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

Israel's "Gaza" and Egypt's Manoeuvres: Israeli officials have stated their concerns over a confrontation with a Gaza-bound Iranian ship if Egypt does not prevent the ship from passing through the Suez Canal.

Egyptian official Mohammad Abdelwahab responded that the ship would not be halted.

The immediate explanation? Egyptian authorities do want to carry the main responsibility for halting aid to Gaza, especially following the passage of  12 United Stateswarships and at least one Israeli ship from the Suez Canal towards the Red Sea on last Friday.

Gaza Latest: Israel Warns Iranian & Lebanese Flotillas; UN Calls for Lifting of Blockade

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on Wednesday accused Israel of trying to make Egypt carry the blame for the situation in Gaza. He said: "We reject attempts by Israel, the occupying force, to free itself of responsibility towards the strip and place it on Egypt."

There may be another reason for Cairo to give such a direct response to West Jerusalem. Last week, Hamas said that it would only accept the Egyptian initiative for Palestinian reconciliatoin if Cairo agreed to some changes. Egypt may be reading that statement not as defiance but as willingness of Hamas willing to negotiate over its relations with the rival party Fath.

There is a bigger question, however. Egypt's current manoeuvres follow years of acceptance of, even cooperation with, Israel's unwillingness to improve the situation of Gazans by lifting the economic siege. After all, it was not only Israeli crossings that were closed or restricted; there is also Egypt's border with Gaza at Rafah.

Is Mubarak really going to say now, "We are exerting all efforts to lift the Israeli blockade on Gaza"?

Iran and Russia: The State of the "Alliance" (Sanaei)

From Tabnak via Iran Review, which translated the interview:

TABNAK: Given the double standard applied by Russia to its diplomatic relations with various countries, especially its duplicity in relations with Iran and the United States, and also due to noncompliance of Russia with its commitments toward Iran, experts have both warned Moscow and called on the Iranian government to revise diplomatic relations with Russia.

This issue has been discussed with Dr. Mehdi Sanaei, professor of University of Tehran and member of Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, in the following interview.

Q: Recent measures taken by our northern neighbor have opened a new chapter in Iran-Russia relations. What is your opinion about present conditions?

A: Russia’s cooperation with Iran under present critical circumstances will not only serve as an important determinant of bilateral relations, but also influence future international equations.

Independent countries are growing in power and new players have entered international political scene. Therefore, the existing structure of the United Nations Security Council and international relations, which has led to dominance of a hegemonic system on the world, cannot provide solutions to all problems as that structure was suitable for conditions of past decades and is no good for a modern world. For example, crises in Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan cannot be solved within that framework. Many countries have owned up to this weakness and even the US President has stated that the United States will not tackle all international problems single-handedly as it is not able to solve all of them alone.

Therefore, five permanent members of the Security Council are not able to solve international issues on their own and they should not only respect the will of other countries, but also take advantage of their potentials in international relations. The recent Tehran meeting, which introduced Turkey and Brazil as new variables to Iran’s nuclear case, meant to tell the world that there are many independent players which are willing to do their part in international relations and the way should be paved for them. Russia is now at a crossroads. There are two eagles in the national symbol of Russia which connote that Russia simultaneously looks to the east and the west.

Russia owes its power to its position between east and west. Therefore, anytime looking to the west has dominated the Russian policy the country has forfeited part of its international political clout. Cooperation between Russia and Iran is a very determining factor for both countries’ policies and the Islamic Republic expects Russia to cooperate with it in international scene. On the other hand, those relations are also of high importance to Russia. There are two possible scenarios to be followed here. Firstly, the rift between independent countries and big powers will not widen anymore, but the big powers will accept to make structural changes to international system and avail themselves of potentialities of independent states in solving international problems. In this state, Russia’s friendly relations with Iran and the Muslim world will increase its weight in international power game. The second possibility is that the aforesaid rift will further widen in which case geo-strategic position and identity of Russia will not allow the country to become too inclined toward the west.

All in all, it is very important for Russia to act in a balanced way in its foreign relations and policy. Just in the same way that cooperation between Iran and Russia has promoted both countries’ positions in international scene, it can continue on the same track without being affected by various external factors. It is true that Russia’s relations with the European Union and the United States have changed and those countries are trying to attract Russia as a strategic partner to put pressure on Iran. Of course, pressures exerted on Russia by the Zionist and other internal lobbies should not be ignored. None of those factors, however, obviate the need for Russia to have friendly relations with Iran as it is to its own interest to have independent states on its side.

Q: Unfortunately, Iran has indicated its dependence on Russia and supported that country’s international positions and performance in an exaggerated way during recent years as a counterweight to the west. Don’t you think that such behavior has spoiled Russians prompting them to ignore their commitments toward Iran including commissioning of Bushehr nuclear power plant or delivery of S-300 missile system? They have also completely ignored Iran’s part in the legal regime of the Caspian Sea.

A: Like other countries, there is no doubt that Russia gives the highest priority to its own national interests. The Russians also want to have maximum level of relations with other states. This is also true about us. Two points should be born in mind here. Firstly, a win-win game should be defined in international relations by strengthening foreign policy leverages. Many Russia experts have noted that in its relations with Russia, Iran should take advantage of various leverages as well as regional and international issues. Part of the problem is rooted in our foreign policy apparatus. We should not make other countries think that we desperately need to work with them. Having more leverage to use under such circumstances will be of great help in this regard. Russia is a big country in the region and cooperation between Tehran and Moscow has been not only to the avail of both countries, but also beneficial to the settlement of international disputes.

Q: To what extent interactions with Russia have been a function of Iran’s maximum interests, not out of coercion?

A: Relations with Russia have been influenced by our foreign policy goals. Some anti-west politicians encourage Russian ties while others, opposed them as they damaged Iran’s relations with the west. Different viewpoints govern the two countries’ attitudes. The Russian foreign policy seeks to promote international standing of that country, which is also an objective for Iran’s foreign policy. However, Russian foreign policy is also pragmatic and interest-based and this has been frequently announced by the Russian foreign policymakers.

Perhaps, some ambiguity surrounding Iran’s relations with Russia stems from different perceptions which shape each side of this relationship. Here, some politicians still think that Russia is a superpower and see Moscow in the context of the Cold War. This is not true. Although Russia is still of great weight in international developments, its capacities are very limited. There has been another group which encourages relations with the west because it considers Russia a country riddled with domestic problems. This is also an erroneous analysis because Russia has banked on energy policy and taken various measures to improve its international standing during the past decade. Part of this ambiguity is, perhaps, the result of different perceptions in two countries. While relations with Russia have been considered strategic in Iran during the past decade, no Russian analyst has ever considered their country’s relations with Iran strategic.

Q: The History of Iran abounds with bitter memories of Russia including imposition of Turkmenchai and Golestan treaties on Iran which led to separation of peripheral lands. There is also bitter memory of Russia’s invasion of Iran during World War II. Don’t you think that existing conditions have once more elicited past memories. How Russia will suffer after losing a strategic ally?

A: Given the importance of bilateral relations and Iranian’s mentality of past relations with Russia and in view of future international political equations, Russia is expected to speed up implementation of projects it has undertaken in Iran in order to build confidence. Relations between two countries are of critical importance and it is needed for the sake of confidence building that Russia complete Bushehr nuclear power plant as soon as possible and have no doubt about delivery of S-300 missile defense system since the related contract has been already signed. In nuclear case, it should not leave Iran and independent countries alone and while maintaining relations with both sides, it should use its influence for peaceful settlement of this issue.

Q: Since Russia and the west have reached an agreement on economic issues, do you think that such a will exists in Russia?

A: I hope so. Not only due to importance of bilateral relations, but careful study of forthcoming international developments also dictates that Russia will need to have Iran on its side.

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

From the Facebook page supporting Mir Hossein Mousavi:

In today’s joint meeting Mehdi Karroubi and Mir Hossein Mousavi emphasized on the following issues:

Emphasize the respect for Marja (Grand Ayatollahs) and their high stature in Shi’a:Mehdi Karroubi and Mir Hossein Mousavi pointed out the history of Shi’a [religion] since Imam Mahdi’s (Shi’a's hidden Imam) absence and the establishment of the religious scholars. They considered Marja as one of the most important foundations of the society; Shi’as have respected this for centuries and have never allowed and will not allow any person or group to insult the stature of Marja.

They emphasized that 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, and therefore they condemned the premeditated unprecedented insult and offence of a group sponsored by the government and their illegal entering to the house of Grand Ayatollah Sane'i and destroying the properties in his office as well as the house of late Grand Ayatollah Montazeri.

They also considered repeated insults made by a group of newspapers affiliated with the authorities against the great Marajeh of Shi’a and their attempts to destroy and weaken the stature of Marja as the basis for these events. After the attack on the houses of Marajeh and insult against the grandson of Imam Khomeini (founder of the Islamic Republic), the judiciary, instead of prosecuting the attackers, shut down the office of late Grand Ayatollah Montazeri. This offered harmony between these foot soldiers (thugs) and some of the authorities for attacking the stature of Marajeh.

Weakening the stature of the Parliament is cause for concern and sorrow: Mehdi Karroubi and Mir Hossein Mousavi expressed their sorrow and concern for the weakening of the legislative branch [by the Government], which started by making an excuse out of the bequeathing of Azad University to charity. They emphasized that, according to the Constitution, the legislative branch acts via the Parliament and this Parliament approves laws for all public affairs as asserted by the Constitution.

However, some don’t even respect the stature of this Parliament. The criteria of who can elect and who can be elected have not been followed (because of the role of the Guardian Council, whose members are openly supporters of this Government and appointed by the Supreme Leader, which decides and pre-approves who can go on the ballot and oversees the elections).

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. Karroubi and Mousavi emphasised that it is necessary that everyone stands against these kinds of actions that diminish the stature of the legislative branch and the ability of the members of the Parliamentand that they don’t allow those fleeing from the law to achieve their illegitimate goals with these kinds of methods.

They also emphasized that, if using goons and aggressors becomes the inauspicious norm, there will be no dignity for any person or entity....Today, not only the people and those objecting to the fraud in the election are under attack by these shameful behaviours, but also the family of Imam Khomeini and the respected Marja of Shi’a. Even the Parliament are not immune.

The inconsiderate remarks by the administration and its costs for our national interest: Mousavi and Karroubi parties not only considered these remarks in conflict with rich and ancient culture of Islamic Iran but also recognized them as causes for moral and material damages to the country in the international arena, endangering national interests. Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi karroubi...expressed hope that in today’s special situation the authorities, instead of creating tensions, act to resolve the country’s important economic, social, and international problems by using capabilities in different fields.

Condemning recent arrests: The current security trend and recent arrests, especially the arrests of a number of outstanding and elite students of the country. were discussed, and both men pointed to the chaotic situation of the detention centres and prisons which have imposed hard conditions on country’s political prisoners. They called this trend a contradiction to the country’s rules and regulations.

Mousavi and Karroubi also called on judicial authorities to take action in accordance with the inherent duties of that branch to be a defender of the individual and social rights, to be responsible for establishing justice, to move toward restoring public rights and promoting justice and legitimate freedoms, to act accordingly. By hearing the words of the political prisoners, the judiciary should lay grounds for their unconditional release.

Efforts for promoting awareness about the fundamental rights and freedoms, especially among various unions and groups: At the end of this joint meeting, both men 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.They called on all groups, especially unions, to make efforts to raise awareness among the various layers of the society about their rightful and legitimate demands.

The Latest from Iran (23 June): Baghi Freed

2010 GMT: We've posted the English text of this morning's meeting between Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi. Analysis is likely to follow tomorrow.

1815 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Documentary filmmaker Mohammad Ali Shirzadi has been released from detention. He leaves prison on the same day as Emad Baghi, whom he served as cameraman during the journalist's interview with Grand Ayatollah Montazeri (for which Baghi was allegedly arrested).

NEW Iran Document: The Mousavi-Karroubi Meeting (23 June)
NEW Iran Eyewitness: An “Army of Strollers” and Allah-o-Akbar on 12 June (Tehran Bureau)
Iran’s Revolutionary Guard & the US: Oil Spills Are Thicker than Hostility?
Iran: To Lead or to Follow? 4 Cartoons on Mousavi and the Greens
The Latest from Iran (22 June): Rumbling On

1630 GMT: Mousavi-Karroubi Meeting. The Facebook page supporting Mir Hossein Mousavi has posted a Persian summary of this morning's discussion.

1340 GMT: Today's Nuclear Posture. Ali Akbar Salehi, head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, has declared, "We have already produced 17 kg of 20 percent enriched uranium, and we have the ability to produce 5 kg each month but we do not rush."

Salehi said in February that the Tehran medical reactor required around 1.5 kg of fuel per month. By early April Iran had produced 5.7 kg, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

1240 GMT: Mousavi & Karroubi Meet (and Even Bigger News --- Baghi is Free). Apologies for limited service because of academic business. Let's catch up....

The first item to note is one that might turn the day. Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi have met this morning to discuss plans.

But, for the moment and while we await further information, let's dwell on this information: journalist Emaduddin Baghi (pictured after his release) has been freed after six months in detention. According to his website, Baghi posted a $200,000 bail and is facing trial on 3 July.

1120 GMT: Economic Front. Central Bank Governor Mahmoud Bahmani has announced that Iran has doubled the denomination of its highest banknote to 100,000 rials (10,000 tomans or about $10).

The move has prompted speculation that it is due to inflationary pressures in Iran. The Iranian Government claims that the annual rise in prices is about 10 percent, though some analysts think the actual figure may be much higher.

0845 GMT: After a  series of clashes within the "establishment", a slow start to Wednesday. There is still chatter about the Parliament v. President dispute over control of Iran's largest university, as well as the fight over economic policy. Given Ali Larijani's defiant position on Tuesday, including a speech to the Majlis rejecting any interference --- except for the supervision of the Guardian Council --- with legislation, it looks like the ball is back in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's court.

On the opposition side, we are looking for any follow-up to Mohammad Khatami's Tuesday statement. On the surface, the speech maintained pressure on the Government through the criticism of attacks on senior clerics and tried to sustain the spirit of resistance with the invocation of freedom and civil rights.

Meanwhile...

Political Prisoner Watch

Rah-e-Sabz claims that all leave for political prisoners has been suspended.

The website also says that student leader Majid Tavakoli and six other prisoners have been transferred to the "high-security" Section 350 of Evin Prison.

International Front

Contradicting earlier reports, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said that Islamabad would not suspend a deal with Tehran to construct a gas pipeline by 2014, despite pressure from US officials.

Walking a careful line, Gilani said Pakistan would reconsider the deal if it violated U.N. sanctions, but the country was "not bound to follow" unilateral U.S. measures. He said media reports claiming, from Gilani's statements, that Pakistan would heed the warning of President Obama's envoy Richard Holbrooke were incorrect.

Meanwhile, Iranian state media is playing up the meeting of the Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, Saeed Jalili, with Syrian Vice-President Farouq ash-Shara. Not many details on specific topics, however, beyond "the latest international and regional developments".

Afghanistan/McChrystal Watch: Petraeus Takes Over

1805 GMT: The official line, now reinforced by a McChrystal e-mail to press outlets, is that he resigned and was not fired.

1800 GMT: Two thoughts. 1) From the frying pan to the fire: David Petraeus is just as hostile as Stanley McChrystal to Obama's declared intention to withdraw troops by July 2011. 2) Who takes over Central Command and become Petraeus' military boss?

1751 GMT: Obama says, "It was a difficult decision I made today. Indeed it saddens me to lose the service of a soldier whom I have come to respect and admire." But this decision was necessary "for the strength of our military and our nation".

And with that Obama exits, taking no questions.

NEW Afghanistan/McChrystal Analysis: Hyperventilating Over the Tip, Missing the (Petraeus) Iceberg
NEW Afghanistan Revealed: US Hands Over Millions of $$…To “Warlords” (DeYoung)
Afghanistan Special: McChrystal and the Trashing of the President (US Military v. Obama, Chapter 472)
Afghanistan Document: The McChrystal Profile (Hastings — Rolling Stone)

1750 GMT: Obama is flanked during the statement by Vice President Biden --- one of the targets of the McChrystal teams in the Rolling Stone interview ("Vice President Bite Me") --- and General Petraeus.

Obama is now on the section of the statement on how super-fantastic Petraeus is.

1749 GMT: Obama now reinforcing his play for support by stressing decision was necessary because of responsibility to troops and demand to defeat Al Qa'eda: "Our nation is at war. We face a very tough fight in Afghanistan....We are going to break the Taliban's momentum. We are going to rebuild Afghanistan."

1743 GMT: Obama begins his statement. Have accepted McChrystal resignation with "regret" but "with certainty" that is right thing to do for US troops and war effort.

Obama stresses that decision not because of any difference on policy with McChrystal or "any sense of personal insult". He expresses "great admiration" for McChrystal and his service in Iraq and Afghanistan as "one of America's finest soldiers".

But "war is bigger than one man or woman", and "this is right decision to make". McChrystal's conduct in Rolling Stone interview "did not meet the standard that should be set by a commanding general. It undermines the civilian control of the military, the core of our democratic system, and it erodes the trust that is necessary for our team to work together to achieve our objectives in Afghanistan."

1725 GMT: CNN and Associated Press are reporting from sources that General David Petraeus, currently the head of Central Command, will take over the Afghanistan command from General McChrystal. This follows earlier leaks to CNN and NBC that Obama would "fire" McChrystal, who met the President for 30 minutes this morning but left the White House and did not attend a strategy meeting on Afghanistan.

That is pretty stunning, not because McChrystal is out but because Petraeus is effectively demoting himself from moving from Central Command --- where he is currently McChrystal's boss --- to the Afghanistan role.

Obama is making a statement within the next few minutes.

1430 GMT: The meeting between President Obama and General McChrystal, which lasted about 30 minutes, has concluded. The Afghanistan strategy meeting at the White House is at 1535 GMT --- will the general return for the discussion?

1325 GMT: Getting to the Important Point. A prominent activist ponders, "If McChrystal f**** up public outreach to Americans this often, how is he going to win hearts and minds of Afghans?"

1320 GMT: The Hot Tip? A "senior a

dministration official" has told CNN that the White House has asked the Pentagon to make a list of possible replacements for McChrystal.

1305 GMT: Beyond the Drama. A couple of commentaries to note, alongside our analysis this morning, that usefully note the policy issues beyond the McChrystal "crisis". Matthew Yglesias, drawing from his colleague Max Bergmann, writes:

The military can easily continue to pursue a McChrystal-style strategy on both the Afghan and US media fronts under different leadership. The more important question facing the White House is how they feel about that. A determined president will always prevail over the opinions of generals, but the political costs of attempting to do so can be quite high since military officials have a lot of prestige in American society.

(My caveat is the question as to whether Obama has ever --- when the crunch came --- been "determined [enough to]...prevail over the opinions of generals.")

And Juan Cole puts the challenge --- that will remain long after the Rolling Stone gathers moss --- to the President:

Obama needs to define an attainable goal in Afghanistan and then execute it swiftly. As it is, when he is pressed about what in the world we are doing there, he retreats into Bushisms: “So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That’s the goal that must be achieved.”

Well that isn’t a good enough reason to be in Afghanistan. There is no al-Qaeda to speak of in Afghanistan. And although insurgents and Taliban probably control about 20 percent of the country, they have not let al-Qaeda set up shop in their territory.

1255 GMT: On Day 2 of the Great McChrystal Balls-Up (with the reminder that we've posted the important story --- the US military v. Obama --- beyond the media noise), here's the latest....

General Stanley McChrystal, after his recall to Washington over his profile in Rolling Stone magazine, is now in the Pentagon for discussions before his meeting at the White House with President Obama. On the way into the building, he denied rumours --- spread by Joe Klein of Time magazine and picked up by other outlets from CBS News to Britain's Daily Telegraph --- that he had offered his resignation.

McChrystal told reporters, ""Come on, you know better than that.  No!"