The Latest from Iran (26 June): It's (No Longer) A Thriller

The Latest from Iran (27 June): Situation Normal. Move Along.

NEW Iran’s Future: “In Time Things Will Change” (Tehran Bureau)
NEW Iran’s Future: Interpreting “The Lord of the Rings”
Latest Video: Resistance and Violence (24 June)

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



1900 GMT: Mohammad Mostafaie, a defence lawyer who was prominent for representing Iranian juveniles facing the death penalty, was arrested this afternoon.

1845 GMT: Lara Setrakian of ABC News (US): "Allahu Akbars begin. Intensity hasn't diminished. I hear warning shots, but after the shot they changed to death to dictator."

Also reports of a candlelit vigil tonight on the rooftops.

1830 GMT: Mir Hossein Mousavi's website has posted his latest statement. We're working on getting an English translation.

1655 GMT: We reported earlier this week that the novelist Paulo Coelho had blogged that his "best friend" was the Iranian doctor who tried to save Neda Agha Soltan. Now that the doctor has left Iran, Coelho has identified him as the Iranian translator of his books, Arash Hejazi

1632 GMT: More from Obama: "A government that treats its own citizens with that kind of ruthlessness and violence has moved outside of universal norms."

1550 GMT: BNO, citing AFP, says that a special commission, including representatives of the defeated candidates, is to be set up to draft a report on the election.

If true, this would fit into our separate piece on the "national unity" call of Grand Ayatollah Makarem-Shirazi and reports that Presidential candidate Mehdi Karroubi is compromising and calling for protests to be challenged through "legal means".

1545 GMT: CNN's David Clinch say that Iran's National Security Council: has declared that Mir Hossein Moussavi's demands for the annulment of the elections are "illogical and unethical".

1530 GMT: Some are reporting a new demonstration in Tehran today, in which Mousavi supporters released green balloons.

1415 GMT: Iranbaan believes that Saeed Hajarian, whose short bio we provided here, "has been release from the clinic into ward 209 of Evin [prison] but his physical condition is not good."

1155 GMT: From a Lara Setrakian source: ""Tehran is very very quiet. There's anger & passion, but going out to show it doesn't seem very productive and is very dangerous"

1145 GMT: Twitter user iranbaan, a previously reliable source, has posted a number of updates: Detained protester Hajarian is alive but is still in "serious condition & needs to be moved to hospital outside prison." She also reports on the apparent treatment of killed protesters:

Doctors are forces to write "death in the operating room" as the cause of death for recent martyrs. / Families are charged 5-14 thousand dollars to receive the bodies of their loved ones. / They also need to sign a waver that they won't sure [sic: sue] the police or other attackers. / In a written undertaking, they need to say Mousavi is the reason & we have not complaints against police. / No mosque is allowed to hold a funeral for these martyrs.

Finally, she reports that, "Saeed Mortazavi, prosecutors general of Tehran, is put in charge of investigating recent detainees." As we reported on Wednesday, Human Rights Watch describes Mortazavi as "notoriously abusive."


1110 GMT: Lara Setrakian of ABC News (US) reports, "Confirmed firsthand account of another 'Allahu Akbar' (God is Great) protester killed on the rootfop, this one in Tehran."

1045 GMT: AP reports that Ayatollah Ahmed Khatami, speaking during Friday prayers at Tehran University, has called on the government to punish protesters "strongly and with cruelty." (Note: Ahmed Khatami is not related to Mohammad Khatami.)

0850 GMT: According to Reuters Press TV has quoted a spokesman for the Guardian Council saying that the elections were "among the healthiest ... ever held in the country". No "major" fraud has been uncovered.

0820 GMT: Unconfirmed rumour: the Supreme Leader is wearing one white glove when he leads prayers today.

0800 GMT: Stand By Your Man. Russia has again recognized President Ahmadinejad's election victory.

0710 GMT: Worlds Collide. One of the most prominent Iranian activists on Twitter writes, "Michael Jackson is died?"

0705 GMT: Reports that Iran state media have broadcast the funeral of a Basiji killed in the demonstrations. (source: jamaldajani via Twitter)

0700 GMT: The BBC, if it is not reflecting on Michael Jackson, is recycling the tangential news that Washington has condemned President Ahmadinejad's condemnation of US interference in Iranian affairs

0520 GMT: Somewhat bizarrely, this morning's first intervention in Iran comes from the west coast of the United States (and not from the broadcasts of television stations run by Iranian exiles). The international media are screen-to-screen with coverage of the death of Michael Jackson. Even Al Jazeera put away Iran and Iraq to lead with several minutes on the scraps of information about last night's events, Jackson's careers, and (especially) chats with fans.

CNN, which has been increasingly open in its sympathy for the protests, had been trying to highlight Thursday's statement by Presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, but the effort has been limited, as its website admits: "CNN has not been able to verify the authenticity of the statement on the Kamaleh site, which has been known to carry Moussavi's official statements, because it appeared to be blocked." On the BBC website, Jackson pushes Iran and Mousavi down to a single, small-font line near the bottom of the page.

Iran's Press TV talks about Michael Jackson at the end of its headlines; before that, it is using the statement of three US Senators (McCain, Graham, Lieberman) calling for tougher sanctions on Tehran to bolster the Government's line of "Western intervention".

Israel-Palestine: How Netanyahu Demolished the Plan A of the Peace Process

Related Post: Israel-Palestine - Netanyahu’s Two-State Magical Sidestep
Transcript: Netanyahu Speech on Israel-Palestine (14 June)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s carefully-framed speech on 14 June portrayed a peaceful Israel pursuing all necessary steps for a regional peace agreement.

It's when you read the speech more closely that problems emerge. Netanyahu’s priority of economic development rather than political agreements, Israel’s pre-conditions for peace (including no pre-conditions on Israel), and its political and social securitization are out of step with dynamics in the Middle East.

Netanyahu's speech was bolstered by developments  such as the conflict between Fatah and Hamas. Since the beginning of June, the tension in the West Bank has soared dramatically. After several Hamas members were killed by Fatah, a Damascus-based Hamas spokesman, Talal Nasser, called on Palestinians to fight the Palestinian Authority as though they were fighting the Israeli occupation. In response, the Palestinian police arrested 36 Hamas supporters in the West Bank. Hamas’s unsustainable and irrational steps were partly curbed by its chief in Damascus, Khaled Mashaal, who complained instead about pre-conditions set by the Obama Administration. He declared that Hamas would not be an obstacle to the peace process if it was included as a partner in Israeli talks with the Palestinian Authority.

However, in the eyes of important actors in the international community, there is no legitimate ground for Hamas unless it confirms the conditions of the Quartet: recognition of Israel, ending terrorist activities and abiding by the past agreements signed by the PA. And Hamas will not issue that confirmation as long as Gaza and the West Bank are divided both geographically and politically.

Thus Netanyahu can rely upon the "existential threat" of a strong Hamas troubling Fatah in the West Bank and, more importantly, relying of the backing of a "potentially nuclear-armed" Iran.

There are, of course, issues beyond Hamas. How can there be a peace process with Fatah while settlements are still not frozen and the proposal of a demilitarized Palestinian state includes "ironclad security provisions" for Israeli security forces? How can Netanyahu foresee a real regional peace agreement without giving any concessions  to Israel's Arab neighbours, for example, when his Syrian colleague Bashar Assad has already declared that there will be no negotiations without the promise to return the Golan Heights to Syria?

For Netanyahu, the wonder of "Hamas" is that it can always trump these difficulties because of the overriding notion of Israeli "security".

Securitization of Israel’s Existence

The remarkable threats in Netanyahu’s speech were those of nuclear weapons and radical Islam. Because Iran is considered as the nexus of these two, it is the number one enemy for Israel. Radical Islam’s branches – Hamas and Hezbollah – follow:

The Iranian threat looms large before us, as was further demonstrated yesterday. The greatest danger confronting Israel, the Middle East, the entire world and human race, is the nexus between radical Islam and nuclear weapons....Hamas will not even allow the Red Cross to visit our kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit, who has spent three years in captivity, cut off from his parents, his family and his people.

The contrast to these menaces is the unique character of Israelis. They are the ones whose forefathers and prophets lived in the same lands where they now live; they are the only nation linking their state’s existence with religion and history. It is Israelis who suffered from expulsions, pogroms, massacres, and a Holocaust which has no parallel in human history. Despite these hardships, it was Israelis who formed their own state.

The threat of Iran-Hezbollah-Hamas endangers this unique "existence", word used three times by Netanyahu in his speech. Each time, "existence" referred not only to community but to Israeli institutions: “It is clear that any demand for resettling Palestinian refugees within Israel undermines Israel’s continued existence as the state of the Jewish people....On a matter so critical to the existence of Israel, we must first have our security needs addressed....Our people have already proven that we can do the impossible. Over the past 61 years, while constantly defending our existence, we have performed wonders.”

Netanyahu’s Investment in "Peace"

But how to deal with the issue that, while Netanyahu might have an emphasis on "security", others would be looking for "peace"?

In a speech where every word was selected carefully, “peace” was used on 43 occasions, 15 more times than Barack Obama invoked it in his Cairo speech. The word “war” was used seven times, once to highlight Israel’s success in the 1967 Six-Day War, six times to depict the ugliness of wars in general.

In addition, there were two references to the religion of the Torah and the prophet. This was to show one party in the conflict, Israelis, demanding peace not just in their political debates but also in their prayers. This religious commitment put forth Israel’s honesty when “the root of the conflict was, and remains, the refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own”. Israelis struggle for peace day and night while Arabs dismiss “the truth”.

Israel’s Pre-Conditions for A Two-State Solution under “The Road Map”

Netanyahu's headline statement, according to many in the Western media, was that he finally accepted "peace" through a two-state solution. However, the corollary of Netanyahu’s demand that Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish state is that Israelis will not accept the right of return of Palestinians who left their homes after 1948 war. His insistence, “The territory under Palestinian control must be demilitarized with ironclad security provisions for Israel,” means that Israel will control all borders, reserving the right to intervene, in the name of both Israeli and Palestinian securities, with forces surrounding the entire Palestinian territories. This may also include Israeli defense of Jewish settlements and some military outposts inside the West Bank.

When all this is taken into consideration, as well as Netanyahu’s declaration, “Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel,” it is clear that the Israeli Government’s demands are distant from the "two-state" conditions in United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338. In this case, the Road Map loses its meaning, even before parties agree on progress towards regional peace.

The Justifications of Preconditions

Netanyahu’s approach was a combination of religious belief and a “security” perspective to justify a position as necessary rather than illegitimate. He said:

The connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel has lasted for more than 3500 years. Judea and Samaria, the places where Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, David and Solomon, and Isaiah and Jeremiah lived, are not alien to us. This is the land of our forefathers.

This subtle move put a “history” of thousands of years above international law to establish the “unique” character of Israel. And it also ensured that the security perspective was not forgotten. Netanyahu set this up through a clear distinction between Israel, with its values and culture, and those who would always remain outside that ideal:

But we must also tell the truth in its entirety: within this homeland lives a large Palestinian community. We do not want to rule over them, we do not want to govern their lives, we do not want to impose either our flag or our culture on them.

And because Palestinians can never be part of the unique character, with its inherent "peace", security's conditions must be placed upon them from the outset of negotiations: 

Without these two conditions (the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and the demilitarization of the Palestinian state), there is a real danger that an armed Palestinian state would emerge that would become another terrorist base against the Jewish state, such as the one in Gaza… Without this, sooner or later, these territories will become another Hamastan. And that we cannot accept.

Once again, to give substance to the threat of the ideological-cultural outsider, Netanyahu invoked specific enemies, "In order to achieve peace, we must ensure that Palestinians will not be able to import missiles into their territory, to field an army, to close their airspace to us, or to make pacts with the likes of Hezbollah and Iran.”

The Future of Settlements

The problem for Netanyahu, entering this speech, is that all his definitions of a proper Israel and a potentially dangerous Palestine did not cover the in-between area: Israeli settlements on Palestinian land. Therefore, he began by trying to pull those settlements back into "Israel", not geographically but on a higher cultural ground:

The territorial question will be discussed as part of the final peace agreement. In the meantime, we have no intention of building new settlements or of expropriating additional land for existing settlements… But there is a need to enable the residents to live normal lives, to allow mothers and fathers to raise their children like families elsewhere. The settlers are neither the enemies of the people nor the enemies of peace. Rather, they are an integral part of our people, a principled, pioneering and Zionist public.

On a less exalted level, Netanyahu had said: No Freeze on Settlements (see the follow-up to the speech in Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's meeting with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Washington).

But, to return to Netanyahu's attempted higher plane of discussion, he never referred to "the West Bank".  Instead, he used "Judea and Samaria", the Biblical expression used for the West Bank, three times. Once more, an eternal religious invocation --- one which can only be claimed by Jewish people --- was deployed to keep open the issue of "legitimacy" in a disputed area.

Indeed, "Judaea and Samaria" provided the foundation for Netanyahu's claim of no connection between Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands and terrorist attacks:

Those who think that the continued enmity toward Israel is a product of our presence in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, is confusing cause and consequence… The attacks against us began in the 1920s. We evacuated every last inch of the Gaza strip, we uprooted tens of settlements and evicted thousands of Israelis from their homes, and in response, we received a hail of missiles on our cities, towns and children… The claim that territorial withdrawals will bring peace with the Palestinians, or at least advance peace, has up till now not stood the test of reality.

Putting the Burden on the Palestinian Authority

Netanyahu was clear, "The Palestinians must decide between the path of peace and the path of Hamas. The Palestinian Authority will have to establish the rule of law in Gaza and overcome Hamas.”

Given Netanyahu's refusal to make any concessions on the Israeli position, it is obvious that there can be no positive answer from the other side. The Palestinian Authority's leader Mahmoud Abbas dismissed Netanyahu’s speech as “sabotaging” peace efforts. Nemer Hammad, an advisor to Mahmoud Abbas said, "Netanyahu’s speech had not brought anything new."

Netanyahu and his Cabinet members knew that this would be the reaction. The speech was not meant to open negotations but to frame them in such a way that they could not be started. Why? The Israeli Prime Minister's strategy is to buy time and then, in more favourable political condition, returns to talks based on his agenda of the economic development of the West Bank. As he said in another part of his speech: “I call on the Arab countries to cooperate with the Palestinians and with us to advance an economic peace. An economic peace is not a substitute for a political peace, but an important element to achieving it.”

Almost two weeks have now passed since Netanyahu's speech, responding to President Obama's original plan for Israeli-Palestinian talks.  The Plan B of a wider engagement between the US and Iran in the region, alongside or awaiting those talks, is now comatose after turmoil in Tehran. A Plan C, based on an anti-Iran rhetoric as well as changed relations with countries like Syria, may come into play.

All this, however, is speculation beyond immediate significance: the Netanyahu effect --- blending security, Israeli exceptionalism, and religion --- has been to take Plan A off the table.

The Latest from Iran (25 June): The Sounds of Silence

The Iran Crisis (Day 14): What To Watch For Today

NEW Iran: A Tale of Two Twitterers
NEW Iran: A List of Those Killed and Detained (12-23 June)
NEW Iran: An Iranian Blogger on “The Beginning of the End”
The Latest from Iran (24 June): Afternoon Violence
Latest Video: Resistance and Violence (24 June)

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

2115 GMT: A slow evening, probably the slowest since the start of the crisis. There are still reports of "God is Great" from the Tehran rooftops but no evidence of significant public or private shifts.

Some activists are talking of a mass release of green balloons at 1 p.m. local time on Friday, which would be soon after the Supreme Leader has led the prayer service at Tehran University. The Iranian Government, however, continues to throw bureaucracy at the opposition; the Ministry of Interior has informed Mir Hossein Mousavi that a permit for a march will only be issued if one week's notice, in person, is given.

2000 GMT: The BBC has posted the video of its interview with the doctor who tried to save the life of Neda Agha Soltan.

1755 GMT: Presidential candidate Mohsen Rezaei, who apparently had switched sides in the battle with the withdrawal of his complaint over vote fraud, has tacked back today. He has said that the withdrawal of his petition to the Guardian Council is not a withdrawal of people's concerns about the Iranian system. He will pursue the issue of the system's cruelty to people until he "gets results".

1735 GMT: Self-proclaimed geopolitical wizard Thomas Barnett, who conjured an "arc of instability" to help rationalise the 2003 war in Iraq, comes out with this defense of "the devil you know" today: "Ahmadinejad, with his record — again, in Nixon-esque fashion — for doggedly hating the regime's avowed enemies (Israel and America), could likewise employ a Nixonian reversal under the right conditions."

So let me get this straight: instead of working with the Presidential candidate (Mousavi) who said just before the election that he thought the Iranian rhetoric on Israel had been too harsh and that he welcomed international negotiations over any Iranian consideration of a nuclear weapons programme, Barnett prefers that the US work with a President (Ahmadinejad) who has been unremittingly hostile on Israel, who has frustrated his own diplomats, and who has put forth the notion of "Western interference" to deal with issues over his re-election? Idiot.

Sorry, that is inappropriate.

Amoral idiot.

1725 GMT: Report that large number of anti-riot police and paramilitary Basiji are preventing people from stopping at the grave of Neda Agha Soltan.

1720 GMT: Correction: contrary to earlier report (1410 GMT), Seyed Alireza Beheshti, editor-in-chief of pro-Mousavi newspaper Kamaleh, has not been released from detention.

1635 GMT: Who Killed Neda? Javan newspaper, associated with Iran's Revolutionary Guard, has declared that the expelled BBC correspondent, Jon Leyne, hired a "member of the rabble" to shoot Neda Agha Soltan.

1615 GMT: Hezbollah towing the line. Agence France Press reports, "Lebanese militant group Hezbollah on Thursday accused the West of fomenting protests in Iran over this month's presidential election but added that it had no worries about the stability of its main foreign backer."

1525 GMT: We've received reliable information that prominent reformist politicians such as Abdollah Ramezanzadeh, a spokesperson for the Khatami Government, and Mostafa Tajzadeh, Deputy Interior Minister under Khatami, are under mounting pressure "to sign confessions and to appear on state controlled TV programs confessing to spectacular conspiracies against the national interests of Iran, in collaboration with foreign governments". Ramezanzadeh's wife yesterday conveyed her husband's message to the public to disregard any televised confessions that may be extracted from him or other leaders of reform in Iran.

1410 GMT: Report that Seyed Alireza Beheshti, the editor-in-chief of the pro-Mousavi newspaper Kalameh Sabz and the son of the late Ayatollah Beheshti (a key figure in the 1979 Revolution), has been released from detention. Also reported that 66 of the 70 faculty detained after their meeting with Mir Hossein Mousavi yesterday have been freed.

1330 GMT: Reports continue of clashes at Enqelab Square, with protesters setting a bus on fire and trying to push back riot police. Claims that tear gas has been used.

1215 GMT: Some demonstrators have tried to reach the site for today's protest, Vali-e Asr Street at Enqelab Square, but Iranian security forces are trying to block any assembly. Army helicopters are flying overhead.

1145 GMT: Fifteen minutes before today's demonstration was supposed to begin. Both CNN and Al Jazeera are now featuring the statement of Mehdi Karroubi's Etemad Melli Party calling off the memorial march: "Despite all the efforts exerted by the sheikh of reforms [Karroubi] to prepare a site for the mourning ceremony, the ceremony will not take place on Thursday."

1130 GMT: News services are picking up on the latest statement of Mir Hossein Mousavi, posted on his website. He calls on supporters to continue demonstrating but to show restraint. He blames those who rigged the election for the violence and bloodshed. Perhaps most significantly, in looking for clues to future political manoeuvres, Mousavi says his access to others is "highly restricted" and he is under pressure to abandon his demand for an annulment of the election.

1100 GMT: The Effects of the Crisis. Iran's position in Afghanistan may be one of the casualties of the current conflict. CNN's Atia Abawi reports, "Drove by a big poster of Neda in Kabul, across from Iranian Embassy. Pic[ture] of her death and Afghan TV crews interviewing people. Poster of Neda was larger than most presidential campaign posters in the city."

0950 GMT: Tantalising (unconfirmed) story of the morning: "Ali Larijani was threatened [with] impeachment by Ahmadinejad supporters in parliament. Hoseinian,Tehrani, and Resai threatened Larijani [with] censure. Previously Larijani said that its not fair the GC [Guardian Council] supports a candidate [Ahmadinejad]."

0830 GMT: The story, which we noted yesterday, that 70 faculty members were detained after meeting Presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi is now circulating in the mainstream press.

0825 GMT: Ayatollah Montazeri, the one-time successor to Ayatollah Khomeini, has sent a fax to Agence France Presse, warning, "If Iranians cannot talk about their legitimate rights at peaceful gatherings and are instead suppressed, complexities will build up which could possibly uproot the foundations of the government, no matter how powerful." He urged the Iranian Government to set up an "impartial" committee with full power to find a solution to the election crisis.

0815 GMT: He Speaks. Via Fars News Agency, President Ahmadinejad has put himself back in the political arena, blasting Barack Obama for interference in Iranian affairs.

0700 GMT: On the BBC' flagship radio programme, Today, Jeremy Bowen has focused on the news --- which we noted yesterday --- that more than 180 of the 290 members of Parliament invited to President Ahmadinejad's "victory party" did not attend.

0600 GMT: A message on Presidential candidate Mehdi Karroubi's website clarifies the postponement of today's march (see 0500 GMT). A spokesman says the memorial to those killed has been delayed by a week.

Iran: New Technology, New Protest, New System?

The Latest from Iran (24 June): Peering Through the Clouds
LATEST Video: The “Neda” Protests (20-23 June)
Twittering Iran: What the “New Media” Means for Politics, Protest, and Democracy

Dr Colette Mazzucelli, who has written for our partner website Libertas, joins Enduring America to offer her thoughts on the possibilities and challenges of new technology in the current political crisis in Iran:

The aftermath of the Islamic Republic’s national elections are a testament to the will of a people to protest in unprecedented ways against the results of the June 12 vote. The reform movement has gathered momentum to demonstrate the widespread use of new technologies, cell phones, Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and video imaging uploaded to the Web, as it voices popular opposition to the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In the last week, this mass revolt has evolved into a direct confrontation with the rule of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei; the nationalist argument that dissent is fomented by the interference of foreign powers fails to impress the protesters. Although the state ban on reporting by the Western media continues, citizen reporting of a brutal crackdown by pro-government militia, the Baseej, and the police provides a moment to moment chronicle of events.

Thus, the world bears witness to a loss of legitimacy in a theocratic regime that is neither republican nor respectful of human life.

Those Iranians who voted for the reformist challenger, Mir Hossein Mousavi, made the brave choice to lay down their lives for the right to be heard in peace without fear of retribution. The clerical leadership, whose grip on power is tightening, relies increasingly on the militarization of the regime in its attempts to quash popular grievances and to deny millions of Iranians the right to channel their dissent in peaceful ways. Will the Islamic Republic, legitimated by the 1979 Revolution, use this crackdown to deny the Iranian people their human right of expression, which is the popular hope for the future of the women and youth across the country? Or will another revolution spring in time from the right of Iranians in a republic to choose their leaders?

The outside world continues to rely on the images, the quotes, the accounts coming from Iranians in the midst of civil violence. In a week, their movement evolved well beyond a contested election within an accepted regime. The Supreme Leader’s edict at Friday prayers on June 19 stating that the election results were a “definitive victory” for Ahmadinejad unleashed a furor that crossed sacred red lines in the system. Observers arguing that the elections reveal the potential to open the system to democratic forces cite rising aspirations of key groups: the two-thirds of Iran’s population that is under 30 years of age and the university-educated women. These groups dominate a growing movement on the streets of Tehran and other smaller cities.

Since the 1979 Revolution, different governments have left their mark on the revolutionary Islamic Republic’s regime. Under Ahmadinejad, observers witnessed the progressive and systematic undermining of republican government. Institutions, which, in a republic should be responsible to break up government information monopolies, are under state control. Professional journalists inside the country are the victims of brutal repression. Public forums online, which normally allow a variety of ideas to challenge erroneous argumentation, are subject to deliberate interruption.

It is that Ahmadinejad effort to curb public space and responsibity that is now challenged by the reaction to the attempts to use the Presidential vote to propagate the myth of legitimacy. Even the Supreme Leader is now open to criticism from the segment of the population led by the protesters. The demonstrations have also exposed fissures within the clerical elite.

There is not yet a call for regime change, but will the crowds of protesters grow in size if Ahmadinejad is sworn in next month? In his campaign, Presidential challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi was able to tap into the frustrations of highly educated youth and a population where the elimination of illiteracy led to rising expectations. Their future is bleak in an economy that faces double-digit unemployment and high inflation.

It is here that the new media technologies come into play. In a vibrant marketplace of ideas, individuals must be exposed to diverse ways of thinking. A segmented marketplace, defined by scholars such as Snyder and Ballentine, is characterized by blockages that prevent the exposure of individuals in one market segment to ideas expressed in others.

On the surface, that segmentation can reinforce a system, as it seals off much of the population from troublesome political, economic, and social challenges or filters (and thus distorts) ideas until they are "acceptable". However, the segmentation can also leave areas open to capture by partisan segments. In the last two weeks in Iran, the media inside the country has not been able to compete with the amateur reporting of the citizens on the streets who use Twitter to provide real-time accounts of civil unrest. Their voices define a public space separate from state control.

The audacious and extraordinary use by the Iranian population of social networking tools and new media is a call to explore ingenious ways that America, in concert with Europe and other countries, can use public diplomacy to demonstrate solidarity with the people in Iran. Intervention in the classical sense is not an option. The Iranian people must decide their own fate without the interference of foreign powers.

At the same time, the brutal repression of the Iranian movement for reform is a striking illustration of “sovereignty as responsibility”, meaning that “sovereignty carries with it a responsibility on the part of governments to protect their citizens.” What are the international consequences of the failure, as in iran, to exercise that responsibility? In the aftermath of President Obama’s Cairo speech, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has the opportunity to forge a global coalition, which can weigh those consequences aand respond as events in Iran evolve.

It is difficult to ascertain, day to day, how widespread the popular defiance to the Supreme Leader is likely to be. In the absence of organized leadership, can this movement endure over the time period necessary to foment revolution? If challenges to the regime also emerge from the bazari or from the oil industry in the form of strikes that paralyze the economy, there could be changes in leadership. In Qom, an important center of Shiism, clerics are not unified behind President Ahmadinejad. Dissent among ruling conservatives is unlikely to subside in the wake of parliamentary speaker Ali Larijani’s statement about the election result, explaining that “a majority of people are of an opinion separate” from that of a minority.5

In his reference to the influence of outside powers, particularly Britain, the Supreme Leader spoke on behalf of the ultimate victor in the June 12 election, Iranian nationalism. Fundamentally, his address reiterated the myths which Ahmadinejad and his supporters in the Revolutionary Guard exploit to “overemphasize the cultural and historical distinctiveness of the national group, exaggerate the threat posed to the nation by other groups, ignore the degree to which the nation’s own actions provoked such threats, and play down the costs of seeking national goals through militant means". Inside the regime, the population is experiencing a militarization unprecedented in its 30-year history. The influence of the Baseej is particularly disturbing, given the wide latitude its members have to act beyond the rule of law. None of the horrific acts by these paramilitary forces to enforce the power of the state are condemned by the regime.

President Obama cited Martin Luther King in his recent statement: “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” The world must bear witness to what analyst David Gergen has termed a “Tiananmen Square unfolding in slow motion". New technologies can play a decisive role to prevent darkness from descending on the country.

In the last four four days, social networking tools have captured the fate of Neda, the name given to the young Iranian woman shot in the chest this weekend. As Robin Wright explains, Neda, which means “the divine calling,” has emerged as the symbol of a popular movement whose dynamics begin to resemble those of the 1979 Revolution. In the Shia country that is Iran, has the regime made her a martyr for the freedom its people die to achieve? Time will tell if those segments of Iranian society whose will to forge a democratic revolution is collectively anchored in the concern for people, not regimes.

Video and Transcript: Obama Press Conference (23 June)

The Latest from Iran (23 June): Preparing for Thursday

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

Two Iran-related clips from today's Presidential press conference, which we live-blogged earlier --- 1) Obama's opening statement and, on the jump page, 2) Obama's response to a set-up question from Nico Putney of The Huffington Post --- followed by the full transcript of the conference.:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h07wl7Kn1HM[/youtube]



[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLCZZucxLeM[/youtube]

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Hello, everybody.

Good afternoon, everybody. Today I want to start by addressing three issues, and then I'll take your questions.

First, I'd like to say a few words about the situation in Iran. The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, the beatings and imprisonments of the last few days. I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost.

I've made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran and is not interfering with Iran's affairs. But we must also bear witness to the courage and the dignity of the Iranian people and to a remarkable opening within Iranian society. And we deplore the violence against innocent civilians anywhere that it takes place.

The Iranian people are trying to have a debate about their future. Some in Iran -- some in the Iranian government, in particular -- are trying to avoid that debate by accusing the United States and others in the West of instigating protests over the election.

These accusations are patently false. They're an obvious attempt to distract people from what is truly taking place within Iran's borders. This tired strategy of using old tensions to scapegoat other countries won't work anymore in Iran. This is not about the United States or the West; this is about the people of Iran, and the future that they -- and only they -- will choose.

The Iranian people can speak for themselves. That's precisely what's happened in the last few days. In 2009, no iron fist is strong enough to shut off the world from bearing witness to peaceful protests of justice. Despite the Iranian government's efforts to expel journalists and isolate itself, powerful images and poignant words have made their way to us through cell phones and computers, and so we've watched what the Iranian people are doing.

This is what we've witnessed. We've seen the timeless dignity of tens of thousands Iranians marching in silence. We've seen people of all ages risk everything to insist that their votes are counted and that their voices heard. Above all, we've seen courageous women stand up to brutality and threats, and we've experienced the searing image of a woman bleeding to death on the streets. While this loss is raw and extraordinarily painful, we also know this: those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people have a universal right to assembly and free speech. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect those rights and heed the will of its own people. It must govern through consent, and not coercion. That's what Iran's own people are calling for, and the Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government.

Now the second issue I want to address is our ongoing effort to build a clean energy economy. This week, the House of Representatives is moving ahead on historic legislation that will transform the way we produce and use energy in America. This legislation will spark a clean energy transformation that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and confront the carbon pollution that threatens our planet.

This energy bill will create a set of incentives that will spur the development of new sources of energy, including wind, solar and geothermal power. It will also spur new energy savings, like efficient windows and other materials that reduce heating costs in the winter and cooling costs in the summer.

These incentives will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy.

And that will lead to the development of new technologies that lead to new industries that could create millions of new jobs in America -- jobs that can't be shipped overseas.

At a time of great fiscal challenges, this legislation is paid for by the polluters who currently emit the dangerous carbon emissions that contaminate the water we drink and pollute the air that we breathe. It also provides assistance to businesses and communities as they make the gradual transition to clean-energy technologies.

So I believe that this legislation is extraordinarily important for our country. It's taken great effort on the part of many over the course of the past several months. And I want to thank the chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Henry Waxman; his colleagues on that committee, including Congressmen Dingell, Ed Markey and Rick Boucher. I also want to thank Charlie Rangel, the chair of the Ways and Means Committee, and Collin Peterson, the chair of the Agricultural Committee, for their many and ongoing contributions to this process. And I want to express my appreciation to Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer for their leadership.

We all know why this is so important. The nation that leads in the creation of a clean-energy economy will be the nation that leads the 21st century's global economy. That's what this legislation seeks to achieve. It's a bill that will open the door to a better future for this nation, and that's why I urge members of Congress to come together and pass it.

The last issue I'd like to address is health care. Right now, Congress is debating various health-care reform proposals. This is obviously a complicated issue, but I am very optimistic about the progress that they're making.

Like energy, this is legislation that must and will be paid for. It will not add to our deficits over the next decade. We will find the money through savings and efficiencies within the health-care system -- some of which we've already announced. We will also ensure that the reform we pass brings down the crushing cost of health care. We simply can't have a system where we throw good money after bad habits.

We need to control the skyrocketing costs that are driving families, businesses and our government into greater and greater debt.

There's no doubt that we must preserve what's best about our health care system, and that means allowing Americans who like their doctors and their health-care plans to keep them. But unless we fix what's broken in our current system, everyone's health care will be in jeopardy.

Unless we act, premiums will climb higher, benefits will erode further, and the rolls of the uninsured will swell to include millions more Americans. Unless we act, one out of every five dollars that we earn will be spent on health care within a decade, and the amount our government spends on Medicare and Medicaid will eventually grow larger than what our government spends on everything else today.

When it comes to health care, the status quo is unsustainable and unacceptable. So reform's not a luxury, it's a necessity. And I hope the Congress will continue to make significant progress on this issue in the weeks ahead.

So let me open it up for questions. And I'll start with you, Jennifer.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Your administration has said that the offer to talk to Iran's leaders remains open. Can you say if that's still so, even with all the violence that has been committed by the government against the people, protesters. And if it is, is there any red line that your administration won't cross, where that offer will be shut off?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, obviously, what's happened in Iran is profound. And we're still waiting to see how it plays itself out. My position coming into this office has been that the United States has core national security interests in making sure that Iran doesn't possess a nuclear weapon and it stops exporting terrorism outside of its borders.

We have provided a path whereby Iran can reach out to the international community, engage, and become a part of international norms. It is up to them to make a decision as to whether they choose that path.

What we've been seeing over the last several days, the last couple of weeks, obviously is not encouraging in terms of the path that this regime may choose to take. And the fact that they are now in the midst of an extraordinary debate taking place in Iran, you know, may end up coloring how they respond to the international community as a whole.

We are going to monitor and see how this plays itself out before we make any judgments about how we proceed. But just to reiterate, there is a path available to Iran in which their sovereignty is respected, their traditions, their culture, their faith is respected, but one in which they are part of a larger community that has responsibilities and operates according to norms and international rules that are universal. We don't know how they're going to respond yet, and that's what we're waiting to see.

Q So should there be consequences for what's happened so far?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I think that the international community is, as I said before, bearing witness to what's taking place. And the Iranian government should understand that how they handle the dissent within their own country generated indigenously, internally from the Iranian people, will help shape the tone not only for Iran's future but also its relationship to other countries.

Since we're on Iran, I know Nico Pitney is here from Huffington Post.

Q Thank you, Mr. President.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Nico, I know that you, and all across the Internet, we've been seeing a lot of reports coming directly out of Iran. I know that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet. What -- do you have a question?

Q Yeah, I did, but I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian. We solicited questions last night from people who are still courageous enough to be communicating online, and one of them wanted to ask you this: Under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad? And if you do accept it without any significant changes in the conditions there, isn't that a betrayal of what the demonstrators there are working towards?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, look, we didn't have international observers on the ground. We can't say definitively what exactly happened at polling places throughout the country. What we know is that a sizable percentage of the Iranian people themselves, spanning Iranian society, consider this election illegitimate. It's not an isolated instance, a little grumbling here or there. There is significant questions about the legitimacy of the election.

And so, ultimately, the most important thing for the Iranian government to consider is legitimacy in the eyes of its own people, not in the eyes of the United States. And that's why I've been very clear, ultimately this is up to the Iranian people to decide who their leadership is going to be and the structure of their government.

What we can do is to say unequivocally that there are sets of international norms and principles about violence, about dealing with the -- peaceful dissent, that -- that spans cultures, spans borders.

And what we've been seeing over the Internet and what we've been seeing in news reports violates those norms and violates those principles. I think it is not too late for the Iranian government to recognize that there is a peaceful path that will lead to stability and legitimacy and prosperity for the Iranian people. We hope they take it.

Read rest of transcript....