The Latest from Iran (24 June): Persistence

2015 GMT: International Front. By the narrow margin of 99-0, the US Senate has approved a bill with sweeping sanctions --- far wider than the UN resolution that passed earlier this month --- on Iran's banking and energy sectors.

1545 GMT: Parliament v. President. Video has been posted of Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani's speech in the aftermath of the Basij/student demonstrations against the Majlis bill asserting control of Islamic Azad University.

NEW Iran Special: Mousavi, Karroubi, and the Strategy of “We Are Still Standing (for the Revolution)”
Iran Document: The Mousavi-Karroubi Meeting (23 June)
Iran Eyewitness: An “Army of Strollers” and Allah-o-Akbar on 12 June (Tehran Bureau)
The Latest from Iran (23 June): Baghi Freed

1510 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Student activist and Mousavi campaign worker Arash Sadeghi has been sentenced to six years in prison and 74 lashes.

Labour activist Mohammad Ashrafi has been arrested.

Student Sina Tahani, detained earlier this month for distributing Mousavi and Karroubi leaflets, has turned 18 in prison.

Photographs of filmmaker Mohammad Nourizad, released yesterday from detention, have been released.



1240 GMT: This Week's Political News --- Shutting Down the Reformists? An EA correspondent follows up the news, which we noted earlier this week, that Parliament has deferred the local elections for Tehran and other city councils until spring 2012.

The correspondent asserts, "Should the Guardian Council approve this, this would give time to the conservatives to rout the reformists, removing them completely from the political radar. I believe it to be an ominous sign regarding the attitude of the ruling clique towards the concept of electoral politics."

1230 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Fatemeh Shams, the wife of student activist Mohammad Reza Jalaeipour, has told Radio Farda, "In a short phone call [on 20 June, six days after his detention], he told his mother that he was being held in solitary [confinement], but when asked in which prison, he remained silent."

Shams added, "Two days before Mohammad Reza's arrest, I received threatening e-mails from a group called the Cyber Army of the Islamic Republic saying 'we'll arrest your husband.'" The same group sent her another threatening e-mail after her husband's arrest saying, "We'll make you return to Tehran."

Seyed Hossein Marashi, former member of Parliament, Vice President in the Khatami Administration, and brother–in-law of former President Hashemi Rafsanjani has given leave of absence from prison for a week. Marashi is serving one year in prison for propaganda  against the regime.

1225 GMT: Parliament v. President. Footage has emerged of the Basij/student demonstration in front of Parliament on Tuesday, protesting the Majlis bill maintaining control (and thus refusing to cede it to the President) over Islamic Azad University.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87ANAadXRwA&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]

0754 GMT: The Situation Abroad. Writing in Rooz, Kaveh Ghoreishi highlights, "Iranian Refugees In Iraq Face Uncertain Fate".

0750 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. RAHANA reports that 325 people were arrested during the month of Khordaad (May/June).

0730 GMT: We begin this morning with an analysis, "We Are Still Standing (for the Revolution) of Wednesday's statement by Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi.

Meanwhile....

Academic Corner

The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, with an interview with a student activist, highlights, "Summonses, Notices, and Dismissals at Qazvin International University".
Political Prisoner Watch

Fars News reports that the trial in Tehran Revolutionary Court of blogger Hossein Derakhshan has finally begun.

Derakhshan was arrested 19 months ago. He is accused of “cooperation with enemy states, propaganda against the Islamic regime, promoting anti-Revolutionary groups, insulting sanctities, launching and managing vulgar and obscene sites”.

Derakhshan was one of the first Iranian bloggers when he created “Editor: Myself.” He had settled in Canada but was detained when he returned to Iran in November 2008.

Where's Mahmoud?

For President Ahmadinejad, it is still eyes front-and-centre on the international front. He told an audience Wednesday, "The recent [United Nations sanctions] resolution against the Iranian nation was in fact a loud announcement of the fall of liberalism and humanism. Those who ratified the resolution are perfectly aware that it will have no impact."

Israel's Political/Military Alternative to Turkey: Romania?

On Wednesday, the Southeast European Cooperation Process (SEECP), meeting in Istanbul,  issued a joint declaration: "We deplore the loss of life and injuries during the incident in international waters", a reference to Israel's raid on the Freedom Flotilla on 31 May. The 13-member-organization also stated that it wants "an impartial, independent and internationally credible investigation on this matter".

The Turkish daily, Hurriyet, points out that there was no specific condemnation of Israel because of an objection by Romania. 

Gaza Latest: Is Egypt Going to Make a Stand Against Israel? (Yenidunya)

That is politically significant, but it may also have military implications. Officials in West Jerusalem have told journalists, "As Turkey no longer allows the Israel Air Force to train in Turkish airspace, maneuvers may in the future take place over Romania."

Afghanistan: The Politics Behind McChrystal's Removal --- and Why It's Bad for the War (Shahryar)

UPDATE 1245 GMT: Full credit to Josh Shahryar for nailing this in his analysis. CNN says, from a "senior Pentagon official", that "Defense Secretary Robert Gates backed keeping Gen. Stanley McChrystal on the job because he was vital to the war effort in Afghanistan, but he was overruled". --- WSL

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal is in charge no more. After two days of intense talks about his departure, he tendered his resignation as the man in charge of NATO troops in Afghanistan. President Barack Obama –-- angered by remarks about the White House and the US ambassador in Kabul made by the general and his aides to Rolling Stone magazine--- graciously accepted the resignation. He immediately Gen. David Petraeus, the architect of the US troop surge policy in Iraq in 2008 that likely salvaged the war there, in his stead.
Has a crisis been averted? Probably not.

Afghanistan/McChrystal Analysis: Hyperventilating Over the Tip, Missing the (Petraeus) Iceberg
Afghanistan/McChrystal Watch: Petraeus Takes Over
Afghanistan Revealed: US Hands Over Millions of $$…To “Warlords” (DeYoung)

Even though President Obama saved face and probably made small gains with the hawkish portion of the US electorate --- just in time for the November mid-term elections, I might add --– the decision will have dire consequences for Obama’s war plan in Afghanistan. The reason is quite simple; nothing was actually done in the past days to understand the reasons why Gen. McChrystal made his remarks or to address the issues.

The situation with McChrystal and the White House is a by-product of two distinct but interrelated issues. The first is Gen. McChrystal’s relationship with President Obama, the Commander-in-Chief. The second is his relationship with the US Ambassador to Afghanistan, Ret. Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, who was largely ignored in this fiasco by US media.

The first action that led to Wednesday's decision was the State Department's despatch of Eikenberry to Kabul in April of last year, two months before McChrystal’s appointment. Before his appointment, Eikenberry had served two terms in Afghanistan, commanding US and international troops. His last posting was as the Commander of the Combined Forces Command for 18 months before he stepped down in 2007.

McChrystal’s complaints about Eikenberry had some merit. During his tours in Afghanistan, Eikenberry’s role in the war was not appreciated, but in that time the Taliban got stronger and the insurgency spread further. And as a former commander of the same troops McChrystal was leading, it does not look like Eikenberry helped the new US commander very much. The clash was inevitable: McChrystal had an agenda, and Eikenberry’s presence in Kabul meant the general had to deal with someone with his own ideas and plans about Afghanistan.

McChrystal worked closely with the Afghan people. He took the war --- for the first time since the ouster of the Taliban –-- straight to the insurgency’s comfort zone. He carefully controlled the bombing of areas with high concentration of civilians. But most of all, he forged links with the Afghan government, which has had a sour relationship with President Obama since last year’s elections in Kabul. All of these strategies helped propel him in popularity within Afghanistan, as local actors looked set to help him accomplish his goals. It was not to be.

There’s an old saying in Urdu, “You cannot hang two swords in one scabbard.” Friction arose because Eikenberry was not as popular as McChrystal. Eikenberry was also a strong critic of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, with whom McChrystal was attempting to forge close ties to help fight the insurgency.

The second catalyst that brought McChrystal’s ouster was the President himself. Obama took an awful lot of time in deciding what to do in Afghanistan when he took office; the entire year of 2009 was wasted on crafting his war policy. By the time it was made public, winter had arrived and offensives against insurgents were impossible in snow-covered Afghan mountains.

Perhaps Obama wanted to study his options carefully. Maybe he had to focus on other issues. Whatever the reason, for a man of action like Gen. McChrystal, political considerations were not the main issue. He needed more troops to follow the US war plan. He only started getting them this spring. No general –-- especially not McChrystal, who’s known to resent civilian meddling in military matters –-- could escape frustration when faced with such a situation.

When McChrystal finally got troops, he had to figure out a way around Eikenberry’s meddling into what was supposed to be his operation. McChrystal may have been the most popular US general that has been put in charge of troops in Afghanistan. He may have led the offensive deep into Taliban heartland, forged close ties with the Afghan government and the people, and reduced civilian casualties dramatically. But he proved himself to be incompetent when it came to giving interviews to the media.

As word of McChrystal's imminent departure emerged and gathered strength, Afghan policians reacted by heaping praise upon him and pleading how important it was for the commander to stay in the country. Gen. McChrystal might have been forgiven for his Rolling Stone mistake had he not committed it just months before the November --- Defense Secretary Robert Gates seemed to have been open to the possibility of keeping him. President Obama’s political advisers, however, sided with a decision that would improve Obama’s image as a strong Commander-in-Chief and win him more votes. has welcomed his appointment. But the task of forming close ties with the Afghan government people to win a war –-- all in a year before US troops start departing Afghanistan in July 2011 --- looks impossible.

Would Obama look good if he kept someone who disrespected him so publically? Probably not. The President had to make a choice between a successful implementation of his war plan in Afghanistan and votes for the Democrats in November. He chose the latter.

However, the decision is likely going to backfirein Afghanistan once Gen. Petraeus steps into Afghanistan. He is the architect of the troop surge in the country, and the Afghan Government

Gen. McChrystal is not done. He’s around. He’ll be giving out more interviews and throwing some more mud on Obama and his political advisers, as well as Ambassador Eikenberry. So if Obama thinks he’s dodged the bullet by making a tough decision, he’s very wrong. The show’s only began, folks.

Iran Special: Mousavi, Karroubi, and the Strategy of "We Are Still Standing (for the Revolution)"

And so another statement, accompanied by a picture of the two men warmly greeting each other, from Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi.

The announcement followed the now established pattern of declarations from opposition figures.

1. Use current events to highlight the declining legitimacy of the Government, highlighting the attacks on key groups in the Islamic Republic

Iran Document: The Mousavi-Karroubi Meeting (23 June)

"No government or authority can remove the love of these guardians of the religion from the hearts of the believers by relying on a group of thugs."

In this case, Mousavi and Karroubi highlight the Government's campaign against marja (senior clerics). This month's verbal and physical assaults on the reputations and homes of Ayatollah Khomeini's grandson, Seyed Hassan Khomeini, Grand Ayatollah Sane'i, and the late Grand Ayatollah Montazeri are a solid platform for an appeal to the public which is lastly to last throughout the summer.

Doing so, Mousavi and Karroubi are claiming that they are defending the Islamic Republic, which is being torn down by a Government which should be upholding its values and Constitution. Some would-be analysts of Iranian politics argue that the opposition is "counter-revolutionary"; Mousavi and Karroubi point to the strategy that the opposition is still "revolutionary" in its pursuit of the goals of 1979. Equally important, they are pointedly noting that the Government is attacking figures, including Khomeini, who were and are "the Revolution".

2. Make a political move to get support from those who are not in the opposition

"Mehdi Karroubi and Mir Hossein Mousavi expressed their sorrow and concern for the weakening of the legislative branch....some don’t even respect the stature of this Parliament."

At one level, this is a continuation of the argument that the Government is attacking the institutions of the Islamic Republic and the defenders of the Revolution.

At another, however, it is a tactical approach to "conservatives" and even "principlists" within the system. The headline story in Iran at the moment is the running battle between Ahmadinejad and the Parliament over economic and social policy and institutions; this week's furour over the supervision of Islamic Azad University is only the latest symbol in the contest.

There is no chance that Ali Larijani, the Speaker of the Parliament, and Mousavi and Karroubi will ever be ideological brethren. But there is more than a chance that they could share the common goal of wanting to remove Ahmadinejad from power and change the approach of the Government to its relationship with the legislative and judicial branches.

3. Highlight basic civil rights

"Mehdi Karroubi and Mir Hossein Mousavi pointed out the government’s denying the people’s legal and legitimate request to hold a silent demonstration, while an organized group, in complete security, attacks whoever and wherever they want."

The reference to the anniversary of the election, 22 Khordad/12 June, is in part a defensive move by Mousavi and Karroubi, covering their decision not to proceed with a march in defiance of the Government's refusal to issue a permit.

At the same time, however, the approach is to highlight that the battle for civil rights is more than one occasion for demonstration. The references to "the current security trend and recent arrests... [and] the chaotic situation of the detention centres and prisons" brings Mousavi and Karroubi back to their fundamental challenge.

This is not a legitimate Government, for it does not guarantee and safeguard the rights must be part of the Revolution and its incarnation in the Islamic Republic: When Mousavi and Karroubi call on Iran's judiciary "to move toward restoring public rights and promoting justice and legitimate freedoms", they are both making another tactical approach to those in the "establishment" --- you do not have to bow down to this illegitimate President and his advisors --- and pointing to the heartbeat of civil rights within the opposition.

And this strategy is not separate from the 2009 election and "Where is My Vote?"; it is vitally linked to it. For how can Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sustain his cry of "24 million supported me" when that support is seen today in the refusal of dissent and the accumulation of political prisoners?

4. The Green Movement lives because the campaign for civil rights lives

"Mousavi and Karroubi once again emphasized othe rightful demands of the Green Movement and the role of promoting awareness and knowledge in the society about the assured rights and fundamental freedoms of all classes of the society."

This approach may not be enough for many in the opposition, inside and outside Iran. As the row over Nikahang Kowsar's cartoon on Mousavi and "Statement 3000" illustrated, Mousavi and Karroubi's approach may be seen as the unacceptable of the "gradual" or even a tacit resignation covered over by their words. The issue of whether they should have taken to the streets in June (and, in the case of Mousavi, for months before that) is still fresh.

Strategically, this latest statement remains vague on specific steps and demands. Indeed, the last clear declaration by Mousavi of those demands may be his statement at the start of January. And Mousavi and Karroubi's clear line of working within --- in fact, exalting --- the Islamic Republic will not be to the taste of those who want a greater revision or even sweeping away of the system.

At this point, however, Mousavi and Karroubi are working in an Iran where many activists have been imprisoned or have left the country, where the Government has tried to shut down communications beyond the most "reliable" of outlets, where the security forces are omni-present not only on possible dates for marches but in all aspects of Iranian life.

In that environment, the imperative may to be grabbing whatever space to declare: We are legitimate; the Government is not. We uphold the Republic; the Government does not. We believe in the rights and pursuit of discussion, dialogue, justice; the Government believes in the baton and the jail cell.

For better or worse, the immediate purpose of this statement could be: We are still standing.

Turkey Inside Line: The PKK Strikes and Ankara Blames European Countries

On Tuesday, Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) terrorists/guerillas bombed a bus carrying military personnel in Istanbul. Four soldiers and a 17-year-old girl were killed and 15 people were wounded.

Signs of support for Ankara came in different manners from different locations. A Turkish delegation went to Israel to collected the last four of 19 Heron unmanned planes. US State Department spokesman Philip Crowley said:

Turkey-Israel-US: Intelligence, Politics, and the Raid into Iraq

There has been no change in the level of U.S.-Turkey cooperation in confronting the PKK. The PKK is a foreign terrorist organization and presents a joint common threat to Turkey, to Iraq, and to the United States.

We offer our condolences to the families and friends of the victims. And this is expressly why we continue to cooperate fully with Turkey and understand Turkey's ongoing efforts to defeat the PKK.

On Wednesday, however, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan was targeting those whom he thought were not helping: European countries. During his speech at the 13-member Southeast European Cooperation Process (SEECP), Erdogan blamed them for not cooperating with Turkey in its "war on terror". He said that "Europe's security begins with Semdinli (a district located in Hakkari, southeast of Turkey)" and continued:

I still see some European countries not cutting the terrorist organization's financial support, turning a blind eye to its actions and propaganda, and not giving the murderers back; despite of all the pain.

How many of the terrorists you caught have been given back? There is an extradition of criminals agreement between us. To which of these did you conform? You always deferred this by talking us about the independence of judiciary. You did ot return them though we gave documents and information. That is why we are complaining.