Israel-Palestine: Abbas' Conditions, Netanyahu's "Eastern Front" Response

On Sunday the leader of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, said that he was under pressure from the international community to start direct talks but added that negotiations would collapse from the first minute if there were no "clear and specific references".

Ahead of Thursday's Arab League foreign ministers' summit in Cairo, these references should be seen as a future Palestinian state based on pre-1967 borders and a construction freeze both in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem.

To Lift The Spirits (Sequel): Dancing with Matt…in Gaza

In response, speaking at the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu blamed the PA for "stalling direct talks and relying on the Arab League for support." He said that first "they [Palestinians] said it was the [settlement] freeze, now it's the borders issue."

On the security front, Netanyahu put a double-edged agenda: First he said, "We won't compromise security and that's why the U.S. administration has been notified of our security needs." The he asserted, "Arrangements reached with the Palestinians must be such as to withstand any changes in the political and security Middle East map," and he went further, "The Palestinians must hold firm even if an eastern front develops, as was the case, for example, before the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime."

What was meant by the "eastern front"? Any guesses?

No Israeli politician is likely stop with only an "eastern front". Israel's Defense Minister Ehud Barak added a "north front". In an interview with The Washington Post, he said that the IDF will attack Lebanese government institutions if Israel is again subjected to rocket attacks and continued:

We will not run after each Hezbullah terrorist or launcher....We will see it as legitimate to hit any target that belongs to the Lebanese state, not just to Hezbullah.

And Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman was back on West Bank settlements, calling for new building to resume once the moratorium ends September 26:

From September we must resume normal life here. We do not have any intention to change the demographic situation or to create a provocation, but only to provide a normal life for the people that came here under the policies of [past] government[s].

A day before Lieberman's visit, Netanyahu had said he had not intention to extend the 10-month moratorium, saying "the slowdown was limited in time: It has not changed and that's how it will be."

So Netanyahu's "eastern front" complements the demands elsewhere on "security" and on settlements. All of this puts up a formidable wall to Abbas' conditions for agreement to direct talks.

Afghanistan & US Politics: National Interests and Ending the War (Mull)

Josh Mull is the Afghanistan Blogging Fellow for The Seminal and Brave New Foundation. He also writes at Rethink Afghanistan:

By now, the full implications of the data contained in the 91,000 Wikileaks files are starting to sink in. Americans have been questioning the war for some time now, and they're finally putting their foot down and demanding an end. Thousands of calls are pouring in to Congress from around the country, all demanding a NO vote on today's war funding vote, and thousands more are signing a petition declaring "the Wikileaks ‘War Logs’ are further evidence of a brutal war that’s not worth the cost. I vote, and I demand my elected officials end this war by Dec. 2011."

Afghanistan: At Least 45 Civilians Killed in Rocket Attack

Sure, war supporters gave it the old college try. The White House and other political leadership stressed that the leaks contained no new information, incidentally clearing up once and for all the confusion we had over whether they were ignorant or merely incompetent and negligent prosecutors of US foreign policy. Some even tried to deflect the argument on to Wikileaks operator Julian Assange, as if the leak coming from him --- or Paris Hilton or Spider-Man --- has anything to do with the information it contained.

But their arguments are for naught, the war is now simply indefensible. These leaks confirm and validate the criticism so far levied against the war in Afghanistan. The headline in an article by Gareth Porter, "Leaked Reports Make Afghan War Policy More Vulnerable", seems like the understatement of the century:

Among the themes that are documented, sometimes dramatically but often through bland military reports, are the seemingly casual killing of civilians away from combat situations, night raids by special forces that are often based on bad intelligence, the absence of legal constraints on the abuses of Afghan police, and the deeply rooted character of corruption among Afghan officials.

The most politically salient issue highlighted by the new documents, however, is Pakistan's political and material support for the Taliban insurgency, despite its ostensible support for U.S. policy in Afghanistan.

You could pick just one of those things Porter mentions and it could spell catastrophe for the war. Instead we have all of them. It does more than make the war policy more vulnerable, it puts any war supporting politician in Washington in serious electoral peril.

Left to their own devices, the mainstream media will craft their own stupid and obnoxious narratives about "lefty insurgencies" or "anti-incumbent fever," and this will poison the eventual policy outcome. However, if we understand the facts now, and see this as not only a US political dilemma but as part of a global anti-war movement finally winding up at President Obama's doorstep, then the US can begin to accelerate its withdrawal more responsibly than the standard media narratives might allow (Get out now! No, stay forever!).

This is not simply a reaction to a failed policy, it is an articulation of an independent vision of selfish foreign and domestic policy interests. Americans, our NATO allies, and even our progressive allies in Pakistan are all working to end the war. Domestically, political candidates who are putting ,members of Congress in electoral peril are doing so as a response to outcry from their constituents.

Elaine Marshall, candidate for Senate in North Carolina, has been a strong opponent of the President's escalation in Afghanistan. She says that, throughout her campaign she has been approached by supporters who tell her, "‘I appreciate your stance, I appreciate you talking about it, I appreciate that you’re looking at more than just the headlines." She explained in an interview with the Seminal:

I live in North Carolina, a strong military state. When you talk to people who’ve been [to war], and you understand the sacrifices folks are making, and then you look at the reason why they are stepping up to make that sacrifice, or those maybe joined before the actual situation came up and they now, because they’re good soldiers, become involved in it. In our prior engagements for the most part, we had a goal. We knew who the enemy was, we knew why we were there, we had a line drawn that we knew would be success, achievement, victory. We don’t have any of that in the war in Afghanistan.

The same is true for candidate Tommy Sowers, running for Missouri's 8th congressional district. He recently published an opinion piece questioning the President's strategy of bolstering Afghan security forces, and asking whether or not such a massive, long-term financial commitment was feasible in the economic environment. He has received high praise for his essay, as well as for his position on the war itself, as he conducted town halls across the state. He explained what he was hearing from his constituents in an interview with me and Jason Rosenbaum last week:

First, across the country, districts like this carry the burden of the war in a visceral way. When I’m in a room, I ask folks if they are veterans or if they’re related to people currently serving – it’s almost the entire room. So, on a very personal level, these people are asking, "What are we accomplishing over there?" A lot of families ask their own family members that are over there this question.

Second, on a fiscal level, this district has suffered under Republican incumbent rule in terms of infrastructure. There’s great concern about the debt, and people ask, "Why are we spending so much money over there?"

Sowers served in combat during the Iraq war, and many in Marshall's family chose to serve their country in the military, so it's clear where their personal convictions are rooted. And the overflow of public outcry and support from their constituents gives them the momentum to go from average anti-war candidates to populist juggernauts.

Did you catch Sowers' comment about "suffering under incumbent rule"? The electoral peril is not a hypothetical, it's very real. Sowers is coming directly at his opponent on this issue. He told us:

My opponent sits on the NATO parliamentary assembly, so you’d think she’d have an interest in the issue, but I’m not certain she’s even visited Afghanistan. The only thing I’ve heard from her is we need to do everything over there – more troops, more money. That’s what you get with a former lobbyists trying to influence military policy.

His opponent doesn't even have much chance to reverse her position, her hands are already all over this war. Now she's staring down the barrel of Tommy Sowers, all because she couldn't even hedge her bets on an exit timetable. She had to do the lobbyist thing and give it all away, "more troops, more money". Marshall's opponent in North Carolina is no better, refusing to fund a $32 billion one-year extension for teachers on one hand while on the other having plenty of freebie money for Wall Street and the war-makers.

It's too late to change positions or blow this off as some kind of far-left anomaly in the primaries. These folks have had their resumes scrutinized, they've won their nominations, and now they've moved on to delivering a spirited beating to their opponents.

But what happens when they do get to Washington? That's where we truly see the selfish national interests laid out. They will not simply block the war and call it a day. Marshall has talked about expanding international cooperation in terms of developing Afghanistan, as well as reforming our port/border security with an eye on counter-terrorism. Sowers also has a definite objective in mind when it comes to securing US interests in Afghanistan.

I’m a secure our nation sort of guy, an ass-kicking Democrat. I think we should pursue and kill and capture terrorists where they are. That’s the problem in Afghanistan, we’re pursuing them where they were. For every special forces team tied up training an Afghan police force that one day won’t be paid is a special forces team that can’t operate in Yemen, Pakistan or Somalia. [...]

My strategy is informed by history. We are fighting an ideology. I’ve seen first hand when I had price on my head in Iraq. But there’s ways to fight this war much more intelligently.

Look back to the history of the cold war, how did we combat that? We contained, we deterred, we used trade, aid, proxies. And we occasionally sent guys like me to kill and capture the real bad folks. Overall, we let the system collapse in on itself.

Sowers is putting forward his own strategy for fighting terrorism. I've made my reservations about that strategy clear, but these candidates are not mirror images of activist bloggers; they are independent political actors. Sowers and Marshall are not conforming to any ideological constraints. They are putting forward their own, selfish national security strategies and are backed by popular momentum.

Pakistan is where we see those same selfish interests replicated. Just as our candidates look out for the United States, Pakistanis are looking out only for their country. Take, for example, their reaction to the Wikileaks' "War Diary" confirmation of the involvement of Pakistani army and intelligence services with the insurgency. Mosharraf Zaidi writes:

Virtually no serious commentator or analyst anywhere, even those embedded deep in the armpit of the Pakistani establishment, claims that the Pakistani state was not instrumental in the creation, training and sustenance of the Taliban movement in Afghanistan. Given the nature of the relationship between the Pakistani state and the Afghan Taliban, one that goes right to the genetic core of the Taliban, it is hard to imagine that all ties can ever be severed. Again, for serious people, this is an issue that is done and dusted. Pakistan's state, and indeed, its society, had, has and will continue to have linkages with the Afghan Taliban. Moral judgments about these linkages are external to this fact.

These linkages do, however, deserve the scrutiny of the Pakistani parliament. If somehow, Pakistanis are involved in supporting any kind of violence against anyone, that kind of support had better be couched in a clear national security framework that articulates why it is okay for Pakistanis to underwrite such violence. Absent such a framework, the violence is illegal, and the space for speculation and innuendo about Pakistan is virtually infinite. It is that space that Pakistan's fiercest critics exploit when they generate massive headlines out of small nuggets of insignificant and stale information that implicates Pakistan in anti-US violence in Afghanistan (among other things).

Zaidi is representative of a broader progressive movement in Pakistan, the closest parallel and ally that Americans have there, and yet what is his response? It is not a call for an immediate end to Pakistan's "Strategic Depth", its support of militants, and there is no mourning the loss of American lives because of that policy. There is only acknowledgement that the relationship with militants --- specifically the Afghan Taliban ---  is deeply embedded in Pakistani society, as well as a call for the government to better articulate this relationship in a "national security framework".

Zaidi is not looking out for our best interests --- refraining from support to militants who kill American soldiers --- he's looking out for Pakistan's best interests, and that includes their historic ties to militancy in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Jammu & Kashmir, etc. Seems harsh, but it is a parallel to the US. When was the last time an American pundit, even a liberal one, shed a tear for the thousands of Pakistani soldiers and policemen killed doing our selfish American bidding? The answer would be never.

But there's also the actual Pakistani anti-war movement. Appealing directly to the principles of the "American Founding Fathers", the group calling itself the Coalition of Conscience put forward this list of demands:

1. The foreign presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan is part of problem rather than the solution; > The coalition Governments must immediately order a cessation of all military and sting operations in the region and allow peace to be negotiated.


2. Al-Qaeda is a convenient tool to blanket all opposition to US policies in the region and impose unilateral policies; > All efforts to use this pretext to prolong the presence in the region and to pursue an international agenda other than peace must cease.


3. On going coalition operations have a fragmenting effect on both Pakistan and Afghanistan; > All coalition operations with divisive effects must be stopped.


4. The entire spectrum of violence and instability in Pakistan is a backwash from Afghanistan created by the presence of foreign forces. Support to insurgent and terrorist groups in FATA and Balochistan originate from Afghanistan. If this is not stopped, the instability will spread to other regions as well; > We demand the Government of Pakistan to make its own independent policies to ensure peace and development in the region; the mother of all civilizations.


5. Afghan movement is led by leaders who are indigenous to Afghanistan and legitimate representatives of resistance to foreign occupation; > These leaders must be treated as party to peace and brought into a comprehensive dialogue process as reflected in Pak-Afghan Jirga of 2007.


6. Failing a clear timetable from the coalition for the cessation of war; > The Government of Pakistan will be urged to exercise this nation’s legitimate right to secure its interests against all hostile bases inside Afghanistan, supporting and funding terrorism and insurgency in Pakistan.


7. In order to ensure long term stability and prosperity in the region; > The Government of Pakistan must carry forward the inconclusive negotiations of 1996 and assist all Afghans (Resistance and Northern Alliance) to mediate peace. We welcome support from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey and China with no covert agendas.


8. It is not Pakistan’s responsibility to ensure logistics for coalition forces in Afghanistan knowing well that much of it is used to destabilize and terrorize Pakistanis; > This support must stop unless approved by UN and conducted under transparent international safeguards and inspections.


9. Gross violations and exercise of human rights on selective bases are widely documented; > All Pakistani prisoners kept by coalition countries, Pakistan, and Afghanistan in illegal detention centers must be brought back immediately and subjected to Pakistani courts.


10. Rendition centers, trials under duress and extra judicial killings including drones and blanket air strikes violate basic human rights; > War reparations and criminal trials of coalition leaders who have knowingly falsified evidence in support of war before their own people; their Parliaments; and before the UN Security Council must be brought before Law. All Pakistani leaders guilty of same must be tried under Pakistan laws.

The "coalition Governments" they refer to are the US and NATO allies. They are demanding "independent policies" from the Pakistani government, a reference to American interference. Most of the rest is pretty mundane, nothing you haven't seen from almost any other peace movement, Pakistani or otherwise. But make a special note of Number Six:

Failing a clear timetable from the coalition for the cessation of war; > The Government of Pakistan will be urged to exercise this nation’s legitimate right to secure its interests against all hostile bases inside Afghanistan, supporting and funding terrorism and insurgency in Pakistan.

That means war with the United States. All of our troops operating supply lines in Pakistan, all of our troops stationed in Afghanistan, all of our intelligence centers and facilities for launching drone and special forces raids --- these are what they are referring to by "all hostile bases." When I warned about the collapse of Pakistan, and our troops getting caught in the middle of it, this what I meant. From their perspective, our war is the root of their terrorism and insurgencies, and they will react to secure themselves.

This is the state of the present anti-war movement, in the United States and in Pakistan. In the US, Americans are putting forward their own policies, an end to the war, revamped port security, as well over-the-horizon counter-terrorism. In Pakistan, they are demanding an end to the war, our war, which is so destabilizing for their country.

None of this is remotely ideological or partisan, nor is it merely reactionary to the existing policy of war. It is an independent calculation of interests.

Ending the war is firmly in our national interests, and any politician who doesn't start supporting the United States will be put in serious danger of losing their seat. How long until our war supporting representatives come to be seen as puppets for Hamid Karzai and General Kayani, much the same as some Pakistani politicians are viewed as puppets of the United States?

With the leaks confirming so much of the criticism about the war, every action the supporters take is automatically drenched in blood. Every time they are voting for more war funding, they are voting for American soldiers to be killed by InterServices Inteligence and Pakistan Army operatives. Every time they vote against an exit timetable, they are voting against the economic interests of the United States.

This is what's happening as we watch the war disintegrate in front of us. The facts show that the war is destroying our economy, it is making us less safe, and continuing it will lead to even further disaster. There is no angry far left, no hippies, no anti-incumbent fever, no bleeding-heart liberals, and no wobbly pacifists. There are only Americans stepping up and taking their country back, back from the catastrophe of war, and setting it on a better path toward securing our interests at home and in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Anyone who still supports the war, after all of our facts have been confirmed by the Wikileaks release, now stands firmly against American national interests, both domestic and foreign. The consequences will be hellish come November.

Iran Analysis: The Hardliners Take on Ahmadinejad

The dominant front-line story on EA from Iran these days is the tension within the establishment: the growing conservative/principlist movement against the Government, the fight over Islamic Azad University, the disputes over the budget and the (still far from implemented) subsidy cuts, the criticisms over corruption, intimidation of senior clerics, and even pressure on the Supreme Leader.

This, however, may be the most dramatic illustration of the divisions.

Recently, the President's Chief of Staff Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai claimed publicly that he had been told by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, "You are being attacked because of me. They cannot attack me so they have a go at you."

Ahmadinejad then said to his principal aide, "In one year’s time [you] will become a kafar (infidel)" in these criticisms." Rahim-Mashai added his view: "Ahmadinejad’s turn will also come, and this prediction will come true in one and a half year’s time."

And who is behind this plot? Rahim-Mashai pointed at the prominent "hard-line" newspaper Keyhan: "In the opinion of [Keyhan editor Hossein] Shariatmadari I am not even Muslim. In his view I am a spy and a monafegh (heretic) and a part of a velvet coup."

And there's more. Last Thursday, Mehdi Mohammadi, Keyhan's political editor, told supporters of the"hard-line" movement Ansar Hezbollah:

In Iran, a new movement is appearing which wants to say that it’s more revolutionary than the Supreme Leader. This new movement wants to pit the supporters of Hezbollah in the society against the Supreme Leader, and to make this movement problematic for him. This new movement doesn’t want to see the country in peace and tranquility. It even wants to vacate the surroundings of the Supreme Leader from others and only keep itself in his proximity. And when this happens, it will want to say that we are the only ones who stayed, therefore all authority should be surrendered to me because I won 25 million votes.

That "I won 25 million votes" makes clear that Mohammadi is targeting the President. And here's a twist: Ansar Hezbollah is considered close to Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi, who has often been identified as Ahmadinejad's religious mentor.

Then there is the curious affair of Mohammad Nasser Saghaie Biriya, Ahmadinejad's religious affairs advisor, who tried to resign last week. The supposed source was Ahmadinejad's criticism last month of the excesses of "morality police", for example, over the enforcement of hijab.

So what is going on here? There are two immediate possibilities: 1. the "hardliners" see the President going soft in his social policies, even as he tries to parade Iran's leading position abroad (note, for example, the smile-raising moment of Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami warning Ahmadinejad of the folly of his statement that men might be allowed to wear ties and not commit religious error); 2. the "hardliners" are making their own grab for power.

Yet while part of the tension lies in these all-too-obvious dynamics, the wider cause is still the one that has besieged the President since June 2009: his legitimacy is not assured.

If Ahmadinejad had truly established a grip on the economy, if he had demonstrated capability in political as well as economic management, if he had backed up his "25 million" chant with the clear support of Iran's people, then the hard-line concerns would not have turned into open opposition.

He didn't. And perhaps more importantly, he's not even a secure firewall, anyone. By that, I mean that one of Ahmadinejad's role has always been to serve as protection for the Supreme Leader and the Iranian system. Governments always get criticised and, in Iran's case, such criticism has the benefit of taking possible heat away from other institutions and Ayatollah Khamenei.

(If I was being provocative, I would suggest that this is not unique to the Islamic Republic. Many monarchs and indeed the Shah of Iran have tried to use Prime Ministers as firewalls against opposition. History shows when they have succeeded and when they have failed.)

The disputed election, however, damaged Ahmadinejad as a firewall. Indeed, when the Supreme Leader tried to shore up the President with his Friday Prayer sermon a week after the vote, telling everyone to shut up and sit down, the declaration had the opposite effect.

By the summer, it was not just a question of whether the President could survive but whether Ayatollah Khamenei was stable in his authority. In August, the tension broke into the open with the vehement opposition to the selection of Rahim-Mashai --- yes, the same person who is claiming that he is now the hard-liners' primary target --- as 1st Vice President and with battles for control of key Ministries. It took a letter from the Supreme Leader to Ahmadinejad and the uneasy "compromise" of Rahim-Mashai resigning the Vice Presidency but then becoming Chief of Staff to ease the prospect of an internal coup.

The claim that this crisis passed because the "Green" opposition to Ahmadinejad's election has disappeared or been muted always missed the wider point. Even if Government repression could take people off the streets and break up their communications, many within the Iranian establishment were not satisfied that the President had established authority. Indeed, many see him as counter-productive, sapping any strength that the Iranian system can claim.

That, of course, is not the sole reason for Keyhan's assault. There are personal factors and egos in play here. It does mean, however, that some in the establishment who might knock back Keyhan and other "hard-liners" will now try to use this conflict for their own manoeuvres.

If Ahmadinejad is no longer a suitable firewall for the Supreme Leader and thus the current Iranian system, then he must go, sooner or later.

But then the irony: the person who will step in to make this "later" rather than "sooner" is Ayatollah Khamenei. The President may be damaged goods but there is no assurance that a replacement will provide better cover for the Supreme Leader. To the contrary, the drama of toppling Ahmadinejad may expose weakness rather than establish strength.

So, in addition to putting out --- in confusing fashion, itself testimony to the tensions within --- his "I am the Rule of the Prophet" fatwa last week, the Supreme Leader also appears to have worked with Mesbah Yazdi to persuade the President's religious advisor, Biriya, to withdraw his resignation. Keyhan's campaign against Rahim-Masahi, for now, has now picked up the endorsement of officials. A lid has been maintained on the Kahrizak prison abuse scandal, protecting other Ahmadinejad aides like Saeed Mortazavi.

The President is still in place. But whether Rahim-Mashai proves to be a prophet with his 18-month prediction --- "Ahmadinejad's time will come" --- reamins to be seen.

The Latest from Iran (27 July): Regime Wavering?

2020 GMT: Googling Iran. In a well-meaning but rather scattered New York Times article on Iranians living in the US, this episode stands out:

On a recent muggy afternoon in Washington Aliakbar Mousavi, a former member of Parliament, sat at a white table in a small Google conference room, imploring a top executive to provide more Persian-language Internet tools.

Speaking in halting English acquired during a year in the United States, Mr. Mousavi told Robert O. Boorstin, the company’s director of public policy, that activists inside Iran desperately needed Google earth, Google advertising and other services that can help thwart repression.

Mr. Boorstin was sympathetic if noncommittal, promising to consult with various engineers.

NEW Latest Iran Video: Ahmadinejad on Afghanistan, Sanctions, & the US (26 July)
NEW Iran Document: Mousavi on Governing and Mis-Governing, Now and in the 1980s (26 July)
NEW Iran Analysis: Interpreting Khamenei’s “Re-Appearing” Fatwa (Verde)
The Latest from Iran (26 July): Behind the International Screen

2015 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. An appellate court has upheld the four-year sentence of activist Amir Khosrow Dalirsani, jailed for assembly and conspiracy to act against national security. Dalirsani was detained after the Ashura protests in December.

2000 GMT: Arrested for Using Facebook. RAHANA reports Hanieh Farshi-Shatrian, a 28-year-old woman, has been arrested in Tabriz for "activism" on Facebook. Farshi-Shatrian has no history of political activity.

1825 GMT: We have posted the short video of the interview of President Ahmadinejad by CBS News, covering Afghanistan and sanctions but omitting any consideration of Iran's internal situation.

1815 GMT: The Missing Lawyer. Golnaz Esfandiari summarises the case of human rights lawyer Mohammad Mostafaei, who is still missing and whose wife and brother-in-law are still detained.

1705 GMT: Claim of Day. Rah-e-Sabz asserts that a group of the Supreme Leader's advisors, including his son Mojtaba Khamenei, Basij commander Hossein Taeb, and Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Naqdi, held a special meeting after the June 2009 election and laid off 250 pro-Green officers of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps.

1700 GMT: Labour Front. Iran Labor Report has a special feature on "rampant wage thefts", where workers at large firms like Naghshe Iran Carpet Weaving in Qazvin, Khuzestan Pipe Factory, and Iran Telecommunication Industries have not been paid for months.

1650 GMT: The Battle Within. Looks like rifts within the establishment are getting worse....

Aftab News now has a second item critiquing divisions within the "hard-line camp" (for the first item, see 0845 GMT), saying that rifts are due to a lack of ability, law-breaking, and distortion of ideology.

But this may be small change compared to a fight brewing between Keyhan and the President's inner circle. We should have a special analysis on Wednesday.

1640 GMT: Mahmoud's Wisdom of the Day. Peyke Iran, from Islamic Students News Agency, summarises President Ahmadinejad's latest speech: "The biggest gift to is the Imam....If you are poor, get married and God will feed you."

1638 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Kurdish high school teacher Mohsen Jaladiani has been sentenced to six years in prison.

1633 GMT: Economy Watch (Revolutionary Guards Edition). Member of Parliament Mehrdad Lahouti has asserted that Khatam ol-Anbia, the engineering firm linked to the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps, may be entering the project to construct a freeway from Tehran to the Caspian Sea.

1630 GMT: Larijani Replies to Mousavi? Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani, in an apparent response to Mir Hossein Mousavi's latest statement --- especially Mousavi's comments on the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-1988 --- has warned against the "classification of people", saying that accusations against them are "not right".

1330 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Earlier today we mentioned Hamed Saber, the photo-blogger and computer scientist detained for more than a month.

More than 70 Iranian university graduates and academics have launched a campaign calling for Saber's release.

1230 GMT: Ahmadinejad's War Strategy. The President has made another international move with an interview with Press TV.

On the surface, Ahmadinejad has restated his "war conspiracy", saying again that he expects the US to act soon: "They have decided to attack at least two countries in the region in the next three months....(We have) very precise information that the Americans have hatched a plot, according to which they to wage a psychological war against Iran."

Dig deeper, though, and you may find a more complex Ahmadinejad move. Notice that "Europe" and Britain do not take their usual roles alongside the US as Iran's opponents.

Could that be because Tehran --- and Ahmadinejad in particular --- are hoping to re-open talks on the uranium enrichment issue?

0907 GMT: Academic Corner. The commander of the Revolutionary Guard, General Mohammad Ali Jafari, has been appointed to the board of Yazd University by Minister of Science and Higher Education Kamran Daneshjoo.

0905 GMT: The Rice Scandal. MP Hassan Tamini, the speaker of Parliament's Health Commission, says that he has "no doubt" that 11 types of imported rice are polluted with lead, arsenic, and carcinogens.

0855 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran posts an interview with the mother of human rights activist Shiva Nazar Ahari, who has been arrested twice and detained for ten months since the June 2009 election.

Student Iman Sadighi, who was detained for 130 days, reports on conditions in Mati Kala prison in Babol.

A statement from activists in Rah-e-Sabz claims sentences in courts are based on factional affiliations and demands the release of journalist Abdolreza Tajik and photo-blogger Hamed Saber.

0850 GMT: More Tension. MP Ali Motahari, now a persistent high-profile critic of the Government, has turned to the hijab issue to challenge the President, insisting that people will turn away if hijab is not defended. Motahari has also --- in line with others --- taken a swipe at Ahmadinejad as voicing the words of his Chief of Staff, Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai.

0845 GMT: Economy Watch. Aftab News asserts that, instead of admitting its mistakes, the government is blaming the private sector for unemployment. The newspaper says critics are right in assuming that the Ahmadinejad administration continues to control companies by using subsidiary firms with non-government names.

0840 GMT: Threatening the Bloggers. The Committee to Protect Bloggers reports that Fariborz Shamshiri, who blogs at Rotten Gods and has worked with Amnesty International and Freedom House, has received death threats on his life. Shamshiri says, “This is not the first time I am receiving this kind of threats but this is getting out of hand.”

0835 GMT: Parliament Update. MP Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh has claimed that the elimination of reformists has led to a split within the hardline movement, with the struggle for power visible in the Majlis and Government. These problems are compounded by "radicals" who have forgotten that they are the people's representatives and are ready to sacrifice the Majlis for the Government.

MP Abolqasem Raoufian warns: "If we continue like this, reformists may win next elections. If the reformists are eliminated from next elections --- which is wrong --- hardliners will split into three camps."

0830 GMT: And What is Larijani Doing? Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani has joined in the post-fatwa debate to put in a few punches at the President. He has said that if a government wants to comply with that of the 12th ("hidden") Imam, it should establish social justice and give no alms because they are not necessary in such a just society. The government should also follow laws and fight against enemies such as the US and Zionists.

Larijani's parting shot? "Don't increase enemies with improper words", as Iran is "far away" from the just and effective government of the 12th Imam.

0825 GMT: Rallying around Khamenei? Hojatoleslam Mohammad Saeidi, the Friday Prayer leader in Qom, has asserted that there have always been senior clerics who prefered to oppose the Supreme Leader rather than "infidels" such as Zionists and the British.

Ayatollah Mohammad Qorvi has announced that the Khamenei fatwa is the "minimum approval" of velayat-e-faqih (clerical supremacy).

0800 GMT: We begin the morning with two features. Mr Verde analyses the problems for the Supreme Leader's "I am the Rule of the Prophet" fatwa, which has suddenly reappeared on his website. And we post the English translation of Mir Hossein Mousavi's latest statement, which links criticism of the current Government with a review of the political and military tensions during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War.

Meanwhile....

Rumour of the Day

Rah-e-Sabz tries to add to the pressure on the regime by alleging that Ministry of Intelligence operatives were responsible for the murders of Neda Agha Soltan, killed in June 2009, and Dr Masoud Alimohammadi, who died in an explosion in January.

The news site claims from sources that almost three weeks ago, a car bomb exploded in Shahrak-e Rahahan, apparently to destroy the body of a victim killed elsehwere.  Two Ministry of Intelligence operatives were allegedly arrested and are being held, with a third person, in the ministry cellblock in Evin Prison.

In a possibly related incident about the same time, a car bomb failed to kill a wealthy businessman.

According to Rah-e-Sabz, the two arrested men work for Hamidreza Daneshmandi, the Director of Internal Security at the ministry. Further investigation supposedly revealed that this team was responsible for the deaths of Neda Agha Soltan and Dr Alimohammadi and may also be responsible for the explosion in the Khomeini Shrine a few days after the June 2009 elections.

Rah-e-Sabz says the investigation has led to tensions between the police and judiciary on one side and the Ministry of Intelligence on the other.

Latest Iran Video: Ahmadinejad on Afghanistan, Sanctions, & the US (26 July)

Brief notes on this interview of President Ahmadinejad by CBS News:

1. As Marc Lynch has noted at Foreign Policy, there is a real danger of a superficial portrayal of the Wikleaks "War Diary" showing a link between Tehran and the Taliban or even between Tehran and Al Qa'eda.

There is a massive difference between documents recording that "US officials say there are links...." and documents establishing evidence of links. As far as I know --- and this is a general remark on some of those claiming what the documents "show" --- those putting forth the Iran-Taliban-Al Qa'eda connections have not actually read any of the documents, only summaries put out for the press.

2. Beyond Afghanistan, CBS played nicely into Ahmadinejad's hands with softball questions on the nuclear programme, sanctions, and relations with Washington.

3. Most importantly, where was there any reference to Iran's internal situation? Is a major US network really that blinkered?