Afghanistan Analysis: Dutch Government Falls Over Troop Withdrawal

UPDATE 0810 GMT: Afghanistan government officials say at least 33 civilians have been killed by a NATO air attack on a convoy of vehicles in Uruzgan. Nato confirmed that it fired on Sunday on a group of vehicles that it believed contained fighters, only to discover later that women and children were in the cars.

On Friday, our colleagues at The Holland Bureau --- one of the up-and-coming blogs on political issues in and beyond The Netherlands --- wrote:

We still have a government, for the moment. Opinion polls taken today indicate 45% in favour of Uruzgan [Dutch troops in Afghanistan] being worth a crisis, 35% against. Supporters of [Geert] Wilders’ PVV and the Socialists are above 60% in their hope that the Cabinet falls, as are – significantly – 55% of Labour. Yet overall 54% still come out hoping the Cabinet stays together, economic concerns being the main reason. It's rare that a foreign policy issue can be so divisive, and potentially so decisive.

Transcript: General Petraeus on Afghanistan, Pakistan, & Other US Conflicts (21 February)

Indeed. Less than 72 hours later, and the Government of Jan Peter Balkenende is no more. Balkenende, of the centre-right Christian Democrat CDA, wanted to extend the August deadline for withdrawal of Dutch troops from Afghanistan by a year. He miscalculated, possibly because of misleading signals, that he would the support of his coalition partner, the Labour Party; Labour leader and Deputy Prime Minister Wouter Bos announced:

A plan was agreed to when our soldiers went to Afghanistan. Our partners in the government didn't want to stick to that plan, and on the basis of their refusal we have decided to resign from this government.

With elections likely in May, the immediate issue is whether all 1,600 Dutch soldiers leave Uruzgan, southwest of Kabul and north of Kandahar. NATO's Secretary-General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, filed an official request for the extension of the Dutch mission earlier this month.

The crisis exposes the too-common perception, at least in the US and UK press, of a military intervention in Afghanistan led by American forces, supported by a British junior partner. While 1600 Dutch troops may not seem much, compared to the 100,000+ that the US intends to have in place after its current escalation, any loss of soldiers --- especially in central Afghanistan --- is a blow to military plans.

Even more important, however, is the symbolic impact of this news. It comes in the middle of the vaunted US-led offensive, Operation Moshtarak, to clear the Taliban from Afghanistan's center and put in Afghan forces to hold the area. The vital support, beyond the word "coalition", of non-American troops is not just that they share the fighting; perhaps more importantly, they offer the image of peacekeeping and rebuilding after the Taliban are vanquished. The political message from Holland is that some politicians, supported by a large section of their public, don't buy the rhetoric that this will be the long but decisive resolution of Afghanistan's political, economic, and social issues.

There will be a lot of damage limitation this week from US and NATO press offices, and within America, there is the bonus of simply ignoring the story. (In his interview on US television yesterday, General David Petraeus, the overall American commander for the region, was never asked about the Holland situation, and he certainly did not volunteer a reaction.) But beyond US shores and en route to Afghanistan, others will see this as a wobble in the narrative of "this time, we win Afghanistan".

New Jersey to Iran (and Back Again): The Activism of Mehdi Saharkhiz

I first encountered Mehdi Saharkhiz as "onlymehdi" on Twitter last June. He has been one of the most important sources of information, especially photos and videos, for EA and many others on the post-election crisis.

From Ashley Kindergan at NorthJersey.com:

From coffee shops in Ridgewood, his home in Wayne and anywhere there is cell service, a 28-year-old Iranian is broadcasting the ongoing uprising in his home country — one of a growing number of people intent on helping share with the world what happens on the streets of Tehran.

Iran: Greening YouTube — An Interview with Mehdi Saharkhiz

Mehdi Saharkhiz — known as "onlymehdi" on his blog, YouTube channel and Twitter feed — has been posting photographs and videos of opposition protests in Iran since the disputed Iranian presidential election last June sent thousands of protesters into the streets and triggered a brutal crackdown by the regime.

"For me, it's about getting the word out there," Saharkhiz said.


Videos and images like the ones Saharkhiz posts have become crucial to scholars, journalists and ordinary people who want to know what's going on inside an increasingly closed-off Iran.

"I think it's been critical, and we've seen what may in fact be a real birth of citizen journalism," said Gary Sick, an Iran scholar and adjunct professor at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs. "The coverage basically after the initial demonstrations in June has been extremely sparse except for the things that people are sending out."

Indeed, much of the post-election media coverage has centered around Iran's military ambitions and the possibility of imposing more sanctions on the country. Just a few days ago, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton cautioned that Iran's armed forces were becoming increasingly important in the country's decision-making. And a recent report by the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency accused Iranian leaders of having worked to produce a nuclear warhead.

But the story of the opposition movement continues, recorded and shared by an online community.

For example, on Feb. 11, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was largely successful at keeping demonstrators out of a main square in Tehran when he gave a major speech celebrating the regime's anniversary.

Satellite images available through Google — not television cameras — showed a square that wasn't filled and buses that brought in supporters from outside Tehran. Saharkhiz showed photos of the buses on his site, too.

Sick noted that the Iranian regime has closed down many newspapers, especially those affiliated with the opposition. There are 47 journalists — including Mehdi's father, noted reform writer Isa Saharkhiz — imprisoned in Iran, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists.

Getting information out of the country has also been made difficult by technological roadblocks and fears of government spying. And the fear reaches beyond Iran's borders, with Saharkhiz being careful about identifying his home and other North Jersey Iranians reluctant to even speak about communication with their home country.

The Iranian government recently blocked Gmail, Google's popular e-mail service. The regime has also frequently disrupted Internet service by slowing it to a crawl or shutting off some servers altogether, experts and Iranians here say. Sites such as Facebook and Twitter are reportedly monitored by the government to track the opposition.

"They've been trying to effect another blackout where nobody knows what's going on," said Kelly Golnoush Niknejad, a Boston-based Iranian-American journalist who started a Web site, Tehran Bureau, as an independent source of in-depth Iran coverage. "[People] have to be really sophisticated and keep on top of everything to continue to surf the Web and occasionally access a Facebook page or whatever."

Niknejad and Saharkhiz were both reluctant to talk about the specific ways in which their sources got around cyber obstacles in order to communicate. They didn't want to put sources in danger or to risk getting the avenues of communication shut down. But both said that people seem to adjust to each new obstacle.

"Seventy percent of Iran's population is under 35 years of age," Niknejad said. "The young population came of age with the Internet. … They have just had to get more sophisticated."

A 'conduit' to Iran

Mana Mostatabi, an online community organizer with the San Francisco-based United4Iran.org, said Saharkhiz's videos have been critical to spreading information, even as she hears from her own friends and relatives about increasing difficulty accessing Web sites.

"Mehdi has been such a key figure in getting that footage in and out," Mostatabi said. "He's acting as a conduit to people who are just snapping it on their cellphones."

Saharkhiz said he was not interested in Iranian politics before the 2009 elections. But then he saw footage of a crackdown on university students.

"These are just normal students going to school," he said. "They went out and voted … and now they're being massively arrested. That's when I feel it's my duty as an Iranian citizen to get their word out."

Isa Saharkhiz, Mehdi's father, worked as a journalist for many years, bringing his family to the U.S. in 1994 when he headed the New York office of IRNA, the official Iranian news agency. Isa Saharkhiz served as head of domestic publications under former President Mohammad Khatami and later published a monthly reformist newspaper that was shuttered in 2004.

In 2009, Isa Saharkhiz was active in the presidential campaign of opposition candidate Mehdi Karroubi. He was arrested eight days after the election.

Mehdi Saharkhiz, who moved to the U.S. permanently in 2001, said his family suspects that his father was tracked down on his Nokia cellphone.

Hiding Internet use

People are working on solutions to make communication safer.

Austin Heap, executive director of the Censorship Research Center, has monitored the blocks placed on the Internet by the Iranian government. The center is now waiting for a license to distribute a technology called Haystack that would allow users inside Iran to hide their Internet use.

"Haystack does two things: First, it encrypts the data and, second, it coats the data to look like normal traffic," Heap said. "It just removes the middleman's ability to filter."

That would be a boon for Iranian-Americans in North Jersey who track the news. Several people interviewed said they read multiple news sources and keep in close touch with friends and family to hunt out credible information about Iran.

Still, getting information has been more and more difficult.

Mehdi Shahpar, a West Milford resident and president of the New Jersey-based Persian Cultural & Humanitarian Association, said he watches CNN and reads American newspapers, and also checks sites written largely by Iranians, such as Iranian.com. But the best sources are the firsthand ones, he said.

"The best sources of information are those videos that are coming out from individual people that are taken by cellphone cameras and smuggled out," Shahpar said. Friends and family "used to be able to talk more, but recently they're afraid of talking on the phone because of the phone tapping and checking everything."

Shahpar said he had no problem using e-mail when he visited Iran before the elections, but his sister had enormous trouble accessing the Internet on a recent visit.

Nahid Ahkami, a Clifton resident and co-founder of the Persian Cultural & Humanitarian Association, said she reads Tehran Bureau and her husband runs his own Web site that gathers Iranian news.

Ahkami said she believes the opposition movement will ultimately succeed.

"It's going to flourish," Ahkami said. "It's not going to go away. Iranian people are very resilient people and patient people."

Transcript: General Petraeus on Afghanistan, Pakistan, & Other US Conflicts (21 February)

The head of US Central Command, General David Petraeus, appeared on NBC Television's Meet the Press, first to walk viewers through the US interventions in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq and then to take a tour around other issues from Iran to Guantanamo Bay to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on gays and lesbians in the military.



In contrast to previous appearances, when Petraeus was fighting his own President to get his version of US foreign and military policy, this was a stay-the-course interview behind agreed approaches. The message on Afghanistan was long-haul effort to win. On Pakistan, it was supporting Pakistani forces to vanquish the Taliban. He spoke in generalities about maintaining pressure on Iran, and beyond his main agenda, on the tricky issues like Guantanamo Bay and "enhanced interrogation" (torture), he evaded any definitive statements.

MR. DAVID GREGORY: General David Petraeus joins us live from U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Florida.

General, welcome to MEET THE PRESS.

GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS: Thanks, David. Good to be with you.


MR. GREGORY: Let's talk about Afghanistan. This NATO-U.S. offensive in southern Afghanistan is entering its second week with reports of resistance from the Taliban that our forces are facing. How formidable are the Taliban forces that we're confronting now?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Well, they're formidable. They're a bit disjointed at this point in time. The way the operation was conducted leaped over some of them. But there's tough fighting going on, without question.

If I could, David, in fact, I'd like to put this into context, because this is just the initial operation of what will be a 12- to 18-month campaign, as General McChrystal and his team have mapped it out. We've spent the last year getting the inputs right in Afghanistan, getting the structures and organizations necessary for a comprehensive civil-military campaign, putting the best leaders we can find in charge of those, helping with the development of the concepts, the counterinsurgency guidance General McChrystal has issued and so forth. And then now, with President Obama's policy announcement in December at West Point, the resourcing of that effort with the additional 30,000 forces that have now begun flowing, about 5,400 on the ground already, the additional civilians, the additional money, the additional authorization of Afghan security forces. So the inputs, we think, now are about right, and now we're starting to see the first of the output. And the Marja operation is the initial salvo, the initial operation in that overall campaign.

MR. GREGORY: The fight is going to be tough. As you have said, there are questions about how long the U.S. will be there in the fight, whether the Afghan army is capable enough to take over that fight. What should Americans expect as there's more engagement, as there's more fighting, in terms of U.S. losses?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Well, David, the same as in the surge in Iraq. When we go on the offensive, when we take away sanctuaries and safe havens from the Taliban and the other extremist elements that we and our Afghan and coalition partners are fighting in that country, they're going to fight back. And we're seeing that in Marja. We will see that in other areas. But we are going after them across the spectrum. We have more of our special, special operations forces going in on the ground, and you've seen the results, you've heard some of the initial results of that with more Afghan shadow governors, the Taliban shadow governors being captured, more of the high value targets being taken down. Then, through the spectrum of providing additional security for the people, supporting additional training of Afghan security forces, as I mentioned, 100,000 more of those over the course of the next year and a half or so. And then also, out on the local defense and even the reintegration of reconcilables effort that will be pursued and is being pursued with the Afghan government.

MR. GREGORY: But U.S. losses, significant?

GEN. PETRAEUS: They'll be tough. They were tough in Iraq. Look, I am--I have repeatedly said that these types of efforts are hard, and they're hard all the time. I don't use words like "optimist" or "pessimist," I use realist. And the reality is that it's hard. But we're there for a very, very important reason, and we can't forget that, David. We're in Afghanistan to ensure that it cannot once again be a sanctuary for the kind of attacks that were carried out on 9/11, which were planned initially in Kandahar, first training done in eastern Afghanistan before the attackers moved to Hamburg and then onto U.S. flight schools.

MR. GREGORY: As the offensive is taking place in southern Afghanistan, a major development in Pakistan, in neighboring Pakistan, as U.S. and Pakistani authorities captured a major Taliban figure, Abdul Baradar. What are you learning from him now that he's in custody?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Well, David, if I could, what we've learned, actually, in working with our Pakistani partners, who have done some very impressive work over the course of the last 10 months in particular, is that it's sometimes not best to talk a great deal about intelligence operations. And that's what I'll do here this morning.

What I will say is, again, I'd like to put this into context as well. Some 10 months or so ago, the Pakistani people, their political leaders, including major opposition figures and even the clerics, all recognized the threat posed to the very writ of governance of Pakistan. They saw this as the most pressing existential threat to their country, and they supported the Pakistani army and Frontier Corps as it went into Swat and the Malakand division of the northwest frontier province and then expanded its operations into the federally administered tribal areas. They've made some significant gains. They know they can't just clear and leave. They have to clear, hold, build and, over time, transition to local security forces. That's indeed what they're endeavoring to do. They are carrying out this fight. This is their fight against extremists internal to their country, threatening Pakistan, not them fighting our war on terror.

MR. GREGORY: Can I ask it a slightly different way, if you don't want to talk about what specifically is being learned? Presuming that both U.S. forces and Pakistani officials are doing the interrogation, do you wish you had the interrogation methods that were available to you during the Bush administration to get intelligence from a figure like this?

GEN. PETRAEUS: I have always been on the record, in fact, since 2003, with the concept of living our values. And I think that whenever we have, perhaps, taken expedient measures, they have turned around and bitten us in the backside. We decided early on in the 101st Airborne Division we're just going to--look, we just said we'd decide to obey the Geneva Convention, to, to move forward with that. That has, I think, stood elements in good stead. We have worked very hard over the years, indeed, to ensure that elements like the International Committee of the Red Cross and others who see the conduct of our detainee operations and so forth approve of them. Because in the cases where that is not true, we end up paying a price for it ultimately. Abu Ghraib and other situations like that are nonbiodegradables. They don't go away. The enemy continues to beat you with them like a stick in the Central Command area of responsibility. Beyond that, frankly, we have found that the use of the interrogation methods in the Army Field Manual that was given, the force of law by Congress, that that works. And...

MR. GREGORY: Well...

GEN. PETRAEUS: And that is our experience...

MR. GREGORY: In terms of recruitment threats...

GEN. PETRAEUS: ...in, in the years that we have implemented it.

MR. GREGORY: In terms of recruitment threats, do you consider the prison at Guantanamo Bay in the same way? Do you consider it to be related, or do you think, in other words, should it be closed, or do you believe it was short-sighted to set a deadline certain for its closure?

GEN. PETRAEUS: I've been on the record on that for well over a year as well, saying that it should be closed. But it should be done in a responsible manner. So I'm not seized with the issue that it won't be done by a certain date. In fact, I think it is--it's very prudent to ensure that, as we move forward with that, wherever the remaining detainees are relocated and so forth, whatever jurisdiction is used in legal cases and so forth, is really thought through and done in a very pragmatic and sensible manner.

MR. GREGORY: One more question about--on the subject of terrorism. You often say when it comes to politics, you like to go around the minefield rather than go through it. But this is a question, really, related to your experience and your expertise. In the past couple of weeks, there's been a big debate about what kind of threat al-Qaeda poses directly to the United States. Vice President Biden considers another 9/11 type attack unlikely. Former Vice President Cheney, who you served under as well, said that he disagrees with that, that 9/11 is indeed possible again, this time using a nuclear or biological weapon. Again, appealing to your expertise, where do you come down on that question? What is the specific threat that al-Qaeda poses now?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Well, let me just express how we assess al-Qaeda in the Central Command area of responsibility, which happens to be where the bulk of al-Qaeda is located; although, certainly, the network extends beyond our area. And our assessment is that over the course of the last year or so, al-Qaeda has been diminished in that area, that Saudi Arabia and the other Arabian Peninsula countries have continued to make gains with the exception, obvious exception of Yemen--we can talk more about that if you want--that the, the progress has continued against al-Qaeda in Iraq, although, again, there are certainly remaining threats there. And we see those periodically shown in the form of horrific, barbaric attacks. There's been progress against al-Qaeda's senior leadership in the federally-administered tribal areas as well. So, as a general assessment, again, diminished. But, having said that, al-Qaeda is a flexible, adaptable--it may be barbaric, it may believe in extremist ideology, as it does, but this is a thinking, adaptive enemy, and we must maintain pressure on it everywhere.

MR. GREGORY: But...

GEN. PETRAEUS: It is a network, and it takes a network to keep the pressure on a network. And that is, indeed, what we're endeavoring to do.

MR. GREGORY: But, general, my question is do you think they want to pull off another 9/11 or smaller bore attacks?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Well I think al-Qaeda is assessing to pull off any kind of attack. I mean, you saw the Abdulmutallab attempt on--the, the would-be Detroit bomber. Again, this is an enemy that is looking for any opportunity to attack our partners and, indeed, our homeland, and we have to keep that in mind. There's no question about its desire to continue to attack our country and our allies.

MR. GREGORY: Let me ask you about Iran. International inspectors think that, in fact, that country is moving toward production of an actual nuclear warhead. How close is that regime to going nuclear?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Well it's--it is certainly a ways off, and we'll probably hear more on that from the International Atomic Energy Agency when it meets here in the, in the next week or so. It has clearly--its new director has expressed his concern about the activities. There's no question that some of those activities have advanced during that time. There's also a new National Intelligence Estimate being developed by our intelligence community in the United States. We have over the course of the last year, of course, pursued the engagement track. I think that no one at the end of this time can say that the United States and the rest of the world has--have not given Iran every opportunity to resolve the issues diplomatically. That puts us on a solid foundation now to go on what is termed the "pressure track." And that's the course in which we're embarked now. The U.N. Security Council countries, of course, expressing their concern. Russia now even piling on with that. We'll have to see where that goes and whether that can, indeed, send the kind of signal to Iran about the very serious concerns that the countries in the region and, indeed, the entire world have about Iran's activities in the nuclear program and in its continued arming, funding, training, equipping and directing of proxy extremist elements that still carry out attacks...

MR. GREGORY: But...

GEN. PETRAEUS: ...in Iraq, albeit on a much limited basis, but still do that there, and also pose security challenges in southern Lebanon, Gaza, and elsewhere.

MR. GREGORY: But over the span of now two administrations so much has not worked in terms of the pressure option on Iran. Can a single country, be it the United States or Israel, deter Iran from going nuclear without a military strike?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Well, again, I think we have to embark on the pressure track next, but certainly they're, needless to say--you know, I was asked a couple of Sundays ago on another show, "Well, tell me, General, about your plans to take down Iran's nuclear program." And the way I answered was to, to note that it is the job of combatant commanders to consider the what-ifs, to be prepared for contingency plans. I'm not saying this in a provocative way. I'm merely saying that we have responsibilities, the American people and our commander-in-chief and so forth expect us to think those through and to be prepared for the what-ifs. And we try not to be irresponsible in that regard.

MR. GREGORY: In our remaining moments, I want to cover a couple of other areas. Iraq: Of all the countries within Central Command that you oversee, 20, would you consider Iraq to be the most democratic?

GEN. PETRAEUS: It's interesting. I've actually posed that question to think-tankers and others, and I think it actually may be. Now, we hope that that is sustained through the elections and beyond 7 March. Right now it--I don't think there's any question right now that the Iraqi government, however imperfect--and this is "Iraqracy" at work, not necessarily Western democracy. But this is a government that is representative of all of the people, it is responsive to the people, it, its leaders know they are facing the electorate on 7 March. There's a fierce campaign, there's high political drama that's gone on. Some of it is of concern in, in a substantial way to elements to the Iraqi population and leadership. But we hope that this will move through, that the elections will be, as were the provincial elections in January 2009, deemed free and fair by the United Nations, which is very much supportive of this effort, needless to say; and that, indeed, the process of selecting the next prime minister, the next government and the other leadership will be a smooth one. Although, frankly, we expect that it is going to take some time. And, again, we do expect that there's going to be considerable drama and emotion that accompanies it, and it will be a period of months, at the very least, before that second election, if you will, the election of 7 March, which selects the parliament, the council of representatives; and they then will do the wheeling and dealing and the maneuvering to select the next prime minister and the key ministers and president.

MR. GREGORY: General, with the, the military engaged in two wars, with a country fighting terrorism in other forms as well, is this an appropriate time for the military to revisit the "don't ask, don't tell" policy?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Well, there's a process at work here now, David, and I, and I think that it is a very sound and good process. The secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs announced, when they were testifying, the creation of a review be headed by General Carter Hamm, U.S. Army four-star, and DOD General Counsel Jay Johnson. I don't think this has gotten enough prominence frankly. It is very important to this overall process. It will provide a rigorous analysis of the views of the force on the possible change. It will suggest the policies that could be used to implement a change if it, if it does come to that, so that it could be as uneventful as it was, say, in the U.K. or the Israeli militaries or, indeed, in our own CIA and FBI. And then it will assess the effects, the possible effects on readiness, recruiting and retention.

MR. GREGORY: What do you say?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Very important for that process to move forward. We'll hear from the chiefs, the Joint Chiefs on this I think, probably their personal assessments and personal views in the course of the next week or so...

MR. GREGORY: But...

GEN. PETRAEUS: ...when they're on Capitol Hill. And then the geographic combatant commanders, the other combatant commanders and I, will have our turn on Capitol Hill in a few weeks.

MR. GREGORY: But what, but what, what do you say, General? Should gays and lesbians be able to serve openly in the military?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Well, I'll provide that, again, on Capitol Hill if, if asked at that time. I, I know you'd like to make some news here this morning. I support what our secretary and, and chairman have embarked on here. I will--I'm fully participating in that process. And I think it's very important, again, that these issues be handled and discussed and addressed by this review that will be so important in informing decisions as we move forward.

MR. GREGORY: Do you think soldiers on the ground in the field care one way or the other if their comrades in arms are gay or lesbian?

GEN. PETRAEUS: I'm not sure that they do. We'll see. Again, that's why this review panel. You know, all we have are, are personal soundings to go on, and I've certainly done some of that myself. I mean, you've heard General Powell, who was the chairman when the policy was implemented, had a big hand in that, who said that, yes indeed, the earth has revolved around the sun a number of times since that period 15 months ago. And you've heard a variety of anecdotal input. We have experienced, certainly, in the CIA and the FBI, I know. I served in fact in combat with individuals who were gay and who were lesbian in combat situations and, frankly, you know, over time you said, "Hey, how's, how's this guy's shooting?" Or "How is her analysis," or what have you. So--but we'll see. Again, that's the importance of this review that will be conducted by General Hamm and also by the DOD general counsel. I think it is hugely important that we have the answers from the questions that they'll be asking in a very methodical way, something we've not done before because of the emotion and the sensitivity of this issue.

MR. GREGORY: All right, we'll leave it there. General Petraeus, thank you very much this morning.

GEN. PETRAEUS: Great to be with you, David. Thanks again.

Photos of the Decade: 2001

United Airlines Flight 175 heading for the South Tower of the World Trade Center
11 September 2001 (Rob Howard/Terra-Corbis)

Photos of the Decade: 2000

The Latest from Iran (21 February): Catching Up

2220 GMT: Student activist Majid Tavakoli returned to Revolutionary Court today, 2 1/2 months after his detention on 7 December. There are no details of the hearing.

2105 GMT: On the Academic Front. Dr Mohammad Sattarifar has been expelled from his post at Allameh Tabatabei University.

2100 GMT: The reformist Islamic Iran Participation Front has stated that it will continue its activities as scheduled.

2055 GMT: What Are Mahmoud (and Ali) Doing Today? Trying to out-do each other in the bashing of the West, it seems.

Ahmadinejad used a meeting with the speaker of Azerbaijan's Parliament to declare, "The so-called powerful countries are merely after their own interests. They are willing go so far as to sacrifice other countries and nations for their interests....The weakening of the so-called powerful countries will completely change the state of affairs on the regional and international scale."

Larijani's audience was the Parliament, as he warned President Obama about following the polices of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and declared that the 22 Bahman rallies had thwarted the US-Iran "plot" against Iran.

NEW Iran Analysis: Re-alignment v. Crackdown — Which “Wins”?
NEW Iran: A Tale of Cricket, Andre the Giant, and Protests
Iran: “It’s All Over” for the Green Movement?
The Latest from Iran (20 February): Questions

2010 GMT: Drawing a line. Peyke Iran claims that Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani has convinced lawmaker Mostafa Kavakebian not to press his plan for further examination of detention centres.


1955 GMT: Iran's Nuclear Cooperation? Islamic Republic News Agency is quoting the spokesman of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization Ali Shirzadian that a delegation from the International Atomic Energy Agency arrived on Saturday yesterday, to study Iran's nuclear safety system. The delegation is expected to spend two weeks on safety evaluation, procedures, and international requirements.

1820 GMT: Well, well, have a look at Khabar Online, the "conservative" website which is now almost non-stop in its challenge to the President. Khabar reports on Saturday's meeting between Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi without a hint of criticism and throws in a good kick on the "magically changing flag" issue:

The report [from Karroubi's Saham News]...reads that the reformist leaders had a conversation about "eliminating a symbol of Iranian national flag". Actually it refers to a ceremony attended by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Tehran for the head of the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA). There, in a graphic design behind Ahmadinejad the green stripe of the country's national flag [green, white and red] had turned to blue.

Green is also symbolizes the opposition Green Movement led by the two former officials.

1635 GMT: Nukes, Nukes, Nukes! Today's hyperbole posing as analysis comes out of The Washington Post, where James Lindsay and Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations spend several paragraphs feigning deep thought before setting up for First, Containment But Prepare to Attack:

If Tehran remains determined to go nuclear and preventive attacks prove too risky or unworkable to carry out, the United States will need to formulate a strategy to contain Iran. In doing so, however, it would be a mistake to assume that containment would save the United States from the need to make tough choices about retaliation. If Washington is not prepared to back up a containment strategy with force, the damage created by Iran's going nuclear could become catastrophic.

The piece is notable not for any insight but for a shift from Takeyh, who had been putting forward a rights-first approach to Iran up to 22 Bahman.

1620 GMT: Rafsanjani Watch (cont. --- see 1330 GMT). It hasn't taken long for regime defenders to respond to the alliance between Hashemi Rafsanjani and Moshen Rezaei to get changes in the Iranian system, especially the supervision of elections. Hossein Shariatmadari, the editor of Kayhan, has warned that the Expediency Council --- headed by Rafsanjani and served by Rezaei as Secretary --- is trying to get rid of the Guardian Council.

1420 GMT: Alireza Khaliji, the son-in-law of Mohammad Reza Beheshti, martyr Ayatollah Beheshti’s eldest son, has been released from prison. Opposition activists claim the arrest was merely to put pressure on Mir Hossein Mousavi --- his chief advisor Alireza Beheshti is the uncle of Alireza Khaliji.

1400 GMT: Parleman News reports that journalist Hasan Zohouri, a specialist on cultural affairs arrested in the lead-up to the 22 Bahman rallies, was released last night.

1330 GMT: Rafsanjani Watch. Could this be an encounter with political significance? Former President Hashemi Rafsanjani has met Mehdi Karroubi's son Ali, who was taken away and beaten on 22 Bahman. Reports claim that Ali Karroubi's account of the experience brought Rafsanjani and his wife to tears.

0945 GMT: Don't Look Here, Look Over There! Iranian state media are pretending not to notice Hashemi Rafsanjani's comments on the internal political situation. Instead, it's all Nukes, Nukes, Nukes. From Press TV:

“The [International Atomic Energy Agency] report was clearly custom-made for Western powers,” said the former Iranian President. “There is no way an international organization with an independent approach would make such comments.”

“The tidal wave of threats and accusations against Iran's nuclear activity has certainly been unprecedented, but [Western powers] should come to realize that they have no chance of forcing Iranians [into giving up their enrichment program],” said Rafsanjani.

Rafsanjani went to add that one expected that "foreign enemies of Iran would not opt for "aggressive behavior" after millions of Iranians took part in rallies — held during the 31st anniversary of the victory of the Islamic Revolution — and threw their weight behind the Islamic establishment.

0905 GMT: There are Sanctions...And There Are No Sanctions. While the French Government talks tough about economic punishment for Iran's nuclear stance, this bit of Auto News:

Iran's state-owned car manufacturer Iran Khodro unveiled for the home market on Saturday the Peugeot 207i, a locally built version of the French automobile firm's 207 model. The Peugeot 207i will hit the market at the beginning of the next Iranian year which starts on March 21....

Pierre Foret, representative of Peugeot in Iran, said the launch of the 207i was the French car maker's attempt to "develop its market in Iran"

0855 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Persian2English reports that the Revolutionary Court has sentenced human rights lawyer Mohammad Oliyaifard to a year in prison for “propaganda against the system”. Oliyaifard is prominent for his pro bono (no fees) work defending juveniles in death penalty cases.

0845 GMT: Police News and Rumour. Iranian media have reported that Tehran's police chief, Brigadier-General Azizollah Rajabzadeh, is retiring after only six months in charge.

The rather tasty rumour is that Rajabzadeh was beaten up by a woman who is a martial arts specialist. The more prosaic reason for his sudden departure is the perception that his forces failed to keep order during the Ashura demonstrations on 27 December.

0840 GMT: Speaking of that debate over the state of the Green Movement, we've got a special analysis by Josh Shahryar on "Cricket, Andre the Giant, and Protests".

0835 GMT: The Green Movement Debate. Another voice to add to this weekend's discussion of whether the opposition in Iran has been crippled: expatriate intellectual Abdolkarim Soroush declares that the movement is "unstoppable".

0815 GMT: We're catching up with a lot of news from Saturday. Much of it is in our morning analysis, "Re-alignment v. Crackdown: Which 'Wins'?", as politicians like Hashemi Rafsanjani manoeuvre for some changes within the system to prevent implosion but the Government persists in its strategy of threats.

Elsewhere, reformists have called on Minister of Higher Education Kamran Daneshjoo to demand release of students from detention, an end to punitive jail terms, and exclusion of armed forces from universities.

The nightly ritual of gatherings and protests by families of detainees continues outside Evin Prison. Once again, some prisoners are being released to those waiting.

On the economic front, claims are being made in the pro-Larijani Khabar Online that $9 trillion (yes, trillion) is wasted because of the lack of modern technology in Iran's oil fields means 24% productivity, instead of rates, as in Norway, of 48 to 65%.

In Tehran Bureau, "Hamid Faroknia" of the Iran Labor Report has a lengthy, detailed analysis of the effects of President Ahmadinejad's economic policy bringing in cheap imports: "farmers [driven] to bankruptcy; industrial workers arbitrarily denied wages".