Iran: A Discussion on "Engagement" and The State of the Regime (Sadjadpour and Lucas)

With all the developments of and beyond 16 Azar, we have had to put our analysis of US-Iranian relations on the back burner (especially given that the US Government seems to have taken no official notice of this week's demonstrations). So we thank an EA reader who has brought this dimension back to the forefront by sending us Karim Sadjadpour's analysis, in an interview with Middle East Progress, of the current state of "engagement". Points from the interview that I think merit further discussion:

1) Sadjadpour's portrayal is of a regime that, primarily because the Supreme Leader remains beyond challenge, has successfully ostracised "opposition within" such as Hashemi Rafsanjani, despite the hostility that he notes to President Ahmadinejad.

My own view is that the regime is more fragmented than he portrays. As we have highlighted today, there are moves from within the Establishment against President Ahmadinejad in the name of "national unity", but this is not just a case of removing one political figurehead. Simply placing an unchallenged Supreme Leader on top of this system --- apart from the fact that the Supreme Leader has himself been challenged on occasion "from within" since June --- obscures this fragmentation.

2) So Sadjadpour is on the mark that the prospect of a resolution between the US and Iran on uranium enrichment is receding, albeit not because the Iranian regime is unified under Ayatollah Khamenei but because it is riven with divisions. Indeed, if you put the nuclear issue in a wider context, those divisions come out in Sadjadpour's answer on the issue of subsidies and Ahmadinejad's economic plans.

3) Sadjadpour is right that the Obama Administration will now be "bumped", especially by Congress, into putting forth sanctions proposals. However, I think he is too optimistic about international acceptance, especially from Russia and China. The more pragmatic Obama officials recognise this, I suspect, and will try to limit the sanctions package as well as taking it outside the United Nations Security Council.

4) The most interesting part of the interview, perhaps ironically given the initial attention to "engagement", is Sadjadpour's return to the internal politics beyond the influence (and possibly cognizance) of the US Government. Thus the observation without immediate answers, as this is a marathon, not a sprint:

Both the government and the opposition are in precarious positions....I think the regime’s legitimacy will continue to decay, and they will be forced to rely on repressive measures to keep order....At the same time, the opposition leadership, partly by design, has not defined a clear game plan or end game, a clear alternative vision for Iran.

5) Speaking personally, while I may have differences in interpretation from Sadjadpour, I am alongside him on this sentiment (with the provision that one has to be very careful in explaining what it means to "facilitate...political change"):

This is an incredibly important time in Iran’s history and we want to be able to look back years from now and say we were on the right side of history. I sometimes fear that we may look back years from now and see that there was a tremendous opportunity to help champion and facilitate the cause of political change in Iran, but rather than taking it seriously we focused all of our attention on the nuclear issue.

Middle East Progress: The Iranian government has yet to agree to the IAEA proposal for enrichment of Iran’s low enriched uranium in a third country. What do you think are the aims of the government with regards to the proposal?

Karim Sadjadpour: Over the last several years—and especially since last June’s tainted presidential elections—any remaining moderates or pragmatists that were once part of the Iranian government’s decision-making structure have essentially been purged from the system.

Today the country is being run by a hardline Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, who is surrounded by likeminded ideologues who have two overarching instincts: mistrust and defiance. They generally perceive proposals and overtures that are endorsed by the United States as poison pills. Individuals who were capable of deal-making—like former President Hashemi Rafsanjani—are now on the outside looking

MEP: But what about someone like Speaker of the Parliament Ali Larijani, who seemed willing to make deals when he was Iran’s nuclear negotiator, but is now sounding more strident?

Sadjadpour: Larijani is a good litmus test. While less than a decade ago he was referred to in the Western press as an arch hard-liner, in the current context he’s thought of as a pragmatist. If the color spectrum of the Iranian regime now ranges from pitch black to dark grey, Larijani is dark grey. But given that Larijani’s rise to power has been based on his fealty to Khamenei, he’s not going to say anything out of step with the Leader.

MEP: What do you make of the recent announcement about the ten new uranium enrichment plants?

Sadjadpour: I think it’s mostly bluster. To put it into perspective: it has taken Iran over two decades to complete the enrichment facility at Natanz, and it’s still not fully operational. Creating ten Natanz-size enrichment facilities, at a time when they’re facing more international scrutiny than ever, would take decades, and is certainly not an imminent threat. To the credit of the Obama administration they’ve projected the poise of a superpower and have largely chosen to ignore Iran’s bombast.

MEP: If the IAEA proposal doesn’t lead anywhere, what are the options for next steps for the United States and the international community?

Sadjadpour: I think the door of dialogue and engagement will remain open, but the Obama administration will be forced into policies—sanctions and other punitive measures—they would have liked to avoid.

In contrast to the Bush administration, I think the Europeans, and even the Russians and Chinese, recognize that since Obama’s inauguration last June the United States has made numerous overtures to Iran, made a good-faith diplomatic effort to change the tone and context of the U.S.-Iran relationship, but Tehran was either unable or unwilling to reciprocate. For this reason the Obama administration is in a much better position to attain a robust international sanctions regime than the Bush administration was.

MEP: You spoke a little bit about Russia and China. What is your sense of how far they are willing to go in terms of putting pressure on Iran?

Sadjadpour: Both countries are instinctively opposed to sanctions, but Iranian intransigence has put them in a bind. In the last few years, Russia’s modus operandi has been to endorse sanctions against Iran that they themselves have watered down. This way they can claim to the U.S. and EU that they’re supportive of their position, while privately also reassuring the Iranians that they’re sympathetic to Tehran’s position. U.S. officials feel more confident than ever that Russian patience with Iran is waning, but it remains to be seen what that means in concrete terms.

One of the reasons why Russian support is so important to the U.S. is because China has tended to follow Moscow’s lead on Iran policy. The China-Iran relationship is a more straightforward commercial relationship—China needs Iran’s energy—and I don’t think anyone believes that China will completely sever its economic ties with Iran. That said, though China has signed a lot of seemingly lucrative memorandums of understanding (MOUs) with Tehran, few deals have actually been executed, and because of the headaches of dealing with Iran the Chinese have increasingly sought out energy relationships with Saudi Arabia and the UAE. In essence, China will not be willing or able to singlehandedly fill the enormous vacuum left behind by Western companies in Iran.

MEP: What do you think is going on with the Ahmadinejad government’s plan to phase out the subsidies? Do you think that’s linked to sanctions?

Sadjadpour: Phasing out the subsidies has been discussed for years but has always been seen as too risky a move for any Iranian politician. Ahmadinejad’s idea is to discontinue the blanket subsidies on food items and petrol—which cost the government as much $100 billion per annum—and instead dole out some of that money directly to lower income classes that need it most.

There is a great deal of opposition to the plan from across the political spectrum; many lawmakers, including some Ahmadinejad supporters, fear that it will cause rampant inflation and further alienate middle class Iranians whose cost of living will rise dramatically but who will not receive government stipends. At a time when the government is seeking to restore stability, they fear that phasing out the subsidies could provoke further unrest.

It’s unclear how much the timing of the subsidy withdrawal debate is linked to the sanctions debate. I’m sure some elements of the regime believe that if they phase out the subsidies at the same time they’re hit with sanctions, they can blame foreign powers for the economic tumult. They may be playing with fire, however; in my experience living in Iran I always found that people overwhelmingly cited mismanage and corruption as the primary culprits of the country’s economic malaise, not sanctions. Post-June I think the government will get even less benefit of the doubt.

MEP: What is your sense of the regional perspective on Iran and what role Iran’s neighbors could play, or are playing?

Sadjadpour: I think Arab governments were happy to see the Iranian regime get its nose bloodied after last June’s elections, but they are concerned about the prospect of profound change in Tehran for a couple reasons. First, the arrival of a democratic Iran has potentially problematic implications for a predominantly autocratic region. Second, many Arab countries are deeply ambivalent if not down-right opposed to the prospect of Iran—with its vast natural and human resources—finally emerging from its largely self-inflicted isolation and beginning to realize its enormous potential.

With regards to the nuclear issue, in a nutshell, Arab governments don’t want Iran to get the bomb, and they don’t want Iran to get bombed. Their strategy is to essentially let the United States take care of the problem, though in recent weeks I’ve heard Arab officials express concern that the U.S. hasn’t presented them with a clear Iran strategy, and how they fit into that strategy.

Regarding the Arab public, there is an inverse correlation between U.S. and Iranian popularity in the region. Meaning, when the U.S. is most unpopular, Iran’s ideology resonates the loudest. Opinion polls indicate that since Obama’s arrival, Ahmadinejad and Iran’s stock has dropped among people in the region. I suspect that the post-election tumult also dismayed many Arabs who once romanticized Iran as a popular government intent on fighting injustice.

MEP: Israel has so far let the United States take the lead in dealing with Iran. What is your sense of their perspective?

Sadjadpour: The Israelis are impatient; by all accounts Prime Minister Netanyahu genuinely believes that a nuclear-armed Iran poses an existential threat to Israel, so they obviously have a far greater sense of urgency. While U.S. officials take the prospect of an independent Israeli strike against Iran seriously, I think many Israelis understand that the ramifications would likely be calamitous, particularly within Iran. I sincerely believe that Khamenei and Ahmadinejad would welcome an Israeli strike on their nuclear facilities; it is perhaps the only thing that could mend internal political rifts, silence the opposition movement, and entrench the most radical elements of this regime for years to come.

MEP: Where do things stand internally in Iran six months after the election?

Sadjadpour: Both the government and the opposition are in precarious positions. The regime hasn’t recouped its lost legitimacy, and will continue to lose supporters as the economic situation deteriorates. They increasingly resemble a military junta, and there is serious dissent among them; even folks close to Khamenei, like Larijani and Tehran mayor Mohammed Bagher Ghalibaf, would like to get rid of Ahmadinejad.

As for the opposition, its leadership and brain trust remains either in prison, under house arrest or unable to freely operate. Though the scale and frequency of popular protests has subsided, the millions who took to the streets post-election have not been pacified or co-opted. Smaller-sized protests, especially at universities around the country, have continued with great intensity, as we witnessed again yesterday.

MEP: What do you see happening? Where do you see things heading?

Sadjadpour: I think the regime’s legitimacy will continue to decay, and they will be forced to rely on repressive measures to keep order. I don’t question their willingness to shed blood to stay in power. Khamenei is unwilling to make any meaningful compromises with the opposition, for he believes it will make him look weak. Whatever they choose to do, history is not on their side.

At the same time, the opposition leadership, partly by design, has not defined a clear game plan or end game, a clear alternative vision for Iran. They’re taking a very deliberate approach, trying to recruit as many people as possible under the tent of the green movement, including disaffected clerics and Revolutionary Guardsmen.

It remains to be seen whether the current opposition leadership—Mousavi, Karoubi, and Khatami—has the will to see this movement through, or whether they will eventually have to hand the baton off to new blood.

Just as nobody predicted that millions would take to the streets post-election, it’s a fool’s errand to try and foretell how this might play out. I think the opposition could remain on simmer for quite some time—years even—but we could reach a tipping point that could change things quite abruptly.

MEP: How do you think that the United States and the international community can strike the right balance between moving forwards and dealing with the Iranian government but also being sensitive to what you’re talking about?

Sadjadpour: I think the United States should be more outspoken about Iran’s inability to adhere to international standards of justice—a word that Iran’s leadership frequently uses—and human rights and President Obama SHould be more outspoken in expressing solidarity with the Iranian people. I know that young people in Iran would like to see President Obama make it more clear that he’s not indifferent to their cause, that he’s rooting for them.

I think there is a way to dialogue with the Iranian government on urgent national security issues—like nuclear proliferation, Afghanistan, and Iraq—without betraying the millions of Iranians who view their government as illegitimate and continue to strive for political change. U.S. dialogue with the Soviet Union during the 1980s is perhaps a useful template.

This is an incredibly important time in Iran’s history and we want to be able to look back years from now and say we were on the right side of history. I sometimes fear that we may look back years from now and see that there was a tremendous opportunity to help champion and facilitate the cause of political change in Iran, but rather than taking it seriously we focused all of our attention on the nuclear issue.

MEP: Part of the reason that it appears that the U.S. and Iran continue to be unable to communicate with one another is that they don’t trust one another. How then do you balance the fact that in supporting the opposition you would be playing into the exact fears of the Iranian regime while trying to communicate with them?

Sadjadpour: The short answer to that question is I don’t think the regime, particularly Khamenei, wants to be disabused of their mistrust of the United States. It is politically and ideologically expedient for them to have the U.S. as an adversary, so they have a convenient culprit when, among other things, their population rises up, economic malaise worsens, or ethnic minorities agitate.

President Obama has made more effort than any U.S. president in the last three decades to try and build confidence with Tehran—including writing two private letters to Khamenei—and the U.S. took great pains not to intervene in Iran’s internal affairs at a time, post-election, when they were most vulnerable. I think this is clear to most Iranians, and most European, Russian, and Chinese officials I encounter acknowledge as much.

For many years now, so many of us have argued that if the U.S. can engage Iran and reintegrate it in the international community and open up its economy, this would foment political reform in Tehran. I think people fail to realize that Khamenei understands that argument very well, in fact he probably agrees with it, and for precisely that reason he’s resisted confidence building with the U.S.

MEP: Then the question is do you think there is any chance of progress, if accommodation is Khamenei’s ultimate fear?

Sadjadpour: I’m very skeptical about the prospect of a major diplomatic breakthrough with this Iranian government. I believe the underlying problem we have with Iran has more to do with the character of its regime than its nuclear ambitions. In other words, as long as Khamenei is leader and Ahmadinejad is president, Tehran will not be able or willing to meet us half-way, or even a third Of the way, on our various issues of contention.

Iran Exclusive: Clerics and Rafsanjani Plan The "Third Way" of Unity

Written with EA correspondent Mr Azadi:

Even as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was using a world tour and speeches to bolster his position, even as senior Parliament figures were fighting the President over his economic plans and approaches in nuclear talks, even as the Green Waves were planning the protests of 16 Azar, there was another strategy being developed behind closed doors in Tehran, Qom, Mashaad, and Hamedan.

It is a strategy linking senior clerics and former President Hashemi Rafsanjani. And, in their vision, it is the strategy to bring Iran out of political, social, and religious disaster.

Here's the story:

Last week Habibollah Asgaroladi, the secretary-general of the Islamic Coalition Party, a member of the Expediency Council, and the head of Imam Khomeini's Committee, met former President Hashemi Rafsanjani to discuss a National Unity Plan.

Of course, this is not the first consideration of a Unity Plan since the 12 June election. Throughout the autumn, there were discussions and manoeuvres amongst conservative/principlist members of Parliament, Rafsanjani, and clerics to present a proposal that would reform the Iranian system, in particular curbing the authority of President Ahmadinejad, without risking significant changes to the Islamic Republic. At some point, however, the initiative ground to a halt, whether because of Ahmadinejad's resistance, the opposition of other factions, or the objections of the Supreme Leader.

The Asgaroladi-Rafsanjani meeting, however, marked the start of another big push for the Plan. Rafsanjani met clerics in Mashhad to discuss the possibilities. Last Friday, the leader of Mashhad's prayers, Ayatollah Alamalhuda proclaimed that Rafsanjani was part of the Islamic Revolution, having been close to Imam Khomeini and promoted Ayatollah Khamenei as a Supreme Leader. (In June, Alamalhuda, known as a supporter of Ahmadinejad, had said, "Hashemi is guilty and responsible for the Supreme Leader being oppressed.")

This was not the only clerical speech endorsing Rafsanjani. In Hamedan, Seyed Ahmad Khatami --- not to be confused with Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami, the Tehran prayer leader who fervently backs the Government --- declared, "Hashemi is a brother of the Supreme Leader, and it is a falsehood to attack him."

The biggest clue, although we didn't know it at the time, came in an interview that Grand Ayatollah Nasser Makarem-Shirazi gave last Thursday. Makarem-Shirazi, known as a "conservative" cleric in Qom, has been following a middle way since June, challenging the Ahmadinejad approach while remaining distant from the Green Wave, but he went further last week. In the context of what we now know about Rafsanjani's talks with the clerics, this could not be a clearer signal of the new political effort:

When we talk about unity, we are talking about people who believe in the constitution, leadership, Islam, and the interests of the country. Those who believe in those issues can reach unity. However, the precondition is to create a calm environment and then some people, who are respected by society and are moderate thinkers, should agree on the principles of unity. I do not believe that we have reached the end of the road, there is no deadlock.

These discussions and proclamations underlay Rafsanjani's speech on Sunday, emphasizing unity while criticising the Government for its post-election measures and calling on the protesters to show restraint.

So, even though 16 Azar has occurred and continues in the form of university protests, there may be another political battlefront, one in which the protagonists are distinct from the "opposition" (indeed, the other way to look at this move is an attempt by clerics to split Rafsanjani from other Green leaders like Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi).The Government's recent threats against Rafsanjani's family, embodied in yesterday's warning by Tehran Prosecutor General Gholam Hossein Mohseni-Ejei of the prosecution of Rafsanjani's son Mehdi Hashemi, indicate that they take the prospect of a revived National Unity Plan very seriously.

The immediate question is whether the clerics, Rafsanjani, and other political allies (where stand you, Larijanis?) break cover and promote the Plan publicly. Alternatively, they may wait for yet another round of protests at Moharram, beginning 27 18 December, to shake the Government further.

And beyond that is the tougher nut to crack: given that it may have been the Supreme Leader who objected to the previous incarnation of the Plan, given that Ahmadinejad is a battler, given that the Revolutionary Guard is also a political actor, how does Unity emerge from confrontation?

Iran 16 Azar Analysis: "Something is Happening"

Earlier today we posted an analysis by our Mr Smith of the significance of 16 Azar and the possibilities for the future. His points are complemented by those made by Masoud at The Newest Deal, who has kindly sent us a copy of the blog:

Though impossible to tell with the blanket censorship draped over Iran at present, it appears that the size of yesterday's protests were smaller than what was seen on 13 Aban, and on Qods Day before it. No matter. The demonstrations of 16 Azar signaled a shift -- if not response -- on the part of the Green movement to the tyranny and brutality that the regime has come to represent. The message was clear: there is no turning back. In fact, the Islamic Republic's future has never been more uncertain.

Iran Special: Putting 16 Azar In Context
The Latest from Iran (8 December): The Half-Full Victory?

As things stand now, this movement is no longer about a stolen election. Truthfully, it hasn't been for quite some time, but that conclusion only became crystalline today. Only four months ago, this was hardly the case. At that time, the Greens represented a peaceful, non-violent movement asking "Where is my vote?" and led by a Prime Minister [Mir Hossein Mousavi] who stressed -- no, urged -- the need to stay true to the Islamic Republic's framework and constitutional structure, not to mention the wisdom and guidance of the late Ayatollah Khomeini.

No longer. Yesterday's demonstrations were organized by a fractal grassroots whose structure is horizontal rather than hierarchical. That is to say, it has no leader. (Incidentally, neither Mousavi, Karoubi, or Khatami apparently took part in yesterday's marches.) These were protests that saw Iranian flags whose white centers were bare, missing the iconic 'Allah' written in form of a red, martyr's tulip. Gone was the silent marching of peaceful demonstrators holding up 'V's' in the air. Instead, pockets of protesters confronted the Basij physically, and at times, overwhelmingly. And protests were not just limited to Tehran, either. Demonstrations have been verified in Mashhad, Shiraz, Rasht, Kermanshah, Hamedan, Arak, Kerman and Najafabad.

Most telling of all, chants of "Death to Khamenei" have now become a demonstration fixture, no longer the sacred red-line that protesters never dared to cross. Indeed, cross they have as his name was cursed repeatedly and as often as Ahmadinejad's yesterday. Only a few months earlier, [Supreme Leader Ali] Khamenei could have caved in, given up Ahmadinejad as a sacrificial lamb, and saved himself, if only to survive in a weaker capacity. He no longer has the luxury of that option. Through his political ineptitude, the Islamic Republic has itself become illegitimate, and that inevitably means that at the very least, the doctrine of Velayat-e-Faqih must go. The regime has essentially placed itself in an unsustainable dynamic: it insistingly continues to alienate a larger and larger portion of the base from which it derives its legitimacy (the clerical class) while at the same time takes actions against the people that are far too unforgivable to allow for any future possibility of reconciliation, as [Hashemi] Rafsanjani was pushing for in September.

Which makes the timing of Rafsanjani's sudden reappearance the day before the protests all the more significant. In a meeting with students in the city of Mashhad, Rafsanjani addressed criticisms of his recent silence by issuing his strongest and most pointed rebuke of the regime yet. Stating that the demands of his July sermon had gone unheeded, Rafsanjani issued a not-so-thinly veiled and ominous warning: "If the people of Iran want us we to govern them, then we may stay. If not, then we should step aside."

Rafsanjani went on to state that the Basij and Revolutionary Guard should have never stood against the people and confirmed the Green movement's right to protest. Though the finger was not directly pointed and Khamenei's name was never spoken, the message was clear: this crisis is the Supreme Leader's doing, and it is only he who can resolve it. Rafsanjani, it should not be forgotten, is Iran's de facto number-two as well as the head of the Assembly of Experts, the constitutional body that is assigned with the task of selecting the next Supreme Leader, and if need be, disposing of the current one. His statement -- and indeed, warning to Khamenei -- was essentially a declaration that if the Islamic Republic's constitutional law and structure is going to be discarded, then he will not stand in the way of its inevitable demise.

Which with yesterday's protests should give the Islamic Republic even more cause for concern. Although state television still broadcasts a confident (read: propagandist) self-image, the regime is undoubtedly scared. Mohammad Reza Naghdi, the Revolutionary Guards General who was recently appointed the new head of the Basij, apparently even shot Tehran's Traffic Control Chief in the foot when he was told in a meeting last week that it would be "impossible" to neutralize widespread attempts to bring Tehran's traffic to a halt. Incidents such this -- likely one of many occurring behind closed doors -- speaks of the panic and desperation that is surely beginning to settle into the minds of those in power. It has been seen before, some thirty years ago.

The Latest from Iran (6 December): Tension Rises

2000 GMT: Widespread reports of loud "Allahu Akhbar" rooftop chants tonight. We've posted two videos.

1800 GMT: A day dominated by statements. We've posted an abridged English version of the Mousavi statement on 16 Azar and the student movement.

Iran Opinion: “Why The Green Movement Will Prevail”
NEW Latest Iran Videos: The Eve of 16 Azar “Allahu Akhbar” Chants (6 December)
NEW Iran Document: Mousavi Statement on 16 Azar and the Student Movement (6 December)
NEW Iran Document: The Rafsanjani Speech to Students (6 December)
Iran Document: Mehdi Karroubi on The Response to Extremism
Iran: Routes and Information for 16 Azar (7 December)
Iran’s Critical Moment: 24 Hours to Go
The Latest from Iran (5 November): Fun with the Regime

1505 GMT: We've just learned that Kalemeh has posted the 16th statement of Mir Hossein Mousavi, issued for 16 Azar. We'll look for an English summary.

1500 GMT: Mir Hossein Mousavi has also made a statement for the commemoration of Eid al-Ghadir, the confirmation of Imam Ali’s succession to the Prophet Mohammad. Visiting political figures and family members of detainees, declared, "Today more than anytime we need to return to [Imam Ali's] model and policy because that path wants Justice, Freedom and Equality for all....A society or a government will survive with blasphemy but will not survive with oppression.”

1410 GMT: Raf's Back? Chatter continues about Hashemi Rafsanjani's Sunday speech. Khabar Online focuses on the former President's defense of his son, Mehdi Hashemi: Rafsanjani said that Hashemi had gone to Britain to pursue a Ph.D., not to evade criminal charges which are unfounded.

We've got an English translation of parts of the speech. Another version has been posted by activist MikVerbrugge.

1300 GMT: Supreme Leader Gives British a Boost. Further to Ayatollah Khamenei's speech (see 1130 GMT), this comes in from the Supreme Leader's office via Twitter, "Ayatollah Khamenei emphasized that USA is at the top of Iranian nation's enemies pyramid and Britain is their most vicious one."

So for all my British friends who fret about loss of power, declining Empire, and being just another sort-of-European country, cheer up....you're still vicious!

1130 GMT: It's All Because of the Foreigners. The Supreme Leader has told an audience of "thousands" that the Islamic Republic has rebuffed the efforts of foreign nations (US, Britain, Israel, etc.) to create differences over policy with their threat of sanctions. No reference, as far as I can see, to the internal challenge to the "unity" of the Iranian nation.

1125 GMT: Green Brief 75, covering the last 24 hours in Iran, is now out.

1120 GMT: Rafs' Move for 16 Azar. This may shake up a quiet morning: former President Hashemi Rafsanjani has emerged to position himself between regime and protesters.

Rafsanjani told students in Mashhad, "The situation in the country is such that constructive criticism is not accepted," and pressed his call for unity and adherence to the law to "create a climate of freedom which will convince the majority of people and erase ambiguities".

The former President's message for tomorrow? "Those who demonstrate or protest must express themselves through legal means. Leaders must also respect the law. There have always been extremist factions and excessive attitudes on both sides... but several problems will be solved if we adopt the path of moderation."

0735 GMT: The Washington Post also has an article today on divisions within the regime, and it benefits --- in comparison to the piece in The Washington Times --- because Thomas Erdbrink is in Tehran. Drawing on public statements by analysts and former MPs, he focuses on the call of conservatives/principlists to end infighting, including the attacks on former President Hashemi Rafsanjani.

0715 GMT: This time tomorrow the marchers --- how many? --- will be gathering in Tehran and other cities for the demonstrations on National Students Day, 16 Azar. News has been restricted for almost 24 hours because of the Government clamp-down on the Internet but we are still getting information on the preparations, accompanied by nervousness and excitement.

And the Government clamp-down cannot hide the nerves and tensions within its own ranks. No clearer sign of this than the order from the Culture Ministry, "All permits issued for foreign media to cover news in Tehran have been revoked from December 7 to December 9."

Away from the marches, the rumbling over Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's economic plans continues. The President has threatened to withdraw his subsidy reform proposals because they were modified by the Parliament, but MPs are resisting, saying it is too late to withdraw the plan.

Barbara Slavin has an interesting approach to the situation in The Washington Times. Relying on US-based experts, she declares "the embattled regime fears showing weakness in the face of persistent domestic political opposition and rising foreign pressure.... Ayatollah Khamenei may instead now be subordinate to the Revolutionary Guards and other paramilitary forces that keep his government afloat."

The most interesting passage in the piece is an attempt by a "senior Administration official" to claim some credit for the internal difficulties: "The Obama strategy has generated a real debate in Iran over nuclear issues," with "a crack in the core" of the regime.

The most interesting oversight in the article? With its obsession with the nuclear issue, it offers only sentence to the imminent sign of dissent, "New protests are expected Monday on Iranian campuses to mark 'National Student Day,' previously a regime-backed event." Somehow I don't think the demonstrations will be just on campuses on Monday.

16 Azar is 1 day away.

Iran Document: The Rafsanjani Speech to Students (6 December)

An EA reader kindly offers us this summary of the speech, from the website Rah-e-Sabz:

I am not quiet but we are in a situation that discussions are not tolerated….My positions are the same as the ones I mentioned in the Friday Prayer which are based on the teachings of the Quran: doubts about the election should be resolved, political prisoners should be released , the families of the victims of the post-election violence should be comforted and the restrictions on media and criticising the government and the current situation should be lifted. However some conservative hardliners don’t accept these [positions], and think that people’s votes are only for formality....

If people of Iran want us, we [can] stay and govern if not we [should] go....

The Latest from Iran (6 December): Tension Rises

The government has money and resources so it can gather people in the streets, but on the other side (Green Movement) there are groups of professors, students, workers and industry managers and it was not right that they put the Basij and the Revolutionary Guards in front of people. I am not happy with the current situation of the country and it is not right to alienate the youth and intellectuals from the establishment....

[Quoting the Prophet Mohammad's advice to Imam Ali, Shia’s first Imam] "You have the right to govern from God BUT if people did not accept you, don’t impose yourself on people"....Imam Khomeini always said that if people support us then we can act.

Some believe that there was fraud in the election and I said that I have concerns about the fraud, but then they criticised me that why did you even mention such a thing….I am saying that these doubts and concerns should be resolved….We have law for everything, although some of these laws should be corrected, but if everyone accepts these rules are obeyed, then many problems could be solved....Censorship in our society won’t be the answer and if we have free media and people are convinced, then they won’t take [their protest] to the streets…

One cannot trick a society that has 3-4 million students….My suggestion was that there should be an opportunity that both sides could come and debate the issues and then people can judge for themselves.