islamic Republic which is limited to a few clerics like Ahmadinejad supporters such as Mesbah-Yazdi, Jannati, Shojooni, Hassani, Hosseinian, Ahmad Khatami or an Iran which only includes officials like Ahmadinejad, Mohammad Reza Naqdi, Gholam-Hossein Elham, Saeed Mortazavi, and Jalalladin Farsi (who he says is a murderer). Ridiculing Ayatollah Khamenei’s reference to the “ship of the regime”, he says that the current regime is like a “meagre barge” not a large “galleon”.

Karrtoubi also talks about the martyrs of the street protests, the tortures, the detentions, the press closures and imprisoned journalists and former regime officials.

He says that he will give his life in order to defend the country, Islam and the Islamic Republic, but he adds that he does not believe in a regime that belongs only to a small group and their beliefs

(The last time I saw a London play was on 12 June 2009, when I reassured Ms. EA that it would be a quiet night, as a certain election was almost certain to go to a second round.)

Today, I want to extend my best wishes to all who are celebrating Nowruz in the United States and around the world. On this New Year’s celebration, friends and family have a unique opportunity to reflect on the year gone by; to celebrate their time together; and to share in their hopes for the future.

One year ago, I chose this occasion to speak directly to the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and to offer a new chapter of engagement on the basis of mutual interests and mutual respect. I did so with no illusions. For three decades, the United States and Iran have been alienated from one another. Iran’s leaders have sought their own legitimacy through hostility to America. And we continue to have serious differences on many issues.

I said, last year, that the choice for a better future was in the hands of Iran’s leaders. That remains true today. Together with the international community, the United States acknowledges your right to peaceful nuclear energy – we insist only that you adhere to the same responsibilities that apply to other nations. We are familiar with your grievances from the past – we have our own grievances as well, but we are prepared to move forward. We know what you’re against; now tell us what you’re for.

For reasons known only to them, the leaders of Iran have shown themselves unable to answer that question. You have refused good faith proposals from the international community. They have turned their backs on a pathway that would bring more opportunity to all Iranians, and allow a great civilization to take its rightful place in the community of nations. Faced with an extended hand, Iran’s leaders have shown only a clenched fist.

Last June, the world watched with admiration, as Iranians sought to exercise their universal right to be heard. But tragically, the aspirations of the Iranian people were also met with a clenched fist, as people marching silently were beaten with batons; political prisoners were rounded up and abused; absurd and false accusations were leveled against the United States and the West; and people everywhere were horrified by the video of a young woman killed in the street.

The United States does not meddle in Iran’s internal affairs. Our commitment – our responsibility – is to stand up for those rights that should be universal to all human beings. That includes the right to speak freely, to assemble without fear; the right to the equal administration of justice, and to express your views without facing retribution against you or your families.

I want the Iranian people to know what my country stands for. The United States believes in the dignity of every human being, and an international order that bends the arc of history in the direction of justice – a future where Iranians can exercise their rights, to participate fully in the global economy, and enrich the world through educational and cultural exchanges beyond Iran’s borders. That is the future that we seek. That is what America is for.

That is why, even as we continue to have differences with the Iranian government, we will sustain our commitment to a more hopeful future for the Iranian people. For instance, by increasing opportunities for educational exchanges so that Iranian students can come to our colleges and universities and to our efforts to ensure that Iranians can have access to the software and Internet technology that will enable them to communicate with each other, and with the world without fear of censorship.

Finally, let me be clear: we are working with the international community to hold the Iranian government accountable because they refuse to live up to their international obligations. But our offer of comprehensive diplomatic contacts and dialogue stands. Indeed, over the course of the last year, it is the Iranian government that has chosen to isolate itself, and to choose a self-defeating focus on the past over a commitment to build a better future.

Last year, I quoted the words of the poet Saadi, who said: “The children of Adam are limbs to each other, having been created of one essence.” I still believe that – I believe it with every fiber of my being. And even as we have differences, the Iranian government continues to have the choice to pursue a better future, and to meet its international responsibilities, while respecting the dignity and fundamental human rights of its own people.

Thank you. And Aid-e-Shoma Mobarak.

1245 GMT: Rumour of Day/Rafsanjani Watch. Two features in one, as news flies that Hossein Marashi, a relative and ally of Hashemi Rafsanjani, will be released
within days of his Thursday sentencing to one year in prison.
(http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5374138,00.html)
Iranian media are speaking of “hidden hands” behind Marashi’s release (http://www.khabaronline.ir/news-50341.aspx)

Deutsche Welle argues that this is bad news for the President, given the pressure of the Expediency Council (headed by Rafsanjani) to change electoral laws. Rafsanjani has also apparently managed to gain the support of the Combatant Clergy Assocation, headed by key conservative Ayatollah Mahdavi Kani. Another sign of Rafsanjani’s growing influence is the lifting of the ban on Shargh newspaper, which is meant to restart publication in two weeks.

So was Marashi’s arrest due to Ahmadinejad supporters trying to clip the challenge of Rafsanjani? And have they only succeeded in making that challenge stronger?

NEW Latest Iran Video and Transcript: Obama’s Nowruz Message (20 March)
NEW Iran Appeal: Japan’s Deportation of Jamal Saberi
NEW Iran Analysis: Ahmadinejad Fails in Qom? (Verde)
NEW Iran: Inside the Mind of the Interrogator
Iran: Ethnic Minorities and the Green Movement (Ghajar)
Iran Academic Question: Suspending North American Studies?
Latest Iran Video: Mousavi’s and Rahnavard’s New Year Messages (18 March)
The Latest from Iran (19 March): Untamed?

1125 GMT: Another Nowruz Message. A special greeting from Parvin Fahimi, the mother of Sohrab Arabi, who was slain by Government forces on 15 June:

Our dear slain children are not next to us on the New Year’s eve, but their memories shall live forever.

Once again, as a mother, I wish peace, freedom, joy, and health upon everyone. My son wanted the same thing.

(http://persian2english.com/?p=8659)

0733 GMT: Have a spare moment on Nowruz? Global Freedom Movement has created a”virtual solidarity” protest for those held in Evin Prison.

0725 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. No Nowruz release for Mashhad journalist Sadegh Javadi-Hessar.

0720 GMT: A New Year Approach. And, even before President Obama, was offering his Nowruz greeting, British Foreign Minister David Miliband was signalling the importance of Iran on the “Western” agenda and offering confirmation that “rights” are now going to accompany any nuclear approach:

The past year has been a difficult one for many in Iran but Norouz is a time of new beginnings. I hope that in 1389 the Iranian people will be able to enjoy a year that fulfils their hopes and ambitions, and allows them to express freely their own aspirations for the future. Noh-rooz eh hoob dashteh basheed.

The leader of the French Socialist Party, Martine Aubry, has also posted her best wishes.

0700 GMT: First and foremost, EA wishes everyone the best for Nowruz (Iranian New Year), wherever you might be celebrating. Here is to a fantastic and wonderful 1389.

We are not the only ones offering best wishes this morning. The White House has sent out a press release, now racing through the “Western” media and even on Press TV, offering President Obama’s greetings to the Iranian people.  Last year, the Nowruz message was of a desired engagement with the Islamic Republic; this year, there is criticism of the Tehran Government on top of the extended hand to Iran’s public:

Over the course of the last year, it is the Iranian government that has chosen to isolate itself, and to choose a self-defeating focus on the past over a commitment to build a better future. Even as we continue to have differences with the Iranian government, we will sustain our commitment to a more hopeful future for the Iranian people.

We’ve just located the video and transcript and will be posting soon.

Mission Free Iran

Japan has begun deportation procedures against prominent Iranian dissident and human rights activist Jamal Saberi (Jalal Amanzadeh Nouei), a resident of the country for the past 18 years.

Japan’s effort to forcibly return an Iranian political activist constitutes a violation of the international principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits forcibly returning a person to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened. Mr. Saberi has a well-founded fear of persecution by the Islamic regime. He warrants recognition as a political refugee and merits protections under UN agreements on the Status of Refugees, to which Japan is a signatory.

The Saberi case has global implications: If Japan flouts human rights standards and international principles on the status of refugees, consequences for refugees worldwide will be dire. We consider especially the impact of Japan’s actions on thousands of new Iranian refugees surviving precariously in Turkey.

Protesters will gather outside the Japanese Embassy in Washington DC on Sunday, 21 March at 1 p.m. to demand that Japan set the appropriate international precedent in this matter by freeing Jamal Saberi, stopping the deportation proceedings, formally establishing Saberi’s refugee status, and implementing appropriate protections to preserve his life.

If the aim of the trip was to gain respectability and acceptability from the clergy in Qom, it looks like it failed.

None of the big-name and independent Grand Ayatollahs were mentioned as having met with Ahmadinejad individually. He saw three that are known to be close to the establishment (for example, Ayatollah Nouri-Hamedani was the only Grand Ayatollah who has congratulated Ahmadinejad’s “election” victory ,and he usually repeat the establishment’s words). Many of Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi’s students are staunch supporters of Ahmadinejad, and it is reported that the President is a follower of Mesbah (there were rumours that Mesbah has issued a fatwa OKing the election fraud in June 2009).

So no surprises and insignificance there. Instead the story seems to be that all the other Grand Ayatollahs, and also importantly, the representative in Iran of Grand Ayatollah Sistani, the spiritual leader in Najaf in Iraq, have given Ahmadinejad the cold shoulder.

Recently Ahmadinejad has proposed funds for Qom seminary in the budget — traditionally Shia clerics have relied on private non-state financial support. It seems that money has not helped his cause, however. Indeed, throwing money at Qom may be seen as an insult by the clergy.

As for the “most senior authorities” reported to have persuaded the senior clerics to accept a meeting, I would look all the way to the Supreme Leader. Ayatollah Khamenei backed Ahmadinejad to the point that he has staked his reputation on him, and the situation isn’t exactly as promising as he was hoping in June.

If it was Khamenei who tried to persuade the Grand Ayatollahs to back the President, the outcome is bad news for him.

If you listen to conservative defence commentators such as Frank Gaffney Jr., John R Bolton, or Baker Spring, you would be forgiven for thinking that the American effort to protect itself against the threat from ballistic missile attack has suffered a significant recalibration, relegation, and de-emphasis over the last year or so. Indeed even if you listen to much of the analysis from more liberal commentators, you would be excused from believing that at the very least that the US missile defence programme has been “rationalized” and is now more “prudent”.

Perhaps this is even what the Obama administration, so hung up on the idea of change, wants us to think. But the reality, I would argue, is quite different. Under Obama the American quest for ballistic missile defence has continued, been strengthened, and looks set to remain at the forefront of US security and non-proliferation policy well into the future.

Much of the confusion over missile defence has been caused by a misunderstanding about Obama’s decision to cancel the Bush Administration’s “third site” plan for missile defence in Europe, and some of the blame for this must rest with the President himself. By focusing attention on the “cancellation” of the plan set for Poland and the Czech Republic, and by making the announcement on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland, the real reasons for the change of plan, and indeed the specifics of what replaces it, have been largely overlooked (even to some extent by Russia).

A closer reading of the “Phased, Adaptive Approach” (PAA) to BMD in Europe reveals a plan which has the potential to be more comprehensive, to involve more assets, and to become active far quicker than anything entertained by the Bush administration. Although the assets which will begin being deployed in 2011 will focus on short-range missile threats to only a small part of Southeastern Europe, by 2020 the system will involve hundreds of interceptor missiles on land and at sea, and it will have the capacity to protect the whole of Europe and the US against an Iranian long-range missile threat. It is entirely conceivable therefore that the new plan will present a far greater impediment on the road to better and more fruitful relations with Russia, and a substantial commitment to a continuing US role in the defence of Europe.

A similarly close reading of the recently released Ballistic Missile Defense Review Report suggests that the PAA in Europe is destined to become the model for US BMD policy in other parts of the world, notably East Asia and the Greater Middle East, but also potentially in any region of the world w,here the missile threat necessitates. Perhaps most importantly this renewed focus on regional or “theatre” missile defences has occurred because the Obama administration feels that the 30 ground-based interceptor missiles already operational in the US are sufficient to combat the current rogue state long-range missile threat, and not instead of it.

The Review also highlights strengthening and expanding international cooperation on BMD as a fundamental goal of the Obama administration; to this end, significant amounts of money have been requested for joint BMD development programmes with NATO, Japan, and Israel amongst others. Perhaps even more revealing is the fact that the Review makes it clear that the Obama administration will strongly reject any Russian (or Chinese) proposals to link US BMD activities and expansion to arms control (START) or any other strategic discussions (Iran?).

All this suggests that under Obama the BMD programme is alive, well, and indeed thriving, and that there is much evidence suggesting that its importance will increase rather than decrease in the near future. In fact I would suggest we might entering a period –– especially considering the renewed drive and energy behind nuclear disarmament and abolition –– where missile defences play a greater role in US extended deterrence in Europe, the Middle East and East Asia, replacing the ‘nuclear umbrella’ which has predominated for decades.

Less than eight years after the abrogation of the ABM Treaty, which prohibited strategic defences, and despite what seems to have become “conventional wisdom”, it is quite conceivable that we are entering a period where missile defences have become an accepted, normalized and perhaps even integral component of both US and wider international security thinking. It is hard to see this abating.

Rooz Online’s interview with a purported interrogator

ROOZ: How were the individuals to be arrested selected and what was the arrest process?

INTERROGATOR:All the people who were arrested were influential in creating the turbulent atmosphere of the 10th Presidential election because of their history of activism. In effect, all the people who were arrested initially had a leadership role, either by making speeches, giving interviews, publishing articles, etc. Also, the country’s intelligence and security apparatus had information that some people were planning to use the election process as an excuse to create chaos and disturbance under the name of soft or color revolution, similar to what took place in several other countries.

* In general, one can say that prevention is a normal and ordinary process in all governments, for example we have prevention in the ministry of health, and prevention is also a serious issue in national security areas.

* There is a difference between those who were arrested in the first round and those that were detained subsequently. Those arrested in the first round had the role of provocation and guidance while the latter were merely the field activists. We believed that if we caught the first group, which was the planning and guide group, then the color revolution would not succeed in its goals. And this perception was correct to a certain point. We aimed at preventing focus and organization of the opposition.

* One characteristic of color revolutions is the presence of revolutionary agents inside the government….It is rare for a group to be both part of the government and oppose it by belonging to the outside opposition. In our case, these inside agents of the revolution were previously in the government and became the opposition after their exit. They had an additional goal, which was to say authoritarianism and dictatorship exists. Policy papers of the Iran Participation Front say that parts of the ruling establishment must be come democratic. This is criticism, not reform. In reality this is media charlatanism that is portrayed through lies.

* The confessions of detainees were not extracted under pressure. They use beautiful reasoning and their confession that there was no fraud [in the election] benefits the people and the regime.

* In either case, such people are either liked or hated by the public. If he is hated, whether he confesses or not becomes irrelevant, and in that case it is in the regime’s interest to arrest him. But if he is liked, then when he comes and says fraud was the basis of [his] operation, then this is in the regime’s interest, because these issues are very important for the grey layers of society because the most popular web blog in Iran belongs to him.

* [Reformist politician] Behzad Nabavi’s claim that the arrest warrants were issued on June 9 is a lie. The June 9 warrant was a general warrant issued by the judiciary to the security apparatus.

* I regard most of the arrests to have been right, because the detainees were somehow involved in the soft revolution through their speeches, accusations of dictatorship, etc. The Iranian judiciary was weak. Everyone who raises such issues must be prosecuted. If he can’t prove what he claims, then he must be punished according to law. Some other people should have been arrested too, but were not. So there must have been some prioritization about arrests based on their involvement in the soft revolution process. Members of Mosharekat [Islamic Iran Participation] Party are an example who were involved in an attempt to secularize the regime.

* The release of many people after February 11 is a wise decision as the events showed the world that the regime is in control of events. We also have Islamic mercy and thus give some leaves, and others may be pardoned, while still others must spend time behind bars.

And Ahmadinejad wasn’t pulling punches: he said that his “conservative” opponents in Parliament were verging on “treason” with exaggerated statements of the inflationary potential of his plan. Fortunately, he reassured, their economic estimates were not correct.

NEW Iran: Ethnic Minorities and the Green Movement (Ghajar)
NEW Iran Academic Question: Suspending North American Studies?
Latest Iran Video: Mousavi’s and Rahnavard’s New Year Messages (18 March)
Iran: Reading Mousavi & Karroubi “The Fight Will Continue” (Shahryar)
Iran & the US: The Missed Nuclear Deal (Slavin)
The Latest from Iran (18 March): Uranium Distractions

2110 GMT: Containing the Poet. Another story to pick up — National Public Radio has a profile of 82-year-old Simin Behbahani, the poet who is so dangerous that Iranian authorities seized her passport as she was about to board a flight for an awards ceremony in Paris.

2100 GMT: Back from a movie break. (Iran as Wonderland? Discuss.) Little happening this evening, though there is Internet chatter that Ahmadinejad may go to the country for a referendum on his subsidy reform proposals.

The break is useful to pick up on a couple of important stories. Persian2English has posted an English translation of the Committee on Human Rights Reporters statement of 17 March, responding to the regime’s efforts to break human rights activists with charges of their role in US-backed “cyber-warfare”:

Exaggerated claims that human rights activists are connected to foreign or political organizations have been repeatedly disseminated by Tehran’s prosecutor, domestic and military media, intelligence interrogators, and internet bandits. No plausible or credible evidence has been introduced to back their accusations of blatant lies….

The Committee of Human Rights Reporters has indicated in their mission statement, in interviews, and in their official announcements that their activities are limited to human rights issues, and they are proud of their work.

1615 GMT: And Via Satellite. European Union ambassadors have declared in Brussels that the EU is determined to end Iran’s “unacceptable” jamming of satellite broadcasting and Internet censorship: “The EU calls on the Iranian authorities to stop the jamming of satellite broadcasting and Internet censorship and to put an end to this electronic interference immediately.”

1520 GMT: Internet Diplomacy? Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in an interview with Bloomberg, has highlighted the US Government’s support of initiatives to get around Iranian restrictions on Internet access.

Clinton declared, “We’re doing a lot, let me just put it at that, because we think it is in the interests of American values and American strategic concerns to make sure that people have a chance to know what is going on outside of Iran.” She claimed that a license had been issued to an (unnamed) company to boost access. Clinton added:

I’m sure that the Iranian authorities will do what they can to block any move that we make, so it’s like a chess game. We’ll go back and make another move, because we think we owe it to the Iranians, particularly during this period when there is so much at stake

1430 GMT: The President and the Clerics. An EA reader brings up to speed on the Ahmadinejad visit to Qom: Khabar Online has pictures of the President with Ayatollahs Mesbah Yazdi, Nouri-Hamedani and Jafar Sobhani, as well as a group shot.

Ahmadinejad’s deputy for religious affairs claims that the meeting’s atmosphere was good with the President “convincingly” answering some complaints from the clerics. The marjas brought up the people’s income problems, which should be solved, and cultural matters. AN promised to deal with these and also to transform Qom into the most beautiful town of the country.

Another meeting is planned with Jame’eye Modarressin (Association of the Teachers and Researchers of Qom).

1230 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Human Rights Activists in Iran have issued a list of 2560 detainees for the Iranian Year 1388 (March 2009-March 2010). The large majority were arrested after the election.

0855 GMT:  Political Prisoner Watch. Philosophy student Ali Moazzami has been released on bail; however, other detainees such as journalist Emadeddin Baghi remain behind bars for Nowruz.

0845 GMT: Remembering. Mourners gathered yesterday at the graves of post-election martyrs, placing flowers and cards.

In front of Evin Prison, relatives gathered to demand the release of detainees, including Ms Elham Ahsani, supporter of the Mothers of Mourning.

0825 GMT: Rafsanjani Watch. Here’s the Rumour of the Day — Islamic Republic News Agency claims Hashemi Rafsanjani flew to Kish Island to meet his son Mehdi Hashemi, who wants to return illegally to mainland Iran via Dubai.

AFP picks up on the news, which we reported last night, that Hossein Marashi, a relative of Rafsanjani’s wife and an ally of the former President, has been jailed for one year for “spreading propaganda”.

0820 GMT: Economy Watch. Jahangir Amuzegar offers a broad analysis of the state of Iran’s economy and the problems it poses for President Ahmadinejad.

0815 GMT: Qom Absentee. Looks like one person who was not at the President’s meetings with senior clerics (see 0645 GMT) was Ahmadinejad’s Chief of Staff Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai. Khabar Online, unsurprisingly, surmises that this is because the President was firmly told to leave Rahim-Mashai behind.

0755 GMT: On the International Front. Lots of media attention to apparent tensions in Moscow between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her Russian hosts over Iran. The immediate focus is on whether Russia will finally help Tehran to bring the Bushehr nuclear power plant on-line (Helpful Hint: the Russians are playing a double game, trying to delay completion while publicly declaring that they will ensure Bushehr will start operations in 2010).

The wider issue — overlooked in The New York Times summary — is whether Russia will give public backing to an expanded sanctions programme. The dispute in Moscow moves the arrow towards “No”.

0745 GMT: Taming the Internet? The New York Times highlights the ongoing battle of the opposition for access to and dissemination of information with “Iran’s Opposition Seeks More Help in Cyberwar With Government”. The article highlights both the steps forward and the sizeable challenge that remains. The take-away quote from Mehdi Yahyanejad of the Persian-language news portal Balatarin:

The Islamic Republic is very efficient in limiting people’s access to these sources, and Iranian people need major help. We need some 50 percent of people to be able to access independent news sources other than the state-controlled media.

0730 GMT: Pick Your Analysis. In sharp contrast to the analyses of other “Western” observers, Scott Peterson of the Christian Science Monitor asks, “Does Iran’s most powerful man – whose official title is God’s Deputy on Earth, infallible to his ardent followers – think he is winning?”

Caution is needed here as well. Peterson’s supporting evidence of “several close observers” is primarily two unnamed Iranian academics, and some of their declarations are sweeping:

[The Supreme Leader is] in triumphant mood right now. But deep down, he knows he’s lost the war of legitimacy and popularity….Deep inside –– this is my belief –– he does not have a very good sleep at night. He’s very angry –– that’s what I can see in his face. The slogans they leveled against him, the image he’s got –– he’s lost a lot of the popularity he had.

More useful may be assessments which don’t rely on speculating inside Khamenei’s head:

It’s almost like one voice coming out of the establishment, state-run television, all their hard-line newspapers, saying that “we managed to crush them”

At the same time, worries are clear to see. They are not in a state of panic [as] in the past, but are still on very high alert. They feel that enemies are organizing, and reformers are just pawns.

0645 GMT: We start the morning clearing away the underbrush of distorted or wayward analyses of Iran’s internal situation.

Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett have written another hit piece, with weakly-supported polemic posing as analysis, claiming the death of the Green Movement.

Far more seriously (since I am not sure key circles in Washington are still paying attention to the Leveretts’ repetitions), Najmeh Bozorgmehr of the Financial Times, who has been a quality front-line journalist in Iran, has carried out an examination of the opposition which gets muddled in editing. Bozorgmehr’s evaluation is sharp and incisive in places, such as “The Green Movement’s leaders have changed course, publicly urging followers to stop mass demonstrations, to avoid bloodshed and to win support of other social groups, notably lower-income people.” She adds, “Iranian analysts and western diplomats doubt if the regime has snuffed out the challenge of the opposition.”

However, Bozorgmehr also has some loose, unsupported sentences, “Reformists concede that the intensifying radicalism of demonstrations helped Mr Ahmadinejad to shore up support.” And the headlines are caricatures: the Financial Times goes for “Iran’s Regime Contains Opposition”, while the Irish Times creates, “Hard Line Seems to Have Tamed Iran’s Green Movement”.

Elsewhere, others have not been tamed. Journalist and activist Isa Saharkhiz, who has been detained for eight months, has told his family that he went on hunger strike Thursday morning and that other prisoners in Section 350 of Evin Prison will join him to protest illegal detention and inhumane conditions.

And President Ahmadinejad has tried to carry out his own taming by visiting senior clerics in Qom. The Financial Times reports that Ahmadinejad met six marja but gives no details beyond that. There is only the cryptic sentence from an analyst, “A massive lobby by the most influential authorities happened to convince the clergy to see the president.”

That just raises another question: which “most influential authorities”? We are monitoring.