Jeremy Scahill of Rebel Reports offers some insight into the size and nature of Mr Obama's War:
A hearing in Sen. Claire McCaskill’s Contract Oversight subcommittee in the US Congress] on contracting in Afghanistan has highlighted some important statistics that provide a window into the extent to which the Obama administration has picked up the Bush-era war privatization baton and sprinted with it. Overall, contractors now comprise a whopping 69% of the Department of Defense’s total workforce, “the highest ratio of contractors to military personnel in US history.” That’s not in one war zone -- that’s the Pentagon in its entirety.
In Afghanistan, the Obama administration blows the Bush administration out of the privatized water. According to a memo released by McCaskill’s staff, “From June 2009 to September 2009, there was a 40% increase in Defense Department contractors in Afghanistan. During the same period, the number of armed private security contractors working for the Defense Department in Afghanistan doubled, increasing from approximately 5,000 to more than 10,000.”
At present, there are 104,000 Department of Defense contractors in Afghanistan. According to a report this week from the Congressional Research Service, as a result of the coming surge of 30,000 troops in Afghanistan, there may be up to 56,000 additional contractors deployed. But here is another group of contractors that often goes unmentioned: 3,600 State Department contractors and 14,000 USAID contractors. That means that the current total US force in Afghanistan is approximately 189,000 personnel (68,000 US troops and 121,000 contractors). And remember, that’s right now. And that, according to McCaskill, is a conservative estimate. A year from now, we will likely see more than 220,000 US-funded personnel on the ground in Afghanistan.
The US has spent more than $23 billion on contracts in Afghanistan since 2002. By next year, the number of contractors will have doubled since 2008 when taxpayers funded over $8 billion in Afghanistan-related contracts.
Despite the massive number of contracts and contractors in Afghanistan, oversight is utterly lacking. “The increase in Afghanistan contracts has not seen a corresponding increase in contract management and oversight,” according to McCaskill’s briefing paper. “In May 2009, DCMA [Defense Contract Management Agency] Director Charlie Williams told the Commission on Wartime Contracting that as many as 362 positions for Contracting Officer’s Representatives (CORs) in Afghanistan were currently vacant.”
A former USAID official, Michael Walsh, the former director of USAID’s Office of Acquisition and Assistance and Chief Acquisition Officer, told the Commission that many USAID staff are “administering huge awards with limited knowledge of or experience with the rules and regulations.” According to one USAID official, the agency is “sending too much money, too fast with too few people looking over how it is spent.” As a result, the agency does not “know … where the money is going.”
The Obama administration is continuing the Bush-era policy of hiring contractors to oversee contractors. According to the McCaskill memo:
In Afghanistan, USAID is relying on contractors to provide oversight of its large reconstruction and development projects. According to information provided to the Subcommittee, International Relief and Development (IRD) was awarded a five-year contract in 2006 to oversee the $1.4 billion infrastructure contract awarded to a joint venture of the Louis Berger Group and Black and Veatch Special Projects. USAID has also awarded a contract Checci and Company to provide support for contracts in Afghanistan.
The private security industry and the US government have pointed to the Synchronized Predeployment and Operational Tracker(SPOT) as evidence of greater government oversight of contractor activities. But McCaskill’s subcommittee found that system utterly lacking, stating: “The Subcommittee obtained current SPOT data showing that there are currently 1,123 State Department contractors and no USAID contractors working in Afghanistan.” Remember, there are officially 14,000 USAID contractors and the official monitoring and tracking system found none of these people and less than half of the State Department contractors.
As for waste and abuse, the subcommittee says that the Defense Contract Audit Agency identified more than $950 million in questioned and unsupported costs submitted by Defense Department contracts for work in Afghanistan. That’s 16% of the total contract dollars reviewed.
On Wednesday, Turkish Prime Minister was in Damascus again to meet Syrian President Bashar Assad. The immediate issue for the leaders was a treaty addressing the future of the water problem between their countries. The accord permits Syria to take water from the Tigris River and uniting Ankara and Damascus in construction of the "Friendship Dam" on the Asi River.
The wider issue of talks with Israel then emerged. Assad criticized the Israelis for continuing "pre-conditions" on discussions with Damascus. He said:
We discussed today the ways to bring the peace process out of the deadlock that it has reached ... because of the absence of a serious Israeli partner who aims to achieve peace.
When Israel says it wants negotiations without conditions it means it wants negotiations with no foundation. This is like having a building with no foundation, then it's very easy to be brought down and they want to bring down the peace process.
Erdogan reiterated his position that "Ankara is always ready to take responsibility" for mediation.
It's no longer "just" Tehran. It's no longer "just" students. It's no longer "just" a Green elite v. the "common people" of Iran.
There have been so many rumours over the last 96 hours. Given the nature of communications, it is hard sometimes to confirm the reports racing around the Internet (for example, it was only 30 minutes ago that we could visually verify the size of the demonstration in Najafabad at the memorial service for Grand Ayatollah Montazeri yesterday). Given the complexity of discussions and intrigues behind closed doors, we are only posting a fraction of what is claimed about Iran's Government, armed forces, or clerics.
Even more important, therefore, to repeat what we do know. It's no longer "just" Tehran. It's no longer "just" the students.
In the weeks after the election, almost all of the video and most of the reporting came out of Iran's capital, so the stage for the political conflict was Tehran. And even when, despite the restrictions of the Government, footage came out of other cities, the protests were often those on university campuses.
Of course, the camera's lie might have been one of omission. From mid-June, we have heard of disquiet throughout Iran. Where we could get reliable sources, we have noted the protests and discussions from Shiraz to Tabriz to Mashhad to Hamedan. Yet we could only see a tip of what might lay below the waterline of political events.
So those defending the Iranian regime as stable or widely-supported --- harking back to Ahmadinejad's alleged 63% vote in June --- could always assert that those reporting on a widespread opposition were exaggerating, distorting, fantasising.
No longer.
In the excitement since Sunday, I'm not sure it has quite sunk in. The hundreds of thousands who mourned Grand Ayatollah Montazeri on Monday were not in Tehran. (Had there been unrestricted movement from Tehran to Qom, who knows how many more would have spilled beyond the iconic photos and videos of demonstrations we posted on Monday/Tuesday?) Yesterday, despite the forced suspension of the memorial service for Montazeri, they turned out in Isfahan. Later, despite a "ban" on any ceremonies, they appeared in Najafabad.
It continues today ---a service, led by Ayatollah Bayat-Zanjani, is to be held in Zanjan. And it will continue tomorrow and Saturday and Sunday, the holy day of Ashura.
And as it continues, those on the streets and in front of the mosques are not just a core of students --- Governments will always try to say it's just "the students", who have no responsibilities of employment or the common sense of adulthood to check their whimsical protests. The videos testify to the range of ages and backgrounds, beyond any label of "reformist" or "conservative", now involved in the rallies.
Last night, there was a curious juxtaposition as we assembled material for the website. On the one side, we had clip after clip of demonstrators with their slogans, uttered even as security forces rushed about and in some cases beat those who were shouting. Sometimes the slogans were of praise for those dead (Montazeri) and those still living, sometimes they were of condemnation for those still claiming power and legitimacy, and at times they constituted a demand for the removal of the Government and even of the Supreme Leader.
On the other side, we had the interview of President Ahmadinejad with Britain's Channel 4. Here was a man who waved away any notion of a substantial opposition, just as he denied any restriction of those Iranians who might desire to protest ("We have freedom in Iran --- people are free to express their views."). His people must love him; after all, wasn't he here talking as their leader to a representative of the "enemy" foreign media?
Put those videos side-by-side this morning: one man in Tehran versus thousands across the country. And then ask, "Where now the momentum of politics?"
We have a snap analysis of the interview in Today's LiveBlog. The interview of the Basiji member to which interviewer Jon Snow refers is also on Enduring America:
Jon Snow: "Mr President do you accept that this country is at a cross roads? We are one week away from the end of the year and that the deadline when you have to give a response to the nuclear offer made by the P5+1.
"The P5 group that meets with Germany from the security council of the United Nations - apparently representing the security council that has made this proposal about enrichment taking the material outside the country, bringing it back. And they say by the end of this year that is the deadline for a response."
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: "I think part of this question must be corrected. Actually we have given the proposal for the exchange of the fuel and according to the regulations they have to provide the fuel without any conditions.
"We have offered a proposal in order to provide opportunity for them - in order to have an opportunity for cooperation instead of confrontation. And it is a very simple procedure.
"But they are insisting that to have conditions for giving us the fuel - political conditions I mean - while the exchange of fuel is a technical job. I have not yet heard anybody who has given a deadline for this because it is meaningless.
"We are in a position to produce 20 per cent grade uranium. We have given this offer in order to provide an opportunity for them. If they do not use the opportunity we are in position and we are able to produce that grade of uranium. We have no problem doing it.
"The current regulations in the IAEA[ International Atomic Energy Agency] allow us to do so and we will make it ourselves. From our standpoint there is no problem for that."
JS: "You say there is no problem Mr President but the United States is already taking about sanctions other countries, certainly France and Germany and Britain are also talking about sanctions - that would suggest they don’t see it the same way."
MA: "It is something else the question or issue of revolution or imposing sanctions. We are against the expansionist policies of the United States. We say it frankly and explicitly. We do not accept the policy of intimidation and aggression.
"It will be good for US policy makers to say that Iran is against their policies and the expansions. I think it has become an old issue to talk about the nuclear programme. The story of these claim of US and its allies have turned into a TV series. More our standpoint it has no value."
JS: "It's not just the United States, I mean, the UN inspector you had to tell: you had another facility for enriching uranium at Qom and that was something that you had not declared but you should have declared under the regulations."
MA: "According to the regulations in the IAEA, six months before the beginning of enrichment activities we should have informed them. We did it one year before the activities but unfortunately they have misinterpreted our cooperation. When we cooperate with them they show negative reactions --- what does that mean? They said themselves --- one that is not a member will remain immune from the investigations and verifications. When you cooperate the reactions are negative. What does that mean?
"Does it mean we should not cooperate at all? Or course we do not do not accept this - this is not acceptable for us. But their attitudes are wrong. They want to say that a country which is not a member is free to do everything more than the member. And those countries enjoy more rights and any government who fulfils its obligations would be under pressure. Do they think they can run the world with this logic?"
JS: "But this is the United Nations, this particular group --- and Mr [Mohammad] El Baradei [former head of the IAEA] is supported by both China and Russia on this matter --- you were keeping this particular enrichment facility secret and that has broken confidence and that's really where the new crisis has now developed. A breakdown of confidence between you and the UN inspectorate."
MA: "That's not true. That's not true. They make some claims. They say that the construction of the site started when Iran had accepted certain arrangements but we believe that after we suspended those arrangements we started the construction. And it is very normal for the relations in between countries and the agency.
"Does the US give any reports to agency itself? They have 8,000 nuclear warheads. Who is more dangerous in world and who should be concerned about these things? From what point should they start inspections? The UN has been founded on the basis of veto right can never run the world."
JS: "But Mr El Baradei has said that the friendly relationship that he has enjoyed with Iran had ended. That is a pretty strong statement and it comes from a UN body."
MA: "I have not heard about it. We are keen to have friendly relations with all. But the basis of judgement and cooperation is on a legal basis. We have the official documents from the IAEA and it has endorsed all our activities. We do not regulate our relations based on rhetoric. We do it on the basis of the law and the documents. We cooperate with the agency. And the agency has no right to express political opinions under the pressures of certain governments. The agency has a commitment to inspect the nuclear facilities of the US and other nations too. And the agency should disarm them."
JS: "Mr President, this battle with the IAEA has been going on for years now why do you bother to remain a member of the non-proliferation treaty. Why not just dump it and stay like Pakistan, India and Israel outside the treaty and do what you want to do?"
MA: "We never been fighting against the agency - what should we do?"
JS: "I'm asking you - why do you stay in the treaty?"
MA: "We stay in the treaty and according to entity we have rights and obligations. We have fulfilled our obligations and we should also enjoy rights. And we will never allow political claims to enter into our works and activities."
JS: "This is very difficult for ordinary people to understand. You have the US, you have European powers, you have Russia, you have China, all these countries are very dissatisfied with the answers you have been giving. It's not just the US. You say that it's them that is pulling the strings, if you like, but it's much more than that."
MA: "There are other countries that are unaligned and they have given their votes against them. Shouldn't they adapt themselves with the votes of these 120 countries?"
JS: "Mr President, I'm being warned that our time is very short and I would like to move on. President Obama offered you when he came into power an extended hand…."
MA: "Let me say one more sentence. The number of countries or campaigns of countries do not bring any legal right. That is the law that prevails and it defies your rights. And we are doing everything according to the law. We will never be influenced by the political campaigns. We make the decisions on the basis of our national interests and on the basis of the laws and regulations. The US is against us and we are used to it."
JS: "President Obama did come in and he made this speech in Cairo to you. He offered an extended hand of you would greet it. But you haven’t greeted it. The relationship now, I mean…there is no way that the extended hand is going to stay extended."
MA: "Which hand did he extend? His right hand or left hand?"
JS: "He extended the hand of friendship, let's be honest…"
MA: "What has he done in practice?
"I sent a message to him and we participated in Geneva negotiations. We talked with them and we offered the proposals for a fuel exchange. And we have announced that we stand ready to have a debate in New York. Who has extended his hand in practice? He extended the sanctions against us. What step has he taken?"
JS: "Is the matter of extended hands finished?"
MA: "Extended where? We hope he will succeed in making changes, real changes. And we have helped him. However we are concerned about his avenues - he has failed to meet the expectations of the people in the US and the people of the world."
JS: "But it has been complicated by what has happened here in Iran. There have been disturbances there has been awful scenes of violence on the streets and that has disturbed people inside and outside Iran. That makes it difficult to extend hand doesn't it?"
MA: "We are facing same problems here. While the US has a military build up in Afghanistan and killing our brothers in that country. At same time the US is supporting killing of Palestinians, and they extend the resolutions and sanctions. Worse than that the American police beat people, they arrest people and use batons and tear gas against people… "
JS: "Well, two wrongs don't make righ,t do they Mr President? The Basij here, and we have this firsthand from a member of the Basij, he says they were given the permissions to go in and use no restraint and attack people who disagree with you. Women, men were hit with batons - and some were killed."
MA: "In my opinion you have access to some information which I don’t know."
JS: "Well we have spoken to a Basij who told us what orders they were given."
MA: "With whom did you talk to?"
JS: "We spoke with a member of the Basij who has now run from Iran."
MA: "Clearly this source of information must be very exact. I think it is not correct to judge in this way. In our country the law prevails."
JS: "But you can see videos Mr President. You've scene the pictures of what the Basij were doing and what the Revolutionary Guard were doing. And what he has seen too is the beating and the raping of men and women in detention."
MA: "Did you see all of these things on the pictures?"
JS: "We saw all of the things in the streets - of course we do not get the stories of what happened in the containers where people were being detained."
MA: "There have been clashes amongst some people - how can you find out if he was Basij or another person? Let me repeat that. In my country the law prevails."
JS: "You deny that the Basij beat up these people?"
MA: "No, we are not concerned with these things as you claim. The law prevails. Some people may violate the law in any place anywhere. And maybe they have not observed and respected the law during demonstrations or protests they may have participated in illegal demonstrations. Or they might get involved in clashes whether they are ordinary people or from among the Asians....
"The law will certainly investigate. Iran is a free country. Do you believe that Iran should be like West? We have freedom in Iran - people are free to express their views. They can also cry for their rights…you are making a mistake…."
JS: "But you have sent journalists out of the country…."
MA: "You are making a mistake. And the Western politicians think something happening in Iran and Iran has become weakened. That is a mistake. They do not know Iran. The people of Iran are united and they would certainly defend rights and interests. They would protect their independence. There are different views that exist in this country. There are differences of opinion there are rivals, competitors and they are serious. But the majority of the nation is united and they are determined to protect their independence."
JS: "But, Mr President you contrast today…."
MA: "You can see the scenes on the streets of London where people are being beaten by British police."
JS: "But you can contrast today in Iran with even two years ago: there were many foreign journalists here, there was much for freedom - people could watch what ever they wanted on the Internet or whatever. Now, for example any broadcast or Internet appearance by the BBC is jammed, there are no, or very few foreign correspondents. And it is very difficult now to report on…."
MA: "Who is the BBC owned by? Is it a state owned company or private?"
JS: "It is a state-owned, regulated company which has independence from the government --- we have to pay individually to the BBC to fund it."
MA: "Alright. How can a government institution or state-owned company be independent from the policy of the government? Do you know anywhere in the world where the BBC has acted against the policies of the government? The BBC is the instrument of British government foreign policy and the British government has shown that it is against and hostile to our nation. They have shown that for about 100 years."
JS: "But is that the same for example with Newsweek? Take Maziar Bahari who worked for Newsweek. He gets thrown into jail, he is beaten in jail, he is tortured in jail, he has told me that himself."
MA: "And you have accepted his claims?"
JS: "He is a man I have known for a long time --- I trust him…."
MA: "People say a lot of things. Do you think freedom prevails in US? And do you think the media in the US is free? Why aren't people allowed to have demonstrations against the Zionists? Do you think all the media in the US I against the Palestinians? They are clear facts. We are not going to deceive each other - they are political and media games. And that period is over. It will have not effect in the world. They offer interpretations based on some lies.
"That period is over we should focus on realities and we should talk to each other based on those realities, based on the law. And I think that is a mistake made by the political politicians in the West. They make the media themselves - they create them and they say lies. And based on those lies they take political positions. And at the same time they insist that others should believe them."
JS: "Let's take a story in The Times [of London] this morning. They say that bin Laden's wife lives here in Iran --- is that true? Is that a lie or is that true? That one of Bin Laden's wives lives here in a compound outside Tehran with some family. Is that true or false?"
MA: "Why should it be in London? How did they receive that information? Let me…"
JS: "But you haven’t answered me yes or no, Mr President. However they found out this information, the questions is: is it true or is it false?"
MA: "Let me tell you something else which is more important. Because there are many things like that --- they are producing these things everyday. Because this is the instrument to control the world, they create these things everyday and wise people would never waste time answering all these things."
JS: "How do you change that?"
MA: "Statesmen in the UK and the US must accept the realities in the world. The period of influence in the environment through the media campaigns is over. And we know everything about these tactics and policies. We would never be deceived by media campaigns. It has no value to us. We will never base our time on that.
"For example, about Neda Agha-Soltan. What has the BBC done about her? They created a false scenario based on political campaigns and it has been proven to us. That was a lie…."
JS: "Let's look at a reality. You have 15 per cent inflation. You have real economic difficulties, we have economic difficulties - many countries in the world have economic difficulties. If there is to be more tension between us, more trouble over sanctions, more trouble over who is doing what - wouldn't it be worth just trying a different path? Trying to re-extend a hand of friendship and open up maybe to people coming in and maybe to people going out?"
MA: "I agree with you. We are saying same thing to the Americans and to the British. Why have they been against our people for more than 50 years? There are governments around Iran and they are dictatorships - they are friends with those dictatorships…"
JS: "So what's your offer?"
MA: "Before the revolution we had a dictatorship in Iran. And they had friendly ties with the dictator. But since we have had democracy and freedom in our country they have risen against us."
JS: "Ayatollah Montazeri said this is an Islamic dictatorship."
MA: "One is free to express one's views in Iran. It is not like some European countries where scientists are in prison. Everybody who says anything against the Holocaust goes to prison even if he or she is a university professor."
"This is not the situation in Iran. The government is criticised and people are free to do so. I believe it will be good for the US and British officials to could change attitudes. They should experience friendship."
JS: "What about both changing attitudes - you and them changing attitudes?"
MA: "We would certainly welcome any step in that direction. We have never wanted anything beyond our rights.
"We have never sent our troops to borders of the US or UK. We have never threatened Britain or America with military threats. We have never issued any resolutions against them.
"We want our own rights and of course we are for talks. We are against confrontation. But experiences indicate that those who have chosen to confront us damage their policies."
2035 GMT: We've posted the video and full transcript of President Ahmadinejad's interview with Britain's Channel 4 (see 1925 GMT).
1925 GMT: Mahmoud Says All is Well. President Ahmadinejad has given another "exclusive" interview to a Western broadcaster, this time Britain's Channel 4. Once again, the discussion started with nukes, nukes, nukes, allowing Ahmadinejad (who I suspect is pretty used to this line of questioning) to stake out his defence of the Iranian nation against Washington --- "We are against the expansionist policies of the United States" --- and ending in the cul-de-sac of the question, "Is the matter of extended hands finished?"
It's the second half of the interview that is surreal, however, with Ahmadinejad's defiance --- in the face of all evidence to the contrary --- "We have freedom in Iran - people are free to express their views":
JON SNOW: The Basij here, and we have this firsthand from a member of the Basij, he says they were given the permissions to go in and use no restraint and attack people who disagree with you. Women, men were hit with batons - and some were killed.
MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: In my opinion you have access to some information which I don’t know.
JS: Well we have spoken to a Basij who told us what orders they were given.
MA: With whom did you talk to?
JS: We spoke with a member of the Basij who has now run from Iran.
MA: Clearly this source of information must be very exact. I think it is not correct to judge in this way. In our country the law prevails.
JS: But you can see videos Mr President. You've scene the pictures of what the Basij were doing and what the Revolutionary Guard were doing. And what he has seen too is the beating and the raping of men and women in detention.
MA: Did you see all of these things on the pictures?
JS: We saw all of the things in the streets - of course we do not get the stories of what happened in the containers where people were being detained.
MA: There have been clashes amongst some people - how can you find out if he was Basij or another person? Let me repeat that. In my country the law prevails.
JS: You deny that the Basij beat up these people?
MA: No, we are not concerned with these things as you claim. The law prevails. Some people may violate the law in any place anywhere. And maybe they have not observed and respected the law during demonstrations or protests they may have participated in illegal demonstrations. Or they might get involved in clashes whether they are ordinary people or from among the Asians....
The law will certainly investigate. Iran is a free country. Do you believe that Iran should be like West? We have freedom in Iran - people are free to express their views. They can also cry for their rights…you are making a mistake….
1835 GMT: Please Don't Green the Currency. And now this from the Central Bank of Iran: it is asking you really, really nicely to please, please stop putting slogans on banknotes.
1825 GMT: The Homosexuals and Women Are Especially Dangerous. Minister of Intelligence Heydar Moslehi, last noticed when he was trying to take down the Rafsanjani family, widened his net --- really widened it --- today. I think the statement stands on its own, with no further elaboration:
Moslehi announced that the ministry has identified 80 foundations and organizations that were active in the post-election protests. In a meeting with the nation's provincial premiers he announced that these organizations were involved in the post-election "sedition" and one of them even has a $1.7-billion budget.
The Intelligence Minister reportedly added that the objective of the "seditious movement" in the Islamic Republic is "altering the behaviour of government officials and the people" as well as dismantling the Islamic Republic regime from within. Mr. Moslehi maintained that this movement was established earlier at the conference of Berlin and Denmark.
He listed "People's Mojahedin Organization, monarchists, religious and ethnic terrorists, Baha'is, homosexuals, feminist groups, nationalists and Marxists" as members of this movement.
Heydar Moslehi announced that "we are now completely on top of this sedition and have the traffic of the seditious elements with the West under close surveillance."
1630 GMT: Ayatollah Sane'i's office claims that attackers in Qom were allowed to move unchecked on Tuesday, as police did not respond to calls for help.
1625 GMT: The Ministry of Intelligence has ordered the cancellation of all memorial services for Grand Ayatollah Montazeri.
1550 GMT: A tearful Ayatollah Taheri, who was supposed to give the memorial address for Grand Ayatollah Montazeri in Isfahan, said he tried six different entrances to get into the mosque, but all of them were closed.
Mir Hossein Mousavi's website Kalemeh also says that security forces used pepper spray and tear gas on the crowd, beating some people severely.
1535 GMT: Isfahan Protests. We've posted the first two clips that we believe are authentic.
1415 GMT: Ahmadinejad in Shiraz --- The Workers Protest. Another sign that the President's Magical Mystery Political Tour is not going smoothly. From Persian2English:
Workers of the Long Distance Telecommunications Company of Iran, who protest regularly over unpaid wages chose this time to make their voices heard at Hafeziyeh Stadium in Shiraz. The protest occurred during a speech by Ahmadinejad at the same location.
Many people had banners with slogans such as “800 families, 8 months without pay” and “it has been 12 months since we got paid”. Before arriving at the Stadium, Ahmadinejad called the protesters "without honour” and “two-faced". He asked God to destroy them.
1354 GMT: Reports that journalists Fariba Pajooh and Nafiseh Zarekohan and student activist Hojat Sharifi have been released on bail.
1350 GMT: Uncertainty. Back from a lunch break to find no advance in confirmed news on today's clashes in Isfahan. Instead, there is a deluge of rumours of security forces holding positions, including the mosque which was to hold the Montazeri memorial, Isfahan, and conversely protestors seizing locations and setting up barricades in Isfahan and Najafabad.
It has been stunning, however, how Western media --- in contrast to their limited attention in recent months --- are now all over any report of protest in Iran. Almost every major US and British broadcaster and newspaper is recycling the Rah-e-Sabz report from Isfahan. The Green movement is now the "prodigal" child, adopted once more by non-Iranian journalists as the rightful heir of the Islamic Republic.
1345 GMT: The Reiss Trial. The case of Clotilde Reiss, the French graduate student arrested this summer, drags on. After rumours and confusion this week over a possible "prisoner swap" between Paris and Tehran, Reiss appeared today for trial. The hearings were suspended after three hours, however, with an indeterminate conclusion: Reiss' lawyer said, "The final part of pleadings concerning the accusations against the French national will be made in the next session of the trial."
1158 GMT: Going after Larijani. Mir Hossein Mousavi's advisor, Alireza Beheshti, has launched a scathing attack on the head of Iran's judiciary, Sadegh Larijani, effectively accusing him of sanctioning the aggressive measures of plainclothes security forces.
1135 GMT: Another Tuesday Demonstration. Footage has now emerged of a demonstration, reportedly at Isfahan's Sanati University:"Our [Supreme] Leader's message is insulting our Marja [senior clerics]/Desperate Dictator, our movement will continue."
1103 GMT: Arrests in Isfahan. Among those arrested in today's clashes, according to activists: Hojatoleslam Masoud Adib, Mir Hossein Mousavi's campaign manager in Qom, and Mohammad Nazeri, an activist in Mousavi's election campaign.
1100 GMT: With the help of EA readers, we've now put the question, "Is the Obama Administration About to Engage with Iran's Opposition?"
1035 GMT: Today's Fist-Shaking. Iran police chief Esmail Ahmadi-Moghaddam is the man to hand out the warning, "We advise this movement to end their activities. Otherwise those who violate the order will be fiercely confronted, based on the law."
1015 GMT: Jaras website is reporting that the home of Ayatollah Jalaleddin Taheri has been surrounded by security forces. Taheri was supposed to give the address at the memorial in Isfahan, cancelled because of the security presence, for Grand Ayatollah Montazeri.
1005 GMT: Down with Supreme Leader? We've posted new video from yesterday's demonstrations, including a clip declaring "This is the month of blood; Seyed Ali [Khamenei] will be overthrown."
1000 GMT: Reformists report more than 50 arrested, including four journalists, in Isfahan.
0925 GMT: The Protest That Failed? Perhaps, given the source, this claim should be taken with a grain of salt; however, the reformist site Rah-e-Sabz asserts that, despite regime efforts to bring out a crowd for President Ahmadinjead's speech in Shiraz on Tuesday, the turnout was "thousands less" than they hoped for.
0850 GMT: The World is Watching. The BBC's flagship radio news programme has just carried a special item on the Rah-e-Sabz report of "heavy clashes" in Isfahan, with "several injured". While Jon Leyne's summary adds nothing to the story on the reformist website, it indicates that the BBC is now paying close attention to developments, with Leyne adding context from Monday and Tuesday's demonstrations.
0835 GMT: And Away on the Nuclear Front. Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani has trotted out the now-firm Iranian Government line: the elevation of uranium stock to 20 percent enrichment must take place inside the country, for example, through the "swap" of Iran's 3.5 percent stock for the 20 percent supply.
0810 GMT: Hiding the Politics. The announcement from Press TV is matter-of-fact, ignoring any political dimension or symbolism of growing conflict:
Iran's Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution has appointed poet Ali Moallem Damghani to the position of President of the Academy of Arts. The Council named Moallem on Tuesday to replace defeated presidential candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi.
0750 GMT: A LiveBlog is reporting that security forces closed the doors of the mosque in Isfahan and that there are now clashes in the area.
0730 GMT: With both the tension and opposition momentum after Grand Ayatollah Montazeri's death both unchecked, we start today with two analyses. We have posted our reading of the regime's growing problems and consideration of whether the Green Wave is now resurgent. And Josh Shahryar assesses whether the reformist opposition will have a new clerical beacon, replacing Montazeri, in Ayatollah Yousef Sane'i.
As we post these, the breaking news is of the regime trying to hold back the tide of challenge: today's memorial service in Isfahan for Montazeri has been cancelled because of the large presence of riot police and security forces.
Thursday, December 24, 2009 at 8:44 
Jeremy Scahill of Rebel Reports offers some insight into the size and nature of Mr Obama's War:
On Wednesday, Turkish Prime Minister was in Damascus again to meet Syrian President Bashar Assad. The immediate issue for the leaders was a treaty addressing the future of the water problem between their countries. The accord permits Syria to take water from the Tigris River and uniting Ankara and Damascus in construction of the "Friendship Dam" on the Asi River.
It's no longer "just" Tehran. It's no longer "just" students. It's no longer "just" a Green elite v. the "common people" of Iran.
2035 GMT: We've posted