Today in EA (12 January 2010)

Iran: News from Iran this morning concentrates on the booby-trap bomb explosion in Tehran that killed Professor Massoud Mohammadi. We have the latest, which includes indication that Mohammadi was not involved in Iran's nuclear programme, and a video of state media's presentation of the event.

Links to this and other top stories, from EA and other media, are available as always, in our weblog.

Amidst recent coverage of Iran and Twitter,  and following yesterday's contributions on this issue, we have a comprehensive analysis today from Christopher Parsons, which seeks to dispell some of the fear, uncertainty and doubt around the Iranian Government's use of digital surveillance techniques.

Scott Lucas considers, amidst recent statements by Mir Hossein Mousavi, Mehdi Karroubi, and Mohamad Khatami, the way forward for the opposition: "The question may not be how the regime reacts to these statements  but how the Green movement(s) respond."

US/Israel: Israel media suggest that, behind the scenes, Israel's relationship with the Obama Administration is flourishing, despite Washington's recent sale of arms to four "moderate" Arab states.

Turkey/Israel: A meeting between Turkish and Lebanese Prime Ministers turned into a platform for sharp criticism of  Israel.

Iran: How Far Do The Green Movements Go?

Monday was distinguished by statements from the opposition. Both Mehdi Karroubi and Mohammad Khatami issued analyses and, in the case of Karroubi, a five-point proposal to complement the 1 January declaration of Mir Hossein Mousavi.

As protesters draw breath during a relatively long pause between major demonstrations, the question may not be how the regime reacts to these statements --- my reading, set out yesterday, is that the Iranian Government's immediate concern is challenges within the establishment than with the pressure beyond it --- but how the Green movement(s) respond.

While Karroubi and Khatami were clear in their criticisms of the regime, both also emphasised that their approach rested on non-violence on all sides and that their resolutions were within the system, adhering to the Constitution. What, however, does adherence to the Constitution entail? Would this just be a question of apologies, compensation, and the punishment of some officials? Or would the demands reach to the removal of President Ahmadinejad for his responsibility in the failures and abuses? Do they include a change in the position of the Supreme Leader?

(Our initial evaluation that Karroubi had specifically mentioned Khamenei in his five-point plan has not been followed by other summaries. We are double-checking.)

An analysis from an activist sets out the issue forcefully:

The green movement, at least when it comes to its slogans, has defined some short-term objectives. Slogans which, at an earlier point, consisted of calling Ahmadinejad a liar or questioning his 63% share of the vote have now become more direct and confrontational, addressing the dictator himself and wanting an end to the dictatorship.

Why is it that, when the demand of the main body of the movement has evolved to such an extent, the leaders, namely Mousavi and Karroubi, refuse to announce it openly? Why is there no mention of this demand in the statement issued by Bazargan, Soroush, Kadivar, Ganji, and Mohajerani (the five Iranian expatriate intellectuals who issued their 10 Demands two days after Mousavi's New Year statement)?

The demand for the removal of Khamenei is, in reality, a demand for fundamental change; it is tantamount to the negation of his policies for the last 20 years, but at the same time, it does not equal the overthrow of the regime. This demand does not even mean the negation of the supreme leadership as a principle. Even the most conservatives groups within the green movement can remain loyal to Khomeini’s ideals (that is, loyalty to the supreme leader), while simultaneously agreeing that Khamenei is not competent for the position.

Iran: "What is This Opposition?" Right Answers to Wrong Questions

EA's Josh Shahryar offers this analysis, also published in The Huffington Post:

On Wednesday in The New York Times, Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett attempted perhaps the most stinging dismissal of the importance of the ongoing opposition protests in Iran.

Bloggers and other foreign policy experts refuted many of the Leveretts' specific points, especially their overestimation of government-sponsored protests and underestimation of opposition demonstrations. [EA's immediate reaction is in Wednesday's updates.] I have covered the numbers on my blog, but a very good second opinion is offered by Daniel Drezner in ForeignPolicy.com.

Drezner and Kevin Sullivan of Real Clear Politics set a wider challenge, however, when they argue that, beyond the Leveretts' distortions, there are "good" analytical questions.

Those questions need a response, not necessarily because they are "good", but because if they are not addressed, the Leveretts may get away with a blatant attempt at skewing facts to hammer in their argument that President Barack Obama should forget about the possibility of regime change in Iran.

This is how the Leveretts set out their three queries:

Those who talk so confidently about an "opposition" in Iran as the vanguard for a new revolution should be made to answer three tough questions: First, what does this opposition want? Second, who leads it? Third, through what process will this opposition displace the government in Tehran? In the case of the 1979 revolutionaries, the answers to these questions were clear. They wanted to oust the American-backed regime of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi and to replace it with an Islamic republic. Everyone knew who led the revolution: Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who despite living in exile in Paris could mobilize huge crowds in Iran simply by sending cassette tapes into the country. While supporters disagreed about the revolution's long-term agenda, Khomeini's ideas were well known from his writings and public statements. After the shah's departure, Khomeini returned to Iran with a draft constitution for the new political order in hand. As a result, the basic structure of the Islamic Republic was set up remarkably quickly.

Let's see what ancient China has to offer before I add my assessment. Back in the olden days, this man traveled hundreds of miles to meet a Taoist sage somewhere in China. After the necessary greetings, he said, "I have come a long way to ask you something. What is the answer to the ultimate question in the universe?" The sage smiled and barked, "Well, that is not what you should be asking. You should ask: is there an answer to the ultimate question in the universe?"

In this parable, the first question posed by the Leveretts is fair: what does this opposition want?

Well, certainly not what Mir Hossein Mousavi wants. Even if we ignore the protesters' repeated calls for the freedom of detainees and other chants that call for help from Imam Hossein against tyranny, I think "Down with the Dictator" --- heard for the last six months, heard loudly and clearly --- is a slogan that embodies the demands. President Ahmadinejad Must Go.

In recent months, however, protesters have also widely started chanting against Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The funeral of Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri was filled with noise denouncing the Supreme Leader. Ashura's protests days later were condemned by the regime for committing the same offense.

Certainly, Mousavi is still bargaining with the government. However, people on the street aren't ready to chicken out of their demands, even in the face of gunfire. If the government hadn't forcefully stopped them from presenting their demands through the media, you would have already seen that clearly.

The second question of the Leveretts is one the Taoist sage would have barked at: Who leads it?

The two questioners attempt to fool us into believing that their enquiry is fair by paralleling it with the Iranian Revolution of 1979. Revolutions need leaders and the current protesters don't have one --- quod erat demonstrandum, this is not a revolution.

The first assumption is not true, however: it is not a prerequisite for revolutions to have leaders. Consider the February Revolution of 1917 that overthrew Tsar Nicholas I of Russia. Academics are generally in agreement that it was without what we today consider a definite and centralized leadership. Almost a century later, if you envisage scattered activists working together to bring people out to protest, then Iran has no shortage of those. Mousavi, often considered the de-facto "leader" of the current protesters -- didn't even sanction or support protests that were joined by hundreds of thousands in Ashura.

The third question of the Leveretts made me smirk because it has no immediate relevance: through what process will this opposition displace the government in Tehran?

Well, I wish I knew. But just because the protesters' demands have not been met yet, does not mean that we need to figure how they are going to achieve them. That is their task, a quest for which they've been coming out onto the streets of Iran, chanting as loud as they can, getting arrested, and spilling blood for the past six months to show their commitment to achieving those demands.

Who knows what might overthrow the regime? Maybe the Islamic Republic of Iran Army (Artesh) will finally step in. Maybe millions will turn up and storm Khamenei and Ahmadinejad's house and the parliament. Maybe the violence will get so rampant that the leaders of Iran will simply board a plane to Moscow and flee. This we don't know.

But we do know that simply because they have not met their goals yet, does not mean they won't in the future. The Leveretts' attempt to parallel this movement with the Revolution of 1979 tries to force us into believing that we need to know how, but we really don't.

When the change happens, we will know. Until then, all we can do is support the opposition because they're not just fighting for political rights, but for their human rights. If President Obama believes the Leveretts and discounts the power of the Green Movement, he risks making enemies of the open and secular Iran of the future, just like Jimmy Carter did when he discounted the Revolution of 1979. (Not to mention the fact that he would be guilty of legitimizing an illegitimate regime.)

The Leveretts' piece made me really grateful to an old professor of mine, Dr. Rick Schubert, bless him. Dr. Schubert gave me a D in Philosophy 101, but he taught me what now has become my Golden Rule: questions are equally as important as the answer to them, so be careful before you ask. Maybe the Leveretts should attend one of his classes.

Iran: The "10 Demands" Manifesto - Soroush Speaks

On 4 January, we posted the manifesto of five expatriate intellectuals- which followed the "5 Proposals" post-Ashura declaration of Mir Hossein Mousavi- with 10 demands, including freedom of media, adherence to the Constitution, recognition of civic groups, an independent judiciary, and the resignation of President Ahmadinejad.

One of the five authors, Abdolkarim Soroush, spoke about the manifesto and the Green movement to journalist Robin Wright:

Latest from Iran (7 January): Radio Silence?

Q: Why did you decide to issue a manifesto now?

A: The Green Movement is into its seventh month now, and I and my friends have been following events very closely and have been in touch with some of our friends in Iran. After [the protests on] Ashura on Dec 27, we came to realize that it was a real turning point. It was at that time that the regime decided to crack down on the Green Movement. In one instance, the regime rolled over a protester and killed him. It was a very severe message to all the protesters and defenders and supporters of the Green Movement that it intends to crush the movement harshly.

On the other hand, we have also individually been frequently asked by our friends: What are the real demands of the Green Movement, because the Green Movement was something that jumped on the scene? There was no planning for it. The election was the beginning, and it just evolved and evolved. As it evolved, some demands had emerged, but there was nothing that showed what was in the minds of the leaders of the movement.

The five of us thought that because we are close enough to the leaders of the movement – Mir Hossein Mousavi, Mehdi Karroubi and Mohammad Khatami – and know their demands, we should start drafting a manifesto or statement about the Green Movement. So we started drafting, and then Mousavi’s statement [that he would die for the movement if necessary] was issued [on Jan. 1]. Since we are living outside the country, don’t have to fear [the government] and know what is in the mind of the people, we decided to publish our own statement to make clear what Mousavi’s intentions and goals of the Green Movement are.

Q: Whose views does this manifesto reflect – just the leadership or the wider range of followers?

A: This is a pluralistic movement, including believers and non-believers, socialists and liberals. There are all walks of life in the Green Movement. We tried to come up with the common points for all. We know there are many more demands, many more than these.

Maybe in the next stage, they may demand redrafting the constitution. But for now, they would like to work within the framework of the constitution, and we were careful not to trespass those limits.

Read the rest here.