The Latest from Iran (6 July): Covered in Dust

The Latest from Iran (7 July): Sitting Out a Storm

UPDATED Iran: Solving the Mystery of The “Association of Researchers and Teachers of Qom”
UPDATED Iran: Joe Biden’s “Green Light” and an Israeli Airstrike
The Latest From Iran (5 July): Treading Water

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS- SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED



2145 GMT: The death toll in Tehran may be far higher than official figures suggest. Fintan Dunne has posted this English rewrite of an article in Le Figaro:

One of a pair of Iranian doctors, who fled the capital to France says an unofficial tally by medical staff at Tehran area hospitals counted 92 violent deaths related to conflicts with security forces. The death toll is considerably at variance with an official figure of 17 deaths.

1700 GMT: An Iranian website is reporting on a meeting that Mir Hossein Mousavi held with "friends and acquaintances" on the occassion of Imam Ali's birthday. Mousavi said that the election had shown the problems of the Iranian system and repeated that the State faced questions over its legitimacy at home and abroad. He declared, on the issue of protest, "The movement will continue," but this would be within a legal framework.

1635 GMT: The Regime Wins One? Mehr News Agency reports that the Speaker of the Parliament, Ali Larijani, has finally congratulated President Ahmadinejad on his "victory". Larijani had caused some friction for the post-election procession with his querying of the neutrality of the Guardian Council and his demand for an enquiry into the raids on the dormitories of Tehran University. (hat tip to Nico Pitney)

1555 GMT: But here's the real significance of the Khamenei statement: yes, there is an fight going on within the rgime. According to Press TV, Khamenei "pointed to the internal disagreement among Iranian officials", although he then "explained that despite such disputes these officials stand united against the enemy". That's the point to remember amidst his bluster, "In the event of enemy intervention, the Iranian nation, despite differences of opinion, will unite and become an iron fist against them." 

1550 GMT: Look! Over There! The Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, has again brought out the foreign menace. Speaking on Monday, he warned Western countries against "meddling" in Iran's internal affairs: ""Such governments should be careful with their hostile approach and remarks. The Iranian nation will react." Khamenei also referred to protesters as a "depressed" and "distressed" minority.

1545 GMT: Expect a standstill in developments tomorrow. Confirmation that Tehran will be "shut down" for 24 hours tomorrow because of dust pollution.

1515 GMT: The LA Times is carrying confirmation of Mousavi's apparent decision to launch his own political party (which we reported yesterday).

1300 GMT: Another Lemming Jumps. The Wall Street Journal runs with Sunday's inaccurate and misleading New York Times story, plus a lot of general background, to try and catch attention with a Clerics v. The Regime story.

1240 GMT: Rumour of the day: a significant portion of the Revolutionary Guard have turned against the Supreme Leader. Twitter user MikVerbrugge claims the source of this information is an Iranian officer they are in contact with.

1230 GMT: Another British embassy worker has been freed, leaving one member of staff still in detention.

0920 GMT: And a nice reminder of the political tension behind the scenes. The German service Deutsche Welle reports that Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi, a staunch supporter of President Ahmadinejad, sent a stern letter to the Speaker of the Parliament, Ali Larijani, warning him to "obey" the Supreme Leader.

0915 GMT: Press TV's website also features the comment of police chief Esmail Ahmadi-Moqaddam that "two-thirds" of those arrested in post-election conflicts had been freed or released on bail. The missing detail? Neither the police chief nor Press TV mention how many people were detained.

0845 GMT: Last night we began received reports of a large duststorm moving across Iran from the west, reaching Tehran today.

That's an apt metaphor for the current political situation. There's been an uneasy settling of conflict over the last few days but the sense that, even though public activity was reduced, there could soon be another clash. Ironically, even though there is almost no breaking news coming out of Tehran, that sense is heightened this morning.

On the clerical front, there is enough intrigue to fill several crises. That intrigue has been elevated (and, indeed, exaggerated) by Sunday's misleading New York Times story of a dramatic challenge to the Supreme Leader from Iran's "most important" clerical faction, the "Association of Teachers and Researchers of Qom".. We've sorted out fact from fiction in a separate post.

On the political front, both the regime and the opposition are manoeuvring ahead of the planned demonstration on Thursday. Protest will continue today, "Father's Day" in Iran, as relatives of detainees gather in front of Evin Prison. On the other side, the Islamic Revolution's Guard Corps (Revolutionary Guard) used a Sunday conference to put out warnings. The political head, General Yudollah Javani declared:

Today, no one is impartial. There are two currents; those who defend and support the revolution and the establishment, and those who are trying to topple it. Those who wanted to topple the revolution made a mistake in their calculations. They had ignored the awareness of the people and the role of the Leader.

The Commander of the Revolutionary Guard, Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari, added, “We are convinced that the IRGC must play a deciding role in the preservation and continuation of the revolution.” (He added that this should in no way be interpreted as “meddling” by the IRGC in politics.)

Iran's Chief of Police, Esmail Ahmadi-Moqaddam, chipped in with a public statement keeping the foreign menace alive: "The BBC and the British Embassy, spearheaded efforts aimed at provoking unrest and incited people to commit civil disobedience and go on strike." It is still unclear whether any local staffers of the British Embassy will stand trial for "endangering national security".

UPDATED Iran: Solving the Mystery of The “Association of Researchers and Teachers of Qom”

Iran and the Clerics: Who are the “Association of Researchers and Teachers of Qom”?

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS- SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED

Less than 48 hours after the statement of the "Association of Researchers and Teachers of Qom" condemning the Iranian Government as "illegitimate", less than 24 after The New York Times declared that this was a challenge from the most important clerical group in Iran, and less than 12 after we tried to sort out the mystery of both the clerical and political situation....

It looks like we are in the midst of a major media foul-up, one that can only be sorted out by some serious investigation and thinking.

Far from checking the Times story, broadcasters and newspapers have rushed like lemmings off a cliff behind the headline. CNN pronounces, "Iranian clerics disputes election results", The Guardian declares, "Senior Iranian clerics reject re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad", and The Times of London shouts, "Iran’s biggest group of clerics has declared President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s re-election to be illegitimate and condemned the subsequent crackdown." (The New York Times, incidentally, runs away and doesn't say a single word about its misleading article that started all this unsupported "journalism".)

The conversion of a statement into a head-on clerics v. Supreme Leader/President crisis (which I suspect, as a reader noted on our last post, owes much to "wishful thinking") makes it even more important to sort out what is occuring in a complex situation.

It appears that the "Association of Researchers and Teachers of Qom" is led by Ayatollah Hosein Musavi-Tabrizi. In March 2008, Musavi-Tabrizi was blocked by the Guardian Council from running for the Iranian Parliament because of his "lack of belief in the Constitution and in Islam", even though he had been allowed to take up a seat on the Assembly of Experts.

Fast forward to 25 June of this year. Musavi-Tabrizi, identified as "the General Secretary of the Scholars and Seminarians of the Qom Scholarly Center", told a pro-Ahmadinejad website, "[The] Guardian Council had violated its impartiality in the elections several months ago and that it cannot judge what is true or false in reviewing the electoral results." He then made a sharp, provocative comparison between the Iranian Government in 2009 and the Shah of Iran's regime in 1979:

The revolution emerged from precisely such talk [of demonstrators as rioters]. The Shah, too, would call them rioters. I know what happened during the events of February 19 [1978] in Tabriz. I initiated the events in January 9 [1978] in Qom. When the people came out in Tabriz, the Shah, [then-Prime Minister Jamshid] Amuzegar, and his Majlis [Parliament] said that they came from abroad, they are rioters.”

The General Secretary continued, “The Shah’s regime was taghuti [satanic, a favoured term of Ayatollah Khomeini to describe the Shah and his advisors] precisely because it said such things. Had it not said such things and gave the people what they merited, it would not have been taghuti. It makes no difference. Anyone who swallows up the people’s rights is taghut."

The New York Times apparently did not check up on this background (which, I must confess, only took a few minutes once I had Musavi-Tabrizi's name). Instead it confused the "Association of Researchers and Teachers of Qom" with another, longer-established faction, the "Society of Qom Seminary Teachers and Researchers" (in Farsi, "Jame’eh-e ye Modarresin-e Howzeh-ye Eliyeh-ye Qom").

As an Enduring America colleague puts it succinctly, the Society, "along with the Society of Combatant Clergy (JRM) and the allied Islamic Society (Mo’talefeh), was and probably still is the backbone of the conservative right". It was started in the 1960s by Ayatollah Azari-Qomi, who also launched the Resalat newspaper, a key outlet in the "conservative" movement. In the 1990s, however, the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, took control, expelling Azari-Qomi.

So The New York Times, picking up on a statement from the "Association", confuses it with the "Society", which has had a long-time influence in Iranian politics. And that is how suddenly a relatively minor intervention (given the dizzying movement of statements and speeches amongst the clerics as they decide how to react to Ahmadinejad's supposed re-election and the subsequent protests) became "an act of defiance against the country’s supreme leader and the most public sign of a major split in the country’s clerical establishment".

The Latest From Iran (5 July): Treading Water

The Latest from Iran (6 July): Covered in Dust

UPDATED Iran: Solving the Mystery of The “Association of Researchers and Teachers of Qom”
UPDATED Iran: Joe Biden’s “Green Light” and an Israeli Airstrike
Iran: 12 More Martyrs
The Latest from Iran (4 July): Breaking the Reformists? Not So Fast….

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS- SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED

2015 GMT: A very quiet few hours, with only a few ripples of political activity that we're chasing. So we've taken the opportunity to work on a mystery: who are the "Association of Teachers and Researchers of Qom", who released a statement criticising the Government yesterday?

1400 GMT: A series of detentions and releases: Press TV reports that Iason Athanasiadis (Jason Fowden), a freelance journalist who reports for newspapers such as The Washington Times, has been released in a gesture of goodwill to Greece. The "mothers for mourning" demonstrators arrested in Laleh Park last week and supporters such as women's rights activist Zeynab Peyghambarzadeh have also been freed.

However, Jalal Mohammadou, another leading member of the Islamic Iran Participation Front Party, has been arrested, and there are reports that journalist Masood Bastani has been detained. Bastani's pregnant wife Mahsa Amirabadi, also a journalist, has been in prison since the early days of the crisis.

1200 GMT: A series of political developments: Mehdi Karroubi's latest statement says people must continue fighting despite the difficulties ahead. He notes that President Ahmadinejad has asked officials to find Neda Agha Soltan's killer while some of those same forces have killed at least 19 other people and attacked dormitories and houses."

The "reformist" newspaper Etemade Melli reports that Mir Hossein Mousavi is forming a new politcal party, while reformist advisor Alireza Beheshti has called on the Iranian Parliament to dismiss President Ahmadinejad.

There are also reports that politician Saeed Hajjarian, who is disabled and in poor health, has been transferred from Evin prison to a hospital in Tehran.

1030 GMT: Today's Washington Post finally catches up with the story, more than 24 hours old, of the criticisms of the election posted by the Mousavi campaign:
[blockquote] In a 24-page document posted on his Web site, Mousavi's special committee studying election fraud accused influential Ahmadinejad supporters of handing out cash bonuses and food, increasing wages, printing millions of extra ballots and other acts in the run-up to the vote.

The committee, whose members were appointed by Mousavi, said the state did everything in its power to get Ahmadinejad reelected, including using military forces and government planes to support his campaign....

The report released by Mousavi pointed out that the Interior Ministry, which counted the votes, is headed by Sadegh Mahsouli, a longtime friend of Ahmadinejad. The secretary of the Guardian Council, Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, had publicly supported Ahmadinejad, as had six others on the 12-member council despite a law requiring them to remain impartial, according to the report.

"The law here was completely broken," said Ali Akbar Mohtashamipour, a top Mousavi campaign official. "What these documents prove is that the two entities that organized the elections were biased and in favor of one candidate."[/blockquote]

1000 GMT: Reports, via British Foreign Office, that one local staffer of the British Embassy in Iran will be released but one will remain in custody.

0710 GMT: Press TV English Irony Watch.

Number of minutes given in morning news update to Israel's detention of former US Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney: 5.
Number of minutes given to Iran's detention of hundreds: 0.

0600 GMT: The pattern is now woven in Iran: the daily demonstrations continue, scattered and limited in size by the State's restrictions, but still very present. However, there is unlikely to be high-profile movement until Thursday, with the planned mass march in Tehran.

On Saturday, supporters and mothers of the killed and detained gathered in Laleh Park; at least one prominent women's rights activist, Zeynab Peyghambarzadeh, was arrested. At Kamran University, a non-violent protest was marred by the reported death of a faculty member shot in the head.

It was a quieter day for opposition leaders, with no significant statements. Support did come from the Association of Instructors and Researchers at the seminary in Qom, with their statement calling the Government illegitimate. Meanwhile, a lawyer for jailed reformist leaders said they would be tried on charges of threatening national security leaders.

The regime, including Ahmadinejad also kept a lower profile on Saturday. News continued to be dominated by Friday's threats to prosecute "enemies" from British Embassy staff to Mir Hossein Mousavi. President Ahmadinejad's reported national broadcast after the evening news, if it ever took place, has left no ripples. Instead, his rather silly challenge to President Obama --- let's have a debate at the United Nations --- filled Iranian media space.

So the most significant intervention came from former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, as he spoke to detainees' families. This was not a call for open resistance, but a more measured re-assertion that the election process had been corrupted. Rafsanjani's goal? Continue to avoid a conflict with the Supreme Leader while putting pressure on President Ahmadinejad.

Overseas, a bit of disturbing silliness is going on. The Israelis are stirring up the image of the Iranian nuclear threat, with the prominent spokesman (now Ambassador to the US) Michael Oren talking of a Tehran bomb wiping out Israel "within seconds", and The Sunday Times of London --- a regular channel for Tel Aviv's propaganda --- claiming that Saudi Arabia has sanctioned an Israeli attack on Iran by allowing the use of its airspace.

Transcript: Vice President Biden on Iraq, Iran, Economy on "This Week" (5 July)

Iran: Did Joe Biden Just “Green Light” an Israeli Air Strike?

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS- SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED

The video of the interview is available via the "This Week" website:

HOST GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Major milestone this week here in Iraq with the American troops pulling out of the cities. And I wonder if you can put the broader American mission in context. Are we in the process of securing victory or cutting our losses to come home?

BIDEN: Securing victory. Look, the president and I laid out a plan in the campaign which was twofold. One, withdraw our troops from Iraq in a rational timetable consistent with what the Iraqis want. And the same time, leave behind a stable and secure country.

And one of the reasons I'm here, George, is to push the last end of that, which is the need for political settlement on some important issues between Arabs and Kurds and among the confessional groups. And I think we're well on our way.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, your predecessor doesn't seem convinced.

(LAUGHTER)

STEPHANOPOULOS: John Hannah, Vice President Cheney's national security adviser, wrote this week that under Obama, Bush's commitment to winning in Iraq has all been vanished. The vice president warned against a premature withdrawal.

He said: "I would not want to see the U.S. waste all of the tremendous sacrifice that has gotten us to this point."

BIDEN: You know, it's kind of ironic. It's their timetable we are implementing. Cheney and Bush agreed with the Iraqis before we were elected that we'd have combat troops out of the cities by June 30th.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So he's wrong to be worried?

BIDEN: Well, I mean, it's -- I mean, for this he can't have it both ways. He negotiated that timetable. We have met the commitment the timetable the last administration negotiated with Iraqis. And we're totally confident that is the right thing to do.

So I find it kind of ironic that he's criticizing his own agreement that he negotiated.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You're also facing a little bit of criticism from the Iraqis. You know yesterday you stood up there with Prime Minister Maliki and talked about your commitment to solve these political problems, yet his spokesman came out after the meeting and said: "This is purely an Iraqi issue, we don't want the Americans to get involved."

What do you say to that?

BIDEN: Well, that's that not what -- that's not what the prime minister said. The prime minister said that we may need you to get involved.

What we offered the prime minister, as well as the speaker, as well as the two vice presidents, was that to the extent -- let me give you an example. The United Nations has started a process to deal with what they called the "disputed internal borders." And that is the debate between the Kurds and the Arabs as to where the line is.

Kirkuk is probably the biggest flashpoint. And we were asked that we would -- would we be helpful to the United Nations in doing this? I was further asked that would I communicate to the Kurdish leadership, who I have a close relationship with, that their passing a constitution through their parliament in Kurdistan was not helpful to the process that was under way.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So what's going on here? Maliki says one thing and his spokesman says another.

BIDEN: Well, look, I think that it's very important that Prime Minister Maliki and all of the Iraqi leaders are able to in fact communicate, which is true, to the people of Iraq, that they're now a sovereign nation.

They take directions from no one. That they are able to handle their own internal affairs. And the fact -- my guess is, if the spokesman said that -- which surprises me, if the spokesman said that, I'd imagine they're worried about an upcoming election, making it look like the United States is going to continue to try to direct things here.

We are not. That is not why I'm here.

STEPHANOPOULOS: We're not going to direct things, but what if the Iraqi people -- they've been dealing with these political disputes for an awful long time, what if they can't solve them, the violence flares up again?

BIDEN: Well, that's going to be a tragic outcome for the Iraqi people. We made a commitment.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But are we going to put our lives on the line again?

BIDEN: No. We made a commitment to withdraw our troops from the cities by the 30th, to withdraw our combat brigades from Iraq by next summer -- the end of next summer, and withdraw all troops according to the SOFA, that agreement we negotiated with them, by the end of 2011. That is our intention.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But no matter what, 2011, American troops all gone?

BIDEN: That is the intention. We believe the Iraqis will be fully capable of maintaining their own security. And we believe that with the time frame, with their upcoming election -- you know they're having an election in January, I know you know that, they'll form a new government early -- in late winter as a consequence of that election.

And it is our expectation that that election will come off peacefully and that their democracy is gradually maturing, so.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me turn to Iran. We're three weeks out from their election.

BIDEN: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you have any doubt it was stolen?

BIDEN: Well, look, what I don't want to do is play into the hands of the supreme leader and Ahmadinejad like they're blaming the British now. You know, there -- that the reason why there was unrest is outside influence.

STEPHANOPOULOS: They're saying they have confessions from reformers saying that.

BIDEN: Well, you know, they say a lot of things. That's simply not true. The -- I think the dust hasn't settled yet in terms of?

STEPHANOPOULOS: Still, three weeks ago.

BIDEN: Well, no, now here's what I think. I mean, I think it's clear that the consequences of the way the election was conducted and the way that the election was declared -- who was declared the winner and how, is going to have a rippling effect.

What that effect will be, I don't know. I think we have to wait to see how this settles out and -- before we can make a judgment.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But there's no doubt now that they responded violently to the election.

BIDEN: Oh, there is no doubt about that. There is none. The whole world saw it. And it is -- we have to acknowledge as a free and sovereign nation that we abhor the violence that took place. We think it was inappropriate, the way in which they treated those protesters.

And so there is no question, we and the rest of the world looked at them and said, my lord, this is not the way to conduct?

STEPHANOPOULOS: But how do you respond to critics who say the United States should have come out forcefully right away, right away and said, this is wrong, stop it, and they say that would have made a difference?

BIDEN: Well, I don't -- I think the president was absolutely pitch-perfect. I think what the president did is exactly the right way. I think the president did not allow us to be used to as the scapegoat, us to be used as?

STEPHANOPOULOS: There were some reports that you were arguing for a more forceful response earlier.

BIDEN: Well, I think the president did it exactly right. I think he was correct.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And going forward, what next? What should the strategy be right now?

BIDEN: Well, look, the Iranian government has a choice. They either choose greater isolation, and from the whole world, or they decide to take a rightful place in the -- in civilized, big, great nations. They can -- that's the path they have to choose.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Haven't they already shown evidence in the last week of what their choice is?

BIDEN: Well, they have in terms of the way they conducted their election, but they haven't in terms of whether -- the real key issues to now, are they going to continue the nuclear program? Are they going to be braced by what happened? Is this going to alter their behavior internally or externally?

Look, responses that they saw on the street in any country have consequences. It's hard to predict what those consequences will be.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But what are the consequences for the U.S. relationship? I mean, the president had said he wants to meet with the Iranians over the nuclear program through the P-5. But how does he engage with the Iranians now without breaking faith with those reformers?

BIDEN: Well, the way you do it is if they choose to meet with the P5, under the conditions the P5 was laid out, it means they begin to change course. And it means that the protesters probably had some impact on the behavior of an administration that they don't like at all. And it believes and I believe that means there's consequences to that.

Now, if they in fact decide to shut out the rest of the world, clamp down, further isolation, I think that takes them down a very different path.

STEPHANOPOULOS: How do you respond to those who say that it's the United States now that should hit the pause button, there should be a cause correction, and we shouldn't rush to sit down...

BIDEN: Well, we're not. We're not rushing to sit down.

As I said to you, we have to wait to see how this sort of settles out. And there's already an offer laid out there by the permanent five plus one to say we're prepared to sit down and negotiate with you relative to your nuclear program. And so the ball's in their court.

STEPHANOPOULOS: When I saw President Ahmadinejad back in April, his response to that was that we need to see more from the United States first.

Is it fair to say now that there will be absolutely no more concessions to the Iranians in advance of those discussions?

BIDEN: It's fair to say the position the president has laid out will not change.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But there will be engagement -- if the Iranians want to...

(CROSSTALK)

BIDEN: If the Iranians seek to engage, we will engage.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And meanwhile, the clock is ticking...

BIDEN: If the Iranians respond to the offer of engagement, we will engage.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But the offer is on the table?

BIDEN: The offer's on the table.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And meanwhile, Prime Minister Netanyahu has made it pretty clear that he agreed with President Obama to give until the end of the year for this whole process of engagement to work. After that, he's prepared to make matters into his own hands.

Is that the right approach?

BIDEN: Look, Israel can determine for itself -- it's a sovereign nation -- what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Whether we agree or not?

BIDEN: Whether we agree or not. They're entitled to do that. Any sovereign nation is entitled to do that. But there is no pressure from any nation that's going to alter our behavior as to how to proceed.

What we believe is in the national interest of the United States, which we, coincidentally, believe is also in the interest of Israel and the whole world. And so there are separate issues.

If the Netanyahu government decides to take a course of action different than the one being pursued now, that is their sovereign right to do that. That is not our choice.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But just to be clear here, if the Israelis decide Iran is an existential threat, they have to take out the nuclear program, militarily the United States will not stand in the way?

BIDEN: Look, we cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do when they make a determination, if they make a determination that they're existentially threatened and their survival is threatened by another country.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You say we can't dictate, but we can, if we choose to, deny over-flight rights here in Iraq. We can stand in the way of a military strike.

BIDEN: I'm not going to speculate, George, on those issues, other than to say Israel has a right to determine what's in its interests, and we have a right and we will determine what's in our interests.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Meanwhile, North Korea...

BIDEN: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: ... seven missile launches in the last 24 hours, 11 this week. Anything the United States can do about it?

BIDEN: The question is, is there anything that we should do about it?

Look, this has almost become predictable behavior. Some of it seems like almost attention-seeking behavior.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And you don't want to give the attention?

BIDEN: And -- no, I don't want to give the attention, because, look, I think our policy has been absolutely correct so far. We have succeeded in uniting the most important and critical countries to North Korea on a common path of further isolating North Korea. They're going to be faced with a pretty difficult choice, it seems to me.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But not a task that includes very forceful enforcement of the sanctions. The Russians and the Chinese blocked any boarding of the ships, didn't they?

BIDEN: No, no. Well, what they did was, if you noticed, the ship had to turn around and come back. Why? Because no port would allow them into their port.

There was no place they could go with certitude that they would not be, in fact, at that point, boarded and searched. And so I would argue that it, in fact, worked.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Is our policy now though basically waiting for the Kim Jong-il regime to collapse?

BIDEN: Our policy is to continue to put united pressure from the very countries that North Korea was able to look to before with impunity. They could take almost any action and got no reaction, no negative reaction.

That's changed. And it is -- there is a significant turning of the pressure. And there are going to be some very difficult decisions that that regime's going to have make.

There's a real debate going on right now, George, about succession in North Korea.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Reports that he's tapped his youngest son.

BIDEN: That is the report.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you believe it?

BIDEN: Well, if I had to bet, that would be my guess. But I don't think anyone knows for certain.

STEPHANOPOULOS: The clock is also ticking on Afghanistan. Key members of Congress made it pretty clear during the war supplemental debate that they're going to give until early next year to see progress in Afghanistan or they're going to cut off the funding, move to cut off the funding.

Is that the right approach?

BIDEN: Look, I think the right approach is one we have chosen, the Obama/Biden administration.

We did a thorough review of what our objectives and policies were and should be in Afghanistan.

BIDEN: We set in motion a policy which is now only beginning to unfold. All the troops we agreed to increase are not even all in place at this point. And we also believe, as General Jones accurately said, that, ultimately, the success or failure in Iraq will not rest not on a military outcome, but on a both economic and political outcome internally, getting better governance in place and economic development in that country.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But do Americans have a right to expect that if we don't see continued progress in the next six to nine months, six to 12 months, then we should think about cutting back and pulling out?

BIDEN: Look, I think the Americans have a right to expect success. And I think the success is measured by how we defined it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: At any cost?

BIDEN: No. Success. And if they conclude that, whatever the policy that's being undertaken by any administration as not succeeding, they have a right to say, look, cease and desist. But I don't think that's where we're going, George.

STEPHANOPOULOS: There were some reports this week that the president has already made the judgment sending General Jones over to Afghanistan with a clear message -- no more troops. This is it, this is all you can get.

And Bob Woodward wrote about it. He talked about the general meeting with various military figures in Afghanistan, and this is what he said -- this is what he reports that General Jones said: "If there were new requests for force now, the president would quite likely have a Whiskey Tango Foxtrot moment. Everyone in the room caught phonetic reference to WTF -- which in the military now sort of means, what the (blank)."

Are you concerned that this is sending some kind of a chilling message?

BIDEN: No, not at all. Look, here's...

STEPHANOPOULOS: You don't want to hear the advice?

BIDEN: Look, no, no. We got the advice.

We spent five months with the entire national security team, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, the national security adviser down in that tank, down in that Situation Room, laboriously banging out the plans. The military came in with explicit requests. The president gave them what they asked for. It hasn't even been implemented yet.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You were on the other side, it was reported, that you didn't want an expansion of troops.

BIDEN: No, no. I did want an expansion of troops. There was a slight difference about how to layer them, how to proceed.

The president -- we all ended up in -- you know, this was an open discussion. And the thing I like about the president, he seeks everyone's opinion.

Well, we reached a consensus opinion, and the consensus opinion of the national security team, of which I'm a part, was to do exactly what's under way.

The point is -- I suspect the point that Jim Jones is making is, hey, it hasn't even been implemented yet. Troops are still on the way. Slow up, guys.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But to be clear, you're saying if the military believes there should be more troops, they shouldn't be afraid to give that advice. They should give that advice?

BIDEN: They should not be afraid to give whatever advice from the field or from the Pentagon to the president and the secretary of defense that they think they need.

STEPHANOPOULOS: While we've been here, some pretty grim job numbers back at home -- 9.5 percent unemployment in June, the worst numbers in 26 years.

How do you explain that? Because when the president and you all were selling the stimulus package, you predicted at the beginning that, to get this package in place, unemployment will peak at about 8 percent. So, either you misread the economy, or the stimulus package is too slow and to small.

BIDEN: The truth is, we and everyone else misread the economy. The figures we worked off of in January were the consensus figures and most of the blue chip indexes out there.

Everyone thought at that stage -- everyone -- the bulk of...

STEPHANOPOULOS: CBO [Congressional Budget Office] would say a little bit higher.

BIDEN: A little bit, but they're all in the same range. No one was talking about that we would be moving towards -- we're worried about 10.5 percent, it will be 9.5 percent at this point.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But we're looking at 10 now, aren't we?

BIDEN: No. Well, look, we're much too high. We're at 9 -- what, 9.5 right now?

STEPHANOPOULOS: 9.5.

BIDEN: And so the truth is, there was a misreading of just how bad an economy we inherited. Now, that doesn't -- I'm not -- it's now our responsibility. So the second question becomes, did the economic package we put in place, including the Recovery Act, is it the right package given the circumstances we're in? And we believe it is the right package given the circumstances we're in.

We misread how bad the economy was, but we are now only about 120 days into the recovery package. The truth of the matter was, no one anticipated, no one expected that that recovery package would in fact be in a position at this point of having to distribute the bulk of money.

STEPHANOPOULOS: No, but a lot of people were saying that you needed to do something bigger and bolder then, including the economist Paul Krugman. He's saying -- right now he's saying the same thing again -- don't wait. You need a second stimulus, you need it now.

BIDEN: Look, what we have to do now is we have to properly, adequately, transparently and effectively spend out the $787 billion.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That's your job. You're in charge of that now.

BIDEN: That is my job, and I think we're doing it well. If you noticed, George, I mean, there were other predictions. This was going to be wasteful and all these terrible projects were going to be out there, and we're wasting money. Well, that dog hasn't barked yet.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, Senator Coburn has identified some.

BIDEN: Yes -- no, he hasn't, but he did, he identified one hundred ? forty-eight of which we had already killed. And so -- and the rest I dispute. So the bottom line though is, I think anybody would say this has been pretty well managed so far.

The question is, how do you now -- do we -- what we have to do, George, is we have to, as this rolls out, put more pace on the ball. The second hundred days you're going to see a lot more jobs created.

And the reason you are is now all of these contracts for the over several thousand highway projects that have approved.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you're also seeing states across the country cutting back on their programs. Many of the people on unemployment?

BIDEN: Sure.

STEPHANOPOULOS: ? today are going to run out of unemployment in September. That means for a lot of those people, if there is not a second stimulus, they're going to be out in the cold.

BIDEN: Well, look, we have increased the amount of money unemployed -- those on unemployment rolls have gotten, 12 million are getting more money because of the stimulus package.

We've increased the number of people eligible by 2 million people. We've given a tax cut to 95 percent of the people who get a pay stub. They have somewhere -- $60 bucks a month out there that's going into the economy.

There is a lot going on, George. And I think it's premature to make the judgment?

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no second stimulus?

BIDEN: No, I didn't say that. I think it's premature to make that judgment. This was set up to spend out over 18 months. There are going to be major programs that are going to take effect in September, $7.5 billion for broadband, new money for high-speed rail, the implementation of the grid -- the new electric grid.

And so this is just starting, the pace of the ball is now going to increase.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you're in charge of the stimulus. You're the president's envoy here in Iraq. You're supposed to settle this dispute between the director of national intelligence and the CIA over who is going to appoint the station chiefs. By the way, have you solved that one yet?

BIDEN: I think we've solved that one.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You have?

BIDEN: Well, let me put it this way. I think we're well on the way to that being solved.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Who won?

BIDEN: They both won.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So they're going to share the responsibility to appoint to station chiefs?

BIDEN: Not done yet. Let me comment on that next week to you.

STEPHANOPOULOS: OK. Well, let me get to the broader point then. You've fixed -- you say you've fixed a problem that will?

BIDEN: Well they fixed the problem.

STEPHANOPOULOS: ? to find out that they fixed the problem -- look to find out the details on all of that. But you've got all of these discrete projects now. And when you came in you talked a lot about how you didn't want to get bogged down in individual projects because you wanted to be, you know, the president's primary adviser.

Are you're worried you're going to far in the other direction?

BIDEN: No. Because all of these projects have end dates on them. You know, they all have sell-by dates, because -- and that's I think that -- I hope I've brought some real expertise to this job, available to the president.

The things he has asked me to do. I hope I'm relatively good at. And -- but all of them have specific objectives.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, Sarah Palin.

BIDEN: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You were the last person to run against her.

(LAUGHTER)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Were you surprised by her decision to step down?

BIDEN: Well, look, you and I know -- and I shouldn't say that because that implicates you in my answer, so. But those who have been deeply involved in politics know at the end of the day it is really and truly a personal deal.

And personal family decisions have real impact on people's decisions. I love reading these history books and biographies of people, the reason they made the choice to run or not run was because the state of the economy.

It maybe had a lot to do with what the state of their life was, and the state of their family, et cetera. So I'm not going to second guess her.

STEPHANOPOULOS: She cast herself as the victim of political blood sport in that press conference. Is that how you see it?

BIDEN: No. I respect her decision. I don't -- I don't know what prompted her decision to not only not run again and also to step down as a consequence of the decision not to run in 2010. And I take her at her word that had a personal ingredient in it. And you have to respect that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Mr. Vice President, thank you very much.

BIDEN: Thank you.

Iran Text: Keyhan Editorial "Put Mousavi, Khatami on Trial"

The Latest From Iran (5 July): Treading Water

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS- SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED

The English translation of a Saturday editorial in the "conservative" newspaper Keyhan, written by managing editor Hoseyn Shari'atmadari, a close advisor of the Supreme Leader. From Juan Cole:

"A political party or a fifth column?"

On Wednesday afternoon 10/4/88 (1st July 2009) when the MSM system and text messages through the mobiles was once again restored after a short break, the above message was one of the messages that was sent on text message system in an extensive way among the citizens. Although the text of that message is laughable, yet it is exactly in keeping with Mirhoseyn Musavi's claim about fraud in the election, and his strange and inexplicable refusal to go through the legal channels to follow up his claim. Even stranger is the fact that in his latest statement Mr Musavi has repeatedly stressed the need to abide by law and resolving the problems through legal means. He goes so far as saying that 'even the corpse of the law must be respected!"

So many overt contradictions, double standards and contradictory approaches cannot be explained in any logical way or through any natural and rational justification. There can only be two possibilities behind such behaviour, without the possibility of a third option. The first possibility is that Mr Musavi and some of his supporters are suffering from a strange illness and have lost the benefit of reason and thinking. The second possibility is that Mr Musavi and some of those who are surrounding him are committing those crimes as a part of a "mission". This second possibility is so strong that it is almost impossible to reject it.

Not only are there many signs and indications in support of this proposition, but there are also many undeniable facts and documented evidence that point to a mission directed from abroad. In this connection, one may only ask which of their stances and way of behaviour has not been exactly in keeping with pre-formulated American prescriptions! Which of their demands has not been in keeping with the 30-year demands of American officials that have been repeated time and again? Nearly none!

It was not for nothing that America, Israel, the European Union, all counter-revolutionary organizations without exception, those involved in economic corruption, major industrialists, the plunderers and... (All ellipses as published) have risen in unison to support Musavi and his gang, and have used all their political and media capabilities in support of that group.

Here, we must point out that one should separate the accounts of those who have voted for him due to their political views and due to their lack of knowledge about the foreign mission entrusted to Musavi and the circles around him. The Iranian people always respect those people.

2- On the basis of available facts and documents, that corrupt movement has been implementing a foreign mission in order to encourage unlawful activities, kill innocent people, create a rebellion, plunder public property and weaken the power of the Islamic system. However, these days when they failed to perform their mission and were disgraced, instead of repenting and apologising to God and to the people for their mistake, they have started a new act in their conspiracy.

On Sunday, 7th Tir 88 (28th June) in a note headlined "those in charge of the circles", Keyhan had referred to this stage of the conspiracy. It pointed out: "Turning the recent failed conspiracy into 'embers burning under the ashes' and keeping it going as a 'festering wound that has not been pierced' in order to 'create a flame and do mischief in the future' is the next stage in the American (-led) velvet coup d'etat." In that note, we had pointed out that this stage of the above-mentioned conspiracy would be implemented due to a feeling of despair in the heart of the conspiracy about the continuation of the riots and the fact that their big lie about fraud in the election has been exposed. The aim of that stage of conspiracy would be to pave the way for the creation of an "opposition" party with the slogan of "the tenth government is illegitimate".

The latest act in the dictated American project started on Wednesday 10/4/00 (29th June), namely a day after the final and proven results of the election were released. That project started by releasing a statement in a few pages with - and we stress only with - Mirhoseyn Musavi's signature. In that statement, without referring to his numerous illegal activities, Musavi repeatedly stressed the need to abide by law, and pursuing one's demands by legal means. At the end of the statement, he came to the main reason for issuing that statement and spoke about the formation of a political party with the membership and participation of those around him!

An interesting point in that statement is that Musavi declares one of the goals of his anticipated party "to protect the violated rights and votes of the people in the last election, through the publication of the documents and facts about violations and frauds that took place in that election, and referring them to judicial authorities"! He does not explain why if he possesses certain documents and files about fraud in the election, despite the repeated demands of legal authorities, he has refrained from producing those documents! If, on the other hand, he does not accept any of the legal authorities, then first of all why is he talking about adherence to law? Secondly, why did he register his candidacy in the presidential election and why did he compete in the election through the same legal channels of this system? Thirdly, why does he now speak about turning to the same legal authorities? There are scores of other contradictions in his statement, but dealing with all of them is beyond the scope of this note.

3- Although in his recent contradictory statement Musavi has implemented another part of his mission that had been dictated to him from abroad - as had been anticipated - nevertheless, there is another aim behind the publication of that statement. That aim is to escape from definite punishment for the murder of innocent individuals, inciting riots and rebellions, hiring some thugs and ruffians to attack the lives, property and honour of the people, clear collaboration with foreigners, performing the role of the fifth column inside the country, and scores of other undeniable crimes. Those are frightful crimes and overt acts of treason for which the main culprits, including Musavi and (Mohammad) Khatami, must be tried in an open court in front of the eyes of the oppressed people who demand that the blood of their loved ones should be avenged.

4- Establishing a political party requires adhering to some defined laws, which include the political health of the founding members and organisers of that party. Consequently, the party that in his recent statement Mr Musavi has spoken of cannot be legal, because its main (founding) members, namely individuals such as Mirhoseyn Musavi and Mohammad Khatami, are accused of having committed many crimes that were referred to in the previous paragraph. Therefore, as law-breaking is the known and overt characteristic of Musavi and the circle of people around him, it is not unlikely that they would form their party without receiving a legal permit for it. In that case, the true name of that organization should be a "fifth column". It would be another version of the "fire burning under the ashes of sedition", and there is no other option to deal with it except, in the words of His Holiness Imam Ali (peace be upon him), to "crush the sedition before it materialises".

5- Finally, without any doubt, the tenth presidential election was a divine blessing. In the course of that election, the bond between Islamism and the republicanism of the system was demonstrated in an amazing way as the result of 40 million votes and 85 per cent participation of the voters in the election. Also, in the course of that election the true face of those who for so many years had made claims (to being faithful to the revolution) but had hid their faces behind a mask of deception and corruption, has now been made clear to all the people.

These purges (palayesh, also means cleansing) in the upper circles will no doubt be accompanied with growth in the body (of the public). The unlawful behaviour and the rebellious nature of those who claimed to be reformists had remained hidden from some people who had been deceived by their reformist and law-abiding slogans, but now those doubts have been dispelled....