The Minaret Ban: Turkish and Swiss Foreign Ministers Discuss Further Steps

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and his Swiss counterpart Micheline Calmy-Rey, attending the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) meeting in Athens, discussed the situation followed Switzerland's ban on minarets.

Davutoglu told Calmy-Rey that the ban could spark a furour similar to that following the 2006 publication in Denmark of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad. He said: “Unless timely measures are taken, the issue could snowball instantly and turn into a global crisis.”

Davutoglu said later that Calmy-Rey was aware of how important the situation was and conveyed her word that she would be taking measures to address the situation. Both leaders talked about the possibility of reversing the ban through the collection of 100,000 signatures for a second referendum.

After the Minaret Ban: $50 Billion to Leave Swiss Banks?
After Swiss Referendum on Minarets: Who is Radicalizing Whom?

Meanwhile, on Tuesday, Christophe Darbellay, president of the Christian Democratic People's Party of Switzerland, called for a ban on separate Muslim and Jewish cemeteries. According to the Swiss online daily Tagesanzeiger, Darbellay also wants to ban the wearing of burkas, head-to-toe veils worn by some fundamentalist Muslim women.

Israel: Netanyahu and Barak Steady the Line on Settlements

Amidst growing protests by West Bank settlers over the 10-month "freeze" on expansion by the Netanyahu Government, both Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have met settlers. Both Barak and Netanyahu tried to calm the atmosphere and urged settler leaders to cooperate with officials. The Prime Minister said:

Israel-Palestine: European Union Steps In With Call for Peace Talks and Israeli Concessions

We took this difficult decision in order to move Israel's widest interests forward. We need to pass through this period together in a spirit of cooperation.

Instead of creating an atmosphere of crisis, we should focus on getting out of this period and overcoming the problems together. We are only a few days into the process, and I ask that you show patience.

We are not your enemy, we are your brethren.

There was a subtle difference between Barak and Netanyahu over the status of the settlements.Netanyahu said: the status would be determined through negotiations after the freeze expired:

Nine months and three weeks remain to the end of this period. At the end of this period we will continue to build. I want to make clear, the future of the settlements will be decided only in a peace agreement.

Barak asserted that the settlements will always be part of Israel, irrespective of any discussions:

Settlement blocs will be an integral part of Israel in any future negotiations with the Palestinians. The Jordan Valley and the Dead Sea are regions that are dear to my heart.

The difference, however, may be inconsequential: both the Prime Minister and Defense Minister, beyond any immediate difficuties with the settlers, are pointing to an uncompromising position on the settlements in any final-status talks with Palestinians.

The Latest from Iran (3 December): Normal Service?

2000 GMT: What War Game is The Economist Playing Out? The British journal has an "analysis" which, given the publication's usual journalistic standards, is shocking: "An Iranian nuclear bomb, or the bombing of Iran?"

The piece starts with a series of false steps and distortions to get from premise --- the second enrichment plant at Fordoo near Qom --- to conclusion: "brazen", "belligerent" Iran is "on the threshold of becoming a nuclear (military) power". That's pnly a prelude, however, to "news" posing as advocacy of Bomb, Bomb Iran.

The journal gives unwarranted prominence to a road show by two former US Senators and a former Air Force General who are talking up a strike and then intones, "Israel’s threats of military action might be more credible than America’s". That allows The Economist to play big boys with big toys, sketching out how a military attack might unfold, before offering a most sensible "compromise":

So which will it be: a war with Iran, or a nuclear-armed Iran? Short of a revolution that sweeps away the Iranian regime—ushering in one that agrees, like post-apartheid South Africa, to give up its nuclear technology—sanctions may offer the only hope of avoiding the awful choice.

1940 GMT: Strike. A statement from the "Lawyers of the Green Movement of Iranian People" calls for strikes as "a civil action for acquiring one’s rights" and adds this summary of the movement: "The Green Movement doesn’t belong to anybody. Its leaders are different shades of people that are gathered around democracy. It is the people that are leading the movement."

Any information about this initiative would be appreciated, as the group is new to us.

1920 GMT: Preventing 16 Azar. An article in Deutsche Welle summarises that more than 90 students have been arrested in the last three weeks. The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran outlines some of the cases of the "stepped up persecution and prosecution of student activists throughout the country".

1910 GMT: A Signal from the Leader? An EA reader tips us off that Ayatollah Khomeini's office has distributed copies, not published before, of a Supreme Leader speech from this summer reminding members of Parliament of their proper role and responsibilities.

Now, this would have no connection whatsoever with the troublesome rebellion of more than a few legislators against the Ahmadinejad Government, right?

NEW Iran, the Greens, and the ex-Bushman: With Washington Friends Like These, Who Needs….?
Latest Iran Video: A Non-Crowd for Ahmadinejad in Isfahan? (2 December)
Iran: English Text of Ayatollah Montazeri’s Answers on the Green Movement
The Latest from Iran (2 December): Postures and a Resolution

1810 GMT: Any Connection Here? On the same day that a Government minister threatened his son with arrest and trial, Hashemi Rafsanjani put forth another general criticism of that Government: "Today there is no room to hide the matter. The difficulties presented by the political disputes are grave."

Rafsanjani also repeated a call for national unity, linking it to support of Ayatollah Khameini: "I believe there is no one other that the Leader of the Revolution who can bring about unity and we should all assist the leader to create a sympathetic atmosphere where people can be satisfied.” He refrained, however, from specific reference to a National Unity Plan or any demands upon the regime.

So here's the question --- does Rafsanjani reverse his strategy of the last three months and go on an offensive or does he continue with an effective boycott, refusing official functions and duties such as Friday Prayers apart from his leadership of the Expediency Council?

1600 GMT: It's the Economy, Folks. A belated hat-tip to Robert Worth of The New York Times, who published an article on Wednesday about the issues surrounding President Ahmadinejad's proposals for subsidy reform.

1545 GMT: "Soft War" = Less Music, No Make-Up. The head of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, Ezatollah Zarghami, has announced that the state outlet will focus on fighting a soft war against Iran's enemies.

In that cause, the new five-year work plan includes: reduced use of music, protection of women through prohibition of make-up, use of more debates, the training of devoted and experienced staff, "a revolutionary and ultra-conservative atmosphere", the spread of hope about the future of the establishment and the raising of public awareness about the positive services provided by it, and the provision of models of the correct lifestyle with a focus on the importance of family values. (Summary at Tehran Bureau)

1515 GMT: Going After Hashemi. According to Rah-e-Sabz, Minister of Intelligence Heydar Moslehi is calling for the arrest and trial of Hashemi Rafsanjani's son, Mehdi Hashemi.

1250 GMT: American Tough Guy. National Security Advisor James Jones has laid down the law to Tehran:

By the end of the year we should be able to ascertain what Iran's true colors are on this, and the end of the year is coming. We're still hopeful. The door is still open, but the window is closing.

No coincidence that the Obama officials pushing hardest for sanctions on Iran are located in Jones' National Security Council.

1145 GMT: Two new posts following up our initial update at 0600 GMT --- a full English translation of Grand Ayatollah Montazeri's answers on the Green Movement and a video apparently showing a lack of turnout for President Ahmadinejad's speech in Isfahan.

1130 GMT: Mahmoud in a Mood. The President is being just a bit defiant today. He has declared that as Parliament changed his proposal for subsidy reforms, he won't implement the law. (Reuters has an English summary.)

1120 GMT: Dissing Rafsanjani, Defying Khamenei? According to the reformist Parleman News, the President is refusing to attend Expediency Council meetings chaired by Hashemi Rafsanjani, who is the Head of the Council, even though the Supreme Leader has ordered him to do so.

1020 GMT: Conflicting reports on the Damascus explosion. Most reports still say several dead, but Syrian Minister of Interior is insisting that only three people died after a tyre exploded.

0950 GMT: Protest of the Week. An EA source reveals:

"Last week Mr Ramin, the Deputy Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance, who was attending the memorial for former Minister Ali Kordan, could not find his shoes when leaving the mosque.

"It seems someone stole Ramin’s shoes to protest Ahmadinejad’s policy toward the press."

0940 GMT: Reuters is reporting six dead in the Damascus blast.

Meanwhile, in Tehran, it appears that the rumours of the scapegoating and even imprisonment of former Tehran Prosecutor General Saeed Mortazavi for post-election abuses can be put to rest. He has been named the President's Inspector General.

0930 GMT: Have just landed in UK to learn of the bomb in Damascus killing Iiranian pilgrims. Update on that and other stories in next hour.

0630 GMT: Protest of the Week. An EA source reveals:

"Last week Mr Ramin, the Deputy Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance, who was attending the memorial for former Minister Ali Kordan, could not find his shoes when leaving the mosque.

"It seems someone stole Ramin’s shoes to protest Ahmadinejad’s policy toward the press."

0620 GMT: The Road to 16 Azar? Confirming news from Tuesday: more than 3000 students of Tehran University have invited Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karoubi to participate in demonstrations on 16 Azar (7 December) in the Technical Faculty.

In Parliament, the leading reformist party, the Imam Khomeini Line (Reformists) held a press conference. Hussein Hashemian, the head of the party, said, "We follow Iranian people and in their belief the election is not over. This is why we follow up on their protests." Mohammad Reza Taabesh, the deputy leader added, "What happened after the election was due to the imprudence, inexperience, and carelessness of leaders and people in charge."

MP Dariush Ghanbari pressed the specific case of the abuses at Kahrizak Prison, declaring that Iranian people are still waiting for the open trial of the people in charge.

0610 GMT: While we catch up with internal moves and developments in Iran, international media continue to focus on the nuclear question. President Ahmadinejad furnished them with a soundbite in his Isfahan speech when he declared that Iran would now ensure that it was self-sufficient in producing 20 percent enriched uranium for its medical research reactor.

Go behind the headline and the significance emerges:

1. Ahmadinejad is now responding in an almost knee-jerk fashion. The "10 enrichment plants" declaration now apprears to be a heated reaction from Sunday's Cabinet meeting --- it is being dropped because this is a fantasy, not a plan.

2. That in turn points to an Iranian weakness which may become a hindrance for the President.

Iran's nuclear programme is clearly hindered not only by problems with enrichment capacity but also by a lack of uranium stock. Unless that can be addressed, Ahmadinejad's promises will likely be exposed as bluff.

0600 GMT: Returning from Holland this morning, with updates back to normal from 1200 GMT.

In the meantime, we're noting two stories. It looks like President Ahmadinejad, for all his global travels, is having a hard time with legitimacy at home. Despite extensive publicity for his trip to Isfahan yesterday, with schools asking parents to allow their children to attend, the crowd was far below expectations.

Ahmadinejad's reception can be compared to the far larger crowd
six months ago, when Mohammad Khatami visited Isafahan to support Mir Hossein Mousavi's Presidential campaign.

Meanwhile, more on Grand Ayatollah Montazeri’s answers to questions about the Green Movement, which we noted on Tuesday. Montazeri declared that “people will not be satisfied with anything less than their rightful demands”.

Montazeri asserted, “Killing, threatening, arresting, unlawful prosecutions, handing heavy and unfair sentences to political activists and freedom-seekers and propagating lies, will not affect people's determination.” He praised the Green Movement’s emphasis on a peaceful form of struggle against violations of people’s rights, and he also commended the Movement’s ability to draw the attention and sympathy of international human rights organizations.

Montazeri concluded by condemning the government’s treatment of post-election protesters and detainees and advised the government to respect people’s requests.

Iran, the Greens, and the ex-Bushman: With Washington Friends Like These, Who Needs....?

Staff and readers of EA have had a full and frank discussion in recent weeks on the Green Movement and how it is viewed by the US. It's helpful to get a timely reminder today that, while that discussion might have been heated at points, at least it has been amongst people who have had a long-standing interest in reform in Iran, rather than a Johnny-come-lately, ill-informed claim of friendship for the movement.

Step up, Mr Michael Gerson, former speechwriter for George W Bush, current colunnist for The Washington Post. On the surface, one might think that Gerson's claim, "President Obama has seemed to view Iran's ongoing democratic uprising as a pesky obstacle to engagement", might be a genuine expression of concern that the US Government is not doing enough to back calls for rights, justice, and political fairness.

Iran: How Washington Views the Green Opposition — The Next Chapter
The Latest from Iran (3 December): Normal Service?

Keep reading --- and do so with a bit of historical memory.

For Mr Gerson's simple view is that Iran has been on a one-way path for 30 years: "We are seeing the consolidation of a military dictatorship. Since the Iranian revolution of 1979, the nation's clerical leaders have had a military arm -- the Revolutionary Guard Corps -- that has acted as their ideological enforcers."

One might forgive Mr Gerson for his contemporary summary, gleaned from a quick reading of the headlines, "In reaction to mass protests after the fraudulent presidential election in June, the Guard's control has expanded comprehensively," since there is a more than a grain of truth that the IRGC has expanded its political and economic interests. But to portray this as a steady, downhill process linked to the "mullahs" (you know, the "mullahs" like Montazeri, Dastgheib, Karroubi, Sane'i, Bayat Zanjani who have criticised the regime of violence) seems a bit sweeping. And it kind of obliterates not only leaders like Hashemi Rafsanjani but also Mohammad Khatami.

You know, the Mohammad Khatami who sought a thaw in relations with the United States and who was rewarded by the Bush Administration --- the Bush Administration that Gerson served --- with a cut-off of talks, threatening rhetoric, and even consideration of regime change. The Mohammad Khatami who was left to dangle in Iranian domestic politics when his assurances that an engagement with the West would be productive turned into political dust.

OK, maybe we can let Gerson off the hook for his historical amnesia given that he just scribbled speeches, rather than framed policy. But, in the present day, there is this: "The administration has reduced funding for human rights programs in Iran and looked the other way as exiled opponents of the Iranian regime have been attacked within Iraq."

Ahh, so support of the Green movement means support for the "exiled opponents" who happen to be the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MKO), the movement carrying out acts of violence since Gerson's 1979 starting point to topple the Iranian Government. The Mujahedin-e-Khalq who are still listed as a "terrorist" organisation by the State Department. In that context, Gerson's next sentence takes astounding to a new level: "In addition to serious economic and military pressure, Obama could try the strategy the Iranian regime most fears: supporting, overtly and covertly, the democratic resistance against military rule."

So the best way to confront an Iranian Government that tries to prop up its shaky position by screaming "velvet revolution" is to support a "velvet revolution" including an organisation whose acitivities put it, even for many Iranians who are opposed to the current Government, beyond the acceptable? Even the dimmest student in my second-year course on The CIA and US Foreign Policy wouldn't put forth this plan.

I'm not sure whether Mr Gerson is being cynical in his reduction of history and his advocacy of regime change or if he is just ignorant about Iran. I do know, however, that he is deceptive if he claims to be a friend of the Green Movement.

For if the nuclear issue didn't exist, Gerson wouldn't give a rat's-ass about the Iranian opposition. The dreaded prospect of Iran With Bombs is the subject of the first eight paragraphs of a ten-paragraph article. The "democratic uprising" only makes an entrance when Gerson decides that other possibilities for a nuclear victory --- sanctions "would require a number of unreliable nations to sacrifice large economic interests"; "direct military options are uncertain" --- won't work.

Even the headline writer for Gerson's piece doesn't fall for the author's false love of Iranian democracy and reform, putting on the title, "Green Leverage over Iran". Leverage? If I weren't such a Southern gentleman, I'd tell Mr Gerson where he could stick his leverage.

But I return to the start of this piece: thank you, sir, for a timely reminder. A reminder not only that, for all my concerns about the Obama Administration, its predecessor offered no hope and only the prospect of more damage. And a reminder that the Green Movement, for all the tensions over its plans and objectives, is far more than the pawn put forward by false friends.

After the Minaret Ban: $50 Billion to Leave Swiss Banks?

Following Switzerland's ban on the construction of minarets, speculation has arisen over the future of money kept wealthy Muslims in Swiss banks. Turkey's Minister of State Egenem Bagis has called on Muslims to transfer their money to his country.

After Swiss Referendum on Minarets: Who is Radicalizing Whom?

It is estimated that there is approximately $50 billion dollars held in Switzerland by states with a majority Muslim population. The top 12:

- Saudi Arabia: $13.5 billion
- United Arab Emirates: $6.9 billion
- Indonesia: $6.6 billion
- Turkey: $3.9 billion
- Lebanon: $3.5 billion
- Malaysia: $3.3 billion
- Kuwait: $2.3 billion
- Syria: $1.5 billion
- Jordan: $1.5 billion
- Iran: $1.1 billion
- Morocco: $1 billion
- Pakistan: $1 billion