Iran: How Should the US Treat the Green Movement? (Haghighatjoo)

insideIRAN publishes an interview with one of the most prominent US-based expatriate Iranians:

Fatemeh Haghighatjoo was a member of Iran’s Parliament from 2000 to 2004, and a prominent advocate of women’s rights and political reform. She resigned in 2004 after a crackdown on reformers and left Iran in 2005. She is now a visiting scholar at the University of Massachusetts–Boston.

Q: The Obama administration has been reluctant to express support for the opposition movement out of fear that doing so would end Iran’s cooperation in the nuclear negotiations. But now that those talks are at an impasse, what should the United States do regarding the opposition?

A: I would say the United States should carefully and delicately support the opposition movement based on United Nations conventions, because Iran is a signatory to many UN human rights conventions.

Second, the United States can help the flow of information in Iran by providing technical support for Internet and satellite access. For example, one important question is how to increase the security of domains, hide the identity of dissidents who run websites and social networking sites, and also provide a free place to move blocked websites from different servers, once the authorities shut down opposition websites. This would help the dissidents. There are many volunteers who are running the websites and they need to deal with the blockade on the Internet. The Internet and other forms of information are having a huge impact on the opposition movement. Look at the impact of BBC Persian TV during the past six months.

Q: How do you view the opposition at this stage?

A: The green movement encompasses a wide spectrum of protestors. At one side of the spectrum are protestors who are loyal to the regime and just have objections to the fraudulent election, and their ultimate goal is the removal of President Ahmadinejad. And at the other side are dissidents who fight to bring the regime down. Although the opposition is incoherent, it does have the common goals of removing Ahmadinejad, ending the violation of people’s rights, and releasing all political prisoners.

The internal leadership of the Green Movement is loyal to the foundation of the regime, so after increased demands that threaten the nature of the regime, movement leaders may be increasingly concerned about both the fundamentalists inside the government and the extremists within the movement. Former presidents Mohammed Khatami and Hashemi Rafsanjani have warned against radicalism. Also, there is an effort to have negotiations between opposition leaders and Supreme Leader Khamenei, even though Khamenei still talks tough and tries to convince all influential figures to condemn the protests.

The situation today is very different from past unrest. Even if the authorities arrest Mir Hossein Moussavi and Mehdi Karroubi, the protests will continue. There are more cracks now among the political elites than ever before. There is a rift between Khamenei and former President Hashemi Rafsanjani. We also see a crack between the regime and the clergy. In every aspect of the regime, you will see that the crisis is deepening. The movement is deep and spreading. On the one hand, the regime’s strategy is the continuation of the crackdown, the arrests of activists and political leaders, to block the flow of information, and not allow any protests in the near future; and, on the other hand, the regime is trying to attract people to state-run TV by running debates at least through the end of the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic Revolution in February and to recruit people for a huge pro-state rally on February 11.

It is important for the West, especially for the United States, to act correctly.

Q: Can traditional conservatives, such as Rafsanjani and Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani reform the system?

A: I do not see that they have such ability to reform the system because of the contradiction within the system. Khamenei does not tolerate any initiation for reform. They are unable to meet the people’s needs.

Q: Given the political instability inside Iran, what are the options available to the United States in dealing with Iran?

A: I understand that the United States wants to see progress on the nuclear side, while wanting to help the opposition movement, and these two things can be at cross-purposes. Inside Iran, because of the crisis and the cracks among political elites, they can’t reach ultimate decisions on international affairs. In domestic issues, the Supreme Leader, Khamenei, prefers to use his power to make decisions, and to some extent, he may be successful for now through the branches of government. However, he has not fully succeeded in gaining the support of most clergy, prominent politicians, and influential figures.

We see this lack of agreement on the nuclear issue because members of the regime keep changing their position. This, more than anything, shows the splits among the factions. Since 2005, Iran has bought time. But this time, it is different. First, they know that some countries do not like Iran’s regime, especially the current government. Khamenei fears that, in the future, the West might do something against him. But he believes that if he can acquire knowledge on building a nuclear weapon, this would give Iran the upper hand in future nuclear negotiations with the West. I guess the ultimate goal of some of Iran’s hardliners is a nuclear weapon, either to counter a likely air attack or to force toleration of the actions of a nuclear Iran.

But right now, Khamenei can’t reach an agreement on the nuclear issue because he can’t manage two crises at once, and for him the domestic issue is more important.
He understands that this movement, the opposition, could overthrow his government. He understands that the dissidents are not just about removing Ahmadinejad from power; now, the dissent is about much more than that.

Iran is in the process of transitioning to democracy. Supporting smooth transition would strengthen regional security. However, any sort of attack on Iran under any circumstance would dramatically hurt the movement. The Obama administrative and his allies, aside from maintaining negotiations with Iran regarding the nuclear program, should pay more attention to human rights issues in Iran and put more pressure on Iran’s government to release all political prisoners and stop the executions.

Middle East Arms Triangle: The US, "Moderate" Arabs, & Israel

On 6 January, we reported that the Netanyahu government had concerns over Washington's sale of about $6 billion of arms to four "moderate" Arab states (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates) and Washington. We asked whether the Israelis were pursuing  the complaint to argue the argument that the regional balance of power would collapse because of the arms shipments, regardless of how "moderate" the Arabs states are.

The background to the current manoeuvres lies in Israel's concerns over a $20 billion arms deal between Saudi Arabia and the George W. Bush Administration. On that occasion, Tel Aviv used its concerns as leverage to receive advanced F-35 fighter jets and to limit American arms sales to Lebanon amidst the re-emergence of Hezbollah. So far, no arms deal with Israel have been signed under Obama, and there is the issue of  shipment of higher-tech arms under the 2007 Memorandum of Understanding, which promised $30 billion to Tel Aviv over the following 10 years.

In that context, perhaps the immediate postures over the US-Arab deals should situated under the US-Israel strategic relationship. The Jewish Daily Forward has noted:

Leaders in Washington and Jerusalem have publicly locked horns over the issue of West Bank settlements. And Israeli public opinion has largely viewed America’s new administration as unfriendly. But behind the scenes, strategic security relations between the two countries are flourishing.

Iran Special Analysis: A US Move to "Sanctions for Rights"?

The most interesting spin out of the US in recent days is in a Saturday article in The Wall Street Journal by Jay Solomon, "U.S. Shifts Iran Focus to Support Opposition".

The headline is a bit misleading, since the core issue is whether (in fact, how rather than whether) the Obama Administration will be pursuing and presenting additional sanctions against Iran: "The White House is crafting new financial sanctions specifically designed to punish the Iranian entities and individuals most directly involved in the crackdown on Iran's dissident forces, said...U.S. officials, rather than just those involved in Iran's nuclear program."

The presentation, however, is telling. For weeks, the set-up for sanctions --- for example, in the articles of David Sanger and William Broad in The New York Times --- has been that they were essential to punish Iran for breakdown of enrichment talks and Tehran's move toward a military nuclear capability. Now, for the first time, the message is not just that "rights" should take priority but that there may be a change of power in Iran: "The Obama administration is increasingly questioning the long-term stability of Tehran's government and moving to find ways to support Iran's opposition 'Green Movement'."

Read it: the authority of President Ahmadinejad is no longer assumed, even bolstered, by the US approach. An Administration source declares, "The Green Movement has demonstrated more staying power than perhaps some have anticipated. The regime is internally losing its legitimacy, which is of its own doing."

So which US officials are now tying "targeted sanctions" to this shift away from Ahmadinejad and visions of a new leadership? Here's the big clue:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gathered over coffee at the State Department this week with four leading Iran scholars and mapped out the current dynamics, said U.S. officials. One issue explored was how the U.S. should respond if Tehran suddenly expressed a desire to reach a compromise on the nuclear issue. Mrs. Clinton asked whether the U.S. could reach a pact without crippling the prospects for the Green Movement.

In September, Clinton and her advisors had a similar discussion. The leading Iran scholars on that occasion? "The Carnegie Endowment's Karim Sadjadpour, the New America Foundation's Afshin Molavi, the National Iranian American Council's Trita Parsi, the Council on Foreign Relations' Ray Takeyh, the Woodrow Wilson's Haleh Esfandiari, Brookings' Suzanne Maloney, and George Mason University's Shaul Bakhash."

In recent weeks, Parsi's NIAC has been pushing the approach of targeted sanctions linked to rights, not the nuclear issue, and Takeyh has been promoting a rights-first policy. So I suspect that The Wall Street Journal article is declaring a convergence between the Obama Administration and the private sphere.

If so, welcome back Green movement. And President Ahmadinejad may have lost his nuclear prop from Washington.

Israel-Palestine Analysis: The Obama Administration Changes Approach

On Friday, US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton hosted Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh. At the press conference, Clinton tried a different tactic in address both Israel and Palestine, she suggested that resolution of the borders and the status of Jerusalem would break the deadlock on the settlements dispute, "Resolving borders resolves settlements, resolving Jerusalem resolves settlements. I think we need to lift our sights and instead of being looking down at the trees, we need to look at the forest."

Clinton and Judeh also stated that negotiations should begin as soon as possible and be bound by deadlines.
Judeh then echoed the US Secretary of State, "If you resolve the question of borders then you automatically resolve not only settlements and Jerusalem but you identify the nature on the ground of the two-state solution and (what) it looks like."

Clinton did not give any details regarding U.S. Mideast special envoy George Mitchell's so called "letters" guaranteeing both sides' demands, saying moreabout the general framework of the process:

There is a hunger for a resolution of this matter, a two-state solution that would rebuke the terrorists and the naysayers, that would give the Palestinians a legitimate state for their own aspirations and would give the Israelis the security they deserve to have.

This is a year of renewed commitment and increased effort towards what we see as an imperative goal for the region and the world.

Israel-Palestine Analysis: Change" in the Air Over Peace Talks?

Following claims that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is close to finalizing an agreement with the Obama Administration for peace talks with the Palestinian Authority, the PA gave its approval for such talks this weekend.

One PA official stated that Netanyahu was now apparently ready to recognize the pre-1967 borders as the basis for future talks and was ready to swap territory between the two countries. He added, "We're beginning to hear new things from Israel. For the first time an Israeli government is willing to negotiate with us on the basis of the 1967 borders, and this is an encouraging move."

"Peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians could be relaunched as early as February," added another PA official in Ramallah.

Meanwhile, Egyptian sources told the Cairo-based daily Al-Ahram on Monday that Barack Obama's administration will put forward a plan whereby Israel would commit itself to the establishment of a Palestinian state within two years of the launch of peace talks with the Palestinian Authority.

On Monday, at the press conference following her meeting with Qatar Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jabr Al-Thani, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promised greater commitment to achieving a settlement between the PA and Israel:

We know that the Palestinians deserve a state to fulfill their aspirations. The Israelis deserve security to live peacefully side by side with their Palestinian neighbors. The Arab nations have made a very positive contribution in the peace initiative of the Arab League and others. So we’re going to be even more committed this year, and we’re starting this new year with that level of commitment and we’re going to follow through and hopefully we can see this as a positive year in this long process.

On the same day, while addressing lawmakers from his Likud party, Netanyahu said that he sensed "a change in the air":

In recent weeks I have felt that there is a certain change in the air, and I hope that this will mature, allowing the start of the diplomatic process.

We are serious in our intentions to reach a peace agreement.

Israel is ready for a peace process with the Palestinian Authority, without preconditions.

Netanyahu, however, added the caution, "Diplomatic plans said to be in my name that have appeared in the media have no truth."

There is also the standing obstacle of the declaration by PA leader Mahmoud Abbas that there will be no peace talks unless there is a complete freeze on Israeli settlements, both in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Following his meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Abbas repeated,

We have said and are still saying that at the time when settlement construction is stopped and the international legitimacy is recognized, we will be ready to resume the negotiations."

Our stance is known from the past and our stance remains the same - and in agreement with our brothers in Egypt - which is that we have no objections to negotiations or meetings in principle and we do not set conditions.

And then there was the complication of Israel's foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman. Lieberman hosted Quartet peace envoy Tony Blair and stated that reaching a final-status agreement within two years were unrealistic:

It is important to hold an honest, open dialogue with the Palestinians without sowing delusions that are disconnected with reality and that will only lead to violence and frustration. It is not possible to reach a full agreement within two years.

This is not a realistic goal. We need to begin direct talks without committing to any timeframe.

On Monday, U.S. State Department spokesman Ian Kelly was on the 'silent side' but, at least, was "hopeful":

QUESTION: There’s an unsourced report in the Israeli Hebrew language daily Ma’ariv, and there are a bunch of other reports out there elsewhere, talking about the possibility of an imminent resumption of peace talks between Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas under an American plan.

MR. KELLY: I certainly hope so. I hope it’s before that. But whether it’s realistic or not, I can’t say.

MR. KELLY: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: True?

MR. KELLY: Well, first of all, we’re not going to discuss any of the private correspondence or private discussions we have had with either side, including with the Israelis. I mean, you know what our goal is. Our goal is to get the two sides to agree to sit down and resume the talks, and so all of our efforts really are really directed toward that. And it wouldn't – I mean, it’s not appropriate for me to talk about what may or may not have been in any kind of private correspondence.

QUESTION: But are you on the verge of re-launching the resumption of talks?

MR. KELLY: I hope so. But I don’t have any information to announce on that.

QUESTION: I think we’re talking about the same report here, which says that the U.S.’s latest proposal envisions a Palestinian state within two years. The Israelis say that’s unrealistic. Is this a real report? I mean, is it coming from you guys?

MR. KELLY: I don’t really have any information about the specifics of that particular report.

QUESTION: Is it realistic, though, to think that the Palestinians could have a state within a couple of years?

Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit was also still "hopeful" about the future. He told reporter following the meeting between Mubarak and Abbas:

Our position is that the [Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's] ideas are taking the Israeli position forward.

This is a protracted process and needs patience, clarity and prudence so that the Palestinians do not find themselves in a difficult position.

Gheit and intelligence chief Omar Suleiman are going to be in Washington and the U.S. Mideast special envoy George Mitchell is going to be in the Middle East next week. Abbas' last words were that he would postpone any decision on whether or not to restart the talks until he sees what happens during Friday's visit to Washington by the two senior Egyptian officials.

The story continues without a conclusion: is there any "change" except in rhetoric?