Iran: The Green Movement and "Moral Capital" (Jahanbegloo)

Professor Ramin Jahanbegloo, based in Canada, talks with Radio Farda:

Mr. Jahanbegloo, during the past year, Iran's name has been associated with a new term: the "Green Movement." I know that you have been working on the Iranian movement for the past couple of months. Are there any particular characteristics that you find significant in this movement?

Well, I think what happened in Iran during the past months has introduced two principal characteristic in terms of the movement's image, both for the Iranians and worldwide. One is the aspect of "truth seeking" or, in other words, the notion of reevaluating the truth, which is very important. The other aspect is avoiding violence.

The reason that I brought up the notion of truth seeking is that, in my opinion, the main players of Iran's civil society—which would be students' movement, women's movement, labor activists, rights activists and so on—have set their objectives in combating the immoral policies of falsehood. And this is being done in an approach which deploys a nonviolent method. The aspect of combating falsehood and lie is very interesting, and in my opinion it marks the birth of a new civil maturity in Iran. This is what I call "moral capital." Up to this moment we have been talking about the social and political capitals. But now what I see in Iran is a moral value which eventually, with the current nonviolent approach, would be able to build the future democracy of the country.

So do you think that the Green Movement has the elements of a stable and long-lasting movement?



I do believe this is a long-lasting movement. Why? Because the demands it is seeking are long-lasting demands. During the past 100 years, since [Iran's] constitutional revolution at the beginning of the century, political figures and parties have always looked at violence as a vertical phenomenon, meaning that it is applied from the upper layers of power hierarchy to the base of the society—which is people. Therefore they have always tried to challenge the violence, through toppling the regime or the core of power through what we might call "retribution in kind." Whereas the current civil movement in Iran, which of course is still being developed, casts doubt over violent methods of power transition and sticks to the civil rights movement. This approach has called into question the legitimacy of the very essence of violence. From this perspective I think that the recent movement of Iran has created a sort of moral and civil code which is unprecedented for the country.

Mr. Jahanbegloo, you said you believe that the Iranian people have achieved a "civil maturity." This was actually one of the issues that I wanted to discuss as well. Can we consider the recent movement as a new stage of social evolution, or is it just a short-term reaction to the actions of the government?

See, reactions have always been there. Through Iran's history of both pre-revolution [1979] and post-revolution eras, we have observed a wide range of reactions to the repressive policies of governments. But this time there is another story; it is not just the matter of reacting. This time, you can see a sense of sympathy for moralities, a sense of general solidarity, and new demands which are aroused not only about the current policies, but the very ethics of the politics as well. The range of protests includes denouncing the issue of falsehood and the whole "technology of power." You can trace them in the nature of the slogans which are being chanted. Apart from the moral capital that I mentioned previously, the other serious matter which is being pursued is a sense of responsibility about the future of Iran. And the important point is that the civil society is not expressing these demands in an ideological fashion; they are pursuing the goals in the shape of a civil movement, and through civil protest methods. I believe that it is a very serious movement, and a promising one, too.

Now let's focus a little more on the mechanism of this movement. Many people, including yourself, have considered the Green Movement as a nonviolent movement. According to your studies and researches, what similarities are there between Iran's events and what happened in Eastern Europe, or India for instance?

In my opinion there are a lot of similarities. The thing is that all the nonviolent protests across the world benefit from an old tradition which is rooted similarly in different cultures and religions throughout history. We can even see a lot of similarities between the civil rights movement in the U.S. during the 60s or the Gandhist movement of India with the current movement of the Iranian people. There are similarities in the mechanism of protesting, the involvement of national cultural aspects, and the restraint they show in the face of violence. You can even find a lot of similarities between Iran's movement and the movement of Philippines, which apparently are from very diverse cultural backgrounds. The point is that it's a global essence. When in a society the political power utilizes pressure and force in order to curb people's rights, the citizens who do not possess an equal power, choose to react in a totally different manner, which is protesting in masses and denouncing the violence.

That leads me to the next question; there have been different governmental reactions to different nonviolent movements around the world. The response of the Islamic Republic to Iran's protests might be among the harshest that we have seen so far. Now, why has this violence not led to radicalization of the Green Movement?

Because in my opinion Iran is going through a "post ideological" period, a period in which many of the past ideological leaders and parties have now been denounced by the people for the violence that they have applied. Now it's the parties and groups which are following people. They cannot tell people to accept or follow their ideologies like before. The heroes of today's Iran are civilians and victims like Neda Agha Soltan, not the political elite. This is a new social and political development. The moral legitimacy that these heroes have established in the country is a kind of moral capital that Iran's civil movement had not experienced before.

I also wanted to ask your opinion about the issue of leadership in this movement. So far it seems that Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi have been acting more like opposition candidates than leaders of a movement. For instance, most of the gatherings and demonstrations have been organized by people communicating through social media and not by any invitation from the opposition. Now, do you think this kind of people's collective leadership is a positive point, or would it be better if the movement had a classic leadership?

I think the aspect of being self-esteemed should be considered as an advantage for the movement at this point. Of course maybe if the movement had the capacity of ascending a leader such as Mandela or Gandhi, it could be an important inspiration for its followers. But the point is that this movement is a post-charismatic movement, which is something quite new for Iran. Almost all of the movements during the history of the country have been dependant on a charismatic character, but this time what you see as the symbols of the movement are the members if it—ordinary members who are young, innocent and nonviolent. kids like Mohsen Roohol Amini or Neda Agha Soltan, who have been victims of brutality, while all they wanted was truthfulness and respecting the ethics of democracy. For instance, it was very interesting to hear the remarks of that young boy who said he was raped in the prison [by security guards, after he was arrested during the protests]. He said, although, after divulging what happened, he would be ashamed of going back to his family, he still wants everyone to know what he went through in Kahrizak [detention center in Tehran]. This notion of seeking the truth among young protesters is very much interesting for me. Their passion for fighting the falsehood is so intense that they are willing to break any taboo over it. You see, the issue for them is not just a shift of power anymore; it is condemnation of the violence which has gotten solidified in the society. They want to break out of the vicious circle of violence. I think if we closely study such details, we would reach the assumption that we are walking towards a new phase of the civil society.

And do you believe this new path would lead to any result in future?

Yes, I think that it would succeed if it turns into a sort of social and political behavior, if the civil values take stronger roots in the society, and if the movement keeps human rights as its priority. Such capabilities can sustain the existence of the movement and step-by-step broaden the demands. Of course the most vital condition is that it would not turn into an ideological path, and stay nonviolent.

Afghanistan Report: Losing Hearts and Minds (Mercille)

Our colleague Julien Mercille from University College Dublin writes for Asia Times Online:

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is losing hearts and minds in Afghanistan, according to a report by the International Council on Security and Development (ICOS) that gives a clear signal of the dangers of the military operation against Kandahar planned for this summer.

Contrary to its stated objectives of protecting the population from insurgents, NATO is actually raising the likelihood that poor Afghans will join the Taliban - not a great report card for General Stanley McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, whose strategies seem to be backfiring.

Afghanistan Analysis: The Growth of the “Taliban Zone” (Porter)

The report, entitled Operation Moshtarak: Lessons Learned [1], is based on interviews conducted last month with over 400 Afghan men from Marjah, Lashkar Gah and Kandahar to investigate their views on the military operation to drive out the Taliban, launched in February in Helmand province, and its aftermath.


It corroborates previous assessments, such as one from the Pentagon released last week which concluded that popular support for the insurgency in the Pashtun south had increased over the past few months. Not one of the 92 districts that are deemed key to NATO operations supported the government, whereas the number of those sympathetic to or supporting the insurgency increased to 48 in March, from 33 in December 2009. [2]

There is no doubt Operation Moshtarak has upset Afghans: 61% of those interviewed said they now feel more negative about NATO forces than before the offensive. This plays into the insurgents hands, as 95% of respondents said they believed more young Afghans are now joining the Taliban. In addition, 67% said they do not support a strong NATO-ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) presence in their province and 71% said they just wanted foreign troops to leave Afghanistan entirely. Locals don't have much confidence in NATO "clearing and holding" the area, as 59% thought the Taliban would return to Marjah once the dust settled, and in any case, 67% didn't believe NATO and the Afghan security forces could defeat the Taliban.

The anger is easy enough to understand. Whereas aid agencies and human rights groups have estimated the number of civilian killed during Operation Moshtarak at fewer than 50, the great majority of respondents believe the toll to be about 200, or roughly a third of the number of insurgents killed; a "collateral damage" clearly too high to "win hearts and minds" - if such damage can ever be justified at all. Moreover, the operation against Marjah displaced about 30,000 people, many forced into refugee camps nearby with inadequate food, medical services or shelter. Such camps are good recruitment sites for the Taliban.

Locals say the main reason why their young men join the Taliban is for the job or money it provides, even if they don't necessarily share the leaders' ideological convictions. Indeed, the majority of those who join the ranks of the insurgency are often unemployed and disenfranchised. One solution could therefore be to spend more funds on reconstruction and development to generate employment. But this has never been a NATO priority: the US alone has spent US$227 billion on military operations in Afghanistan since 2001, while international donors together have spent less than 10% of that amount on development aid.

To make things worse, NATO seeks to eliminate the drugs industry, which makes up about 30% of the country's total economy, often the best source of income for poor farmers. According to the ICOS report, eradication was opposed by 66% of those interviewed, not a surprising finding given that Helmand province cultivates over half the country's poppies and produces about 60% of its opium, with Marjah dubbed by many to be Helmand's “opium capital”. Even NATO's new policy of paying farmers as an incentive for them to eliminate their own crops undermines the economy because sustainable alternative livelihoods are not offered.

The survey also points to a paradoxical finding: notwithstanding their negative perceptions about NATO, two-thirds of interviewees said foreign troops should clear the Taliban from the road linking Lashkar Gah to Kandahar and Kabul and start an operation against insurgents in Kandahar.

This apparent contradiction can be explained in immediate terms by the fact that locals wish to travel and conduct business more easily. From a broader perspective, it suggests that locals simply dislike both the Taliban and foreign troops. As summarized concisely by a major tribal leader from Kandahar, "Ten percent of the people are with the Taliban, 10% are with the government and 80% of the people are angry at the Taliban, the government and the foreigners."

The roots of the dire situation of insecurity faced by many Afghans were explained by the mayor of Kandahar, Ghulam Haider Hamidi, who stated. "It was the international community that went to the warlords after the Taliban and brought them back," with appalling consequences up to this day. [3]

Those views reflect those of democratic-minded Afghans such as member of parliament Malalai Joya and the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA), who have been campaigning for years against both the Taliban and the warlords and their NATO backers. Yet, their views have been completely ignored by coalition governments.

Rather, NATO and US forces have specialized in (botched) night raids that kill civilians, including pregnant women as happened in February in Paktia province. McChrystal has increased those Special Operations Forces raids since he became the top commander in Afghanistan, skills he had previously honed as commander of the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) from 2003 to 2008. Even though civilian deaths from air strikes have declined, those caused by night raids have increased, so much that the UN now estimates they account for half the civilians killed by foreign troops. This has contributed to the 33% increase in civilian deaths last month compared to the same period last year, adding to Afghans' anger. [4]

Finally, 74% of those interviewed by ICOS support negotiations and dialogue with the Taliban, a clear sign that Afghans are tired of war. Bringing Taliban leaders in a political process already dominated by actors whose human rights record is atrocious might not be the ideal solution, but since in practice it is unlikely that NATO will push to have the warlords it allied itself with taken to court, it might be the best political alternative in the short term.

Notes

1. The International Council on Security and Development, formerly known as The Senlis Council, is an international think-tank known for its work in Afghanistan and other conflict zones such as Iraq and Somalia. It is a project of the Network of European Foundations' Mercator Fund. ICOS currently runs three programs: Global Security, Public Security and Public Health and Drug Control.

2. Alissa J Rubin, US report on Afghan war finds few gains in six months. New York Times, April 29, 2010; Gareth Porter, Pentagon map shows wide Taliban zone in the South. Inter Press Service, May 1. 2010.

3. Kathy Gannon, Afghans blame both US, Taliban for insecurity. Associated Press, April 16, 2010.

4. Gareth Porter, Pentagon map belies Taliban's sphere. Asia Times Online, May 4, 2010.

Britain's Election on The Morning After: "Who Here Has a Mandate?"

UPDATE 1715 GMT: The final count of seats (assuming Thirsk is held by Conservatives in three weeks' time): Conservative 307 (19 short of majority), Labour 258, Liberal Democrat 57, Others 28.

UPDATE 1420 GMT: The Conservatives have gained two seats, Amber Valley (target #137) and Morecambe (target #111), from Labour. With four seats remaining (one of which, Thirsk, will return a Conservative in a delayed vote three weeks from now): Conservatives 304 (22 short of a majority), Labour 257, Lib Dem 57, Others 28.

UPDATE 1345 GMT: Cameron's "Big, Open, Comprehensive" Offer. Conservative leader David Cameron has made his play for power. His initial gambit was to lay out terms for an arrangement --- either a coalition or assured support for Government policies --- with the Liberal Democrats. He pointed out, for example, that the Conservatives could work with the Lib Dems on a "pupil premium" to give resources to deprived schoolchildren, a low-carbon economy, and tax reform. He made a rhetorical nod to electoral reform, although his proposal stopped at an "all-party committee of enquiry".

Britain’s Election LiveBlog: An Interim Assessment “Hung Parliament”
The Hitchhiker’s Guide to Britain’s Elections

However, Cameron's deal wasn't all or even that sweet. He red-lined areas beyond discussion: the Conservatives will insist on no further British moves towards Europe, towards a get-tough immigration policy, and for continued pursuit of the Trident nuclear missile system. And I don't think his "all-party committee" will go far towards the Liberal Democrats' goal of proportional representation.


So Cameron set up his fall-back. If the Conservatives don't get a firm commitment of Liberal Democratic support, they will rule with a "minority government", working on a case-by-case basis to get legislation through Parliament (the last time this was tried, in 1974, it lasted five months).

None of Cameron's plans can be sought, however, until Labour and Gordon Brown step aside. So over to you, Mr Brown.

And, equally important, over to you, Mr Clegg.

UPDATE 1245 GMT: Brown Makes His Pitch. Prime Minister Gordon Brown has launched a pre-emptive strike in advance of Conservatiýve leader David Cameron's statement at 1330 GMT.

After signalling the authority of his Government (we are in talks with the Euro Group on the Greek crisis, we are discussing the problems of the Eurozone with the G7 group of developed nations), Brown stood upon the notion of "strong, stable" political leadership. While he respected Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg's wish to speak first with Cameron about a coalition, the arrangement were in place for the Government to discuss possibilities with the Lib Dems.

And here is where it got interesting: Brown said there were two firm bases for the talks --- sound economic policy and electoral reform. Thus the offer: come with us, Lib Dems, and your dream of proportional representation may be possible.



UPDATE 1155 GMT: Latest state of parties --- Conservatives 295, Labour 252, Lib Dem 53, Others 27, Undeclared 23.

UPDATE 1045 GMT: The Liberal Democrats have made a notable, if limited, gain by taking Brent Central from Labour. Because of boundary changes, this was the one constituency where two sitting MPs faced each other.

UPDATE 0945 GMT: Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, has said he is open to discussions with the Conservatives over a coalition. Clegg says the Tories have the "first right", given that they have the most seats, to try to form a Government.

UPDATE 0930 GMT: Labour have held a series of marginal seats, rebuffing challenges from Conservatives, Lib Dems, and George Galloway of Respect.

UPDATE 0910 GMT: The Conservatives have gained Thurrock (target #125) from Labour with a 92-vote majority. They now have 291 seats with 32 to declare.

UPDATE 0815 GMT: Let's note a historic first: the Greens are now represented in the House of Commons. Caroline Lucas, a member of the European Parliament, has won Brighton Pavilion on England's south coast.

Now to latest numbers and muddle: the Conservatives have had two more gains from Labour (Hendon and Watford South). Current state of play: Conservative 290, Labour 247, Lib Dem 51, Others 27, Undeclared 35.

So officially, Britain has a "hung Parliament" as the Tories cannot reach the 326 mark.

That's just the simple soundbite, however.

Already Conservative supporters are saying, well, since Northern Ireland's Irish nationalist Sinn Fein (4 seats) refuse to sit in the UK Parliament and since they could ally with eight Northern Irish Unionists, just maybe they could squeak out a majority. (All of this is fluff, but at least it bolsters the Conservative claim that Labour should stand aside and let the Tories have a chance to form a Government.)


On the other side, an EA correspondent points out the bold reach for a Labour (255 projected seats at the moment)-Liberal Democrat (55)-Scottish Nationalist (6)-Welsh nationalist Plaid Cymru(3) coalition. My maths, however, say that it is still only 319 seats.

Spinning gold --- even fool's gold --- from straw comes to mind.

---

In the speech of thanks at his Parliamentary election early this morning, Conservative leader David Cameron asserted, "It is clear that this Labour Government no longer has a mandate to govern."

Maybe so. But it is not clear who does have that mandate.

A few hours after we broke off our LiveBlog, the three points we riskily ventured have firmed up: 1) the Conservatives will not achieve an overall majority; 2) the Liberal Democrats have failed to make a significant advance; 3) Labour faces the difficult decision of if it wishes to forge a coalition and how it does so.

The numbers at the moment out of 650 seats in the House of Commons: Conservatives 287, Labour 237, Lib Dems 57, Others 27, Undecided 42.

The Tories have gained 88 seats. They need 116 to achieve a majority, however, and there are not enough targets left to pick up 28 more from either Labour or the Liberal Democrats. So while the other two major parties are dealing with disappointment this morning --- Labour down 81 seats and the Lib Dems, more surprisingly, down 5 from their 2005 performance --- they are not bowing down before a Blue Wave.

Nor is the raw percentage of vote, for what it's worth, any more supportive of a Conservative victory. The Tories only added four percent to their 2005 total, rising to about 36.5%. Labour is at 28.7%, in line with pre-poll projections, but the Liberal Democrats are down from those projecitons (though up slightly from 2005) with 22.8%.

If I was to attempt an academic soundbite --- be snappy but invoke history --- this was no 1997, when Tony Blair's Labour swept away the Conservative Government, with leading Tory Ministers falling on their swords in defeat. A couple of former Labour Ministers did lose, but nothing which even merited a front-page photograph.

So what do we have? Muddle.

We have muddle in the results. The BBC's 2-D Swingometer has now imploded amidst outcomes that might take four dimensions to map. There was no uniformity in the shifts or non-shifts, with individual seats bouncing around depending on boundary changes, some regional trends, three- and four-way splits in the vote, and --- dare it be say --- local issues and the strengths of individual candidates.

So Labour was not only to resist the Lib Dem challenge but, in some places, to push back against the Conservative claim of rule after 13 years of Blair and Brown Governments. For example, in our home area of Birmingham, Labour retained what used to be a Conservative stronghold in Birmingham Edgbaston, clung on --- despite talk of a student vote tipping seats to Lib Dems --- to Birmingham Selly Oak, and, in one of the most intriguing results of the night, kept Birmingham Hall Green (the Respect Party, formed on the strength of opposition to the 2003 Iraq War, finished second in a four-way fight with more than 25 percent of the vote).

And we have muddle in what is to come. The stark politics of the numbers is that the Conservatives are projected to fall about 20 seats short of a majority. However, Labour and Lib Dem are projected, even in coalition, to be about 10 seats shy of the mark, which would mean bringing in a couple of smaller parties for a majority.

Under the laws and practices of this land, Labour gets the first shot at forging a Government. Paradoxically, however --- given their scare talk of how votes for the Liberal Democrats will unsettle the country --- the lack of a Lib Dem surge means that they can only bring a weakened party into a coalition.

The Conservatives will bang away at how the largest number of seats means that, sooner rather than later, Gordon Brown should step down and let them put together a Government. But it appears there are not enough scraps on the electoral table, i.e., a few Northern Irish Unionists, to weld a coalition without approaching the Lib Dems. And those Lib Dems, even in a shaken state, will stick insist on major changes in the British electoral system (if you want an unspoken headline from last evening, the numbers this morning show how skewed Britain's "first past the post" elections are). That's not a demand that the Tories will be eager to meet.

So from the messiness of "democracy" to the murkiness of individual politicians testing others, sounding out deals, assessing the price of getting power.

The silver lining? Well, there may be quick redress for those hundreds (thousands) of voters who had the doors of polling stations shut in their faces at 10 p.m. local time last night. For, in less than a year, with no party establishing a right to govern, there could well be another Election Night in Britain.

MENA House: Sinai Liberation Day in Egypt (Baghdady)

During a recent conversation with a friend of mine in Egypt, I was surprised to hear she’d be enjoying a long weekend (Friday, Saturday AND Sunday); turns out that 25 April was, in fact, a public holiday.

A TV crew from a private media outlet in Egypt decided to roam the streets of Cairo asking the public this question: "Why are we celebrating today?" It was amusing or disturbing, depending on how you look at it, to find that all those interviewed had very little idea.

MENA House: Protests “En Vogue” in Egypt

A majority understood it was "something to do with the Liberation of Sinai". If they passed that test, the interviewer would ask, "How was this achieved?". A resounding silence or an "I think..." was the general collective response. Whilst some blamed their lack of knowledge on the information (or lack of) passed on during their days of education, others were simply just glad to have the day off, whatever the reason.


This is the background to "Sinai Liberation Day":

The day marks the final departure of the Israeli army from the Sinai, fulfilling the mandate of the 1978 Camp David agreements. On 25 April 1982, President Hosni Mubarak raised the Egyptian flag over the Sinai.

While the first part of the Camp David agreement focused  on the Israeli/Palestinian land dispute and the status of Jerusalem, the focal point of the second part  was the restoration of Egyptian-Israeli relations. The Israeli army agreed to evacuate its troops and 4,500 civilians out of the Sinai, which it had occupied since the 1967 Six Day War, as well as returning the Abu Redeis oil fields in Western Sinai to Egypt.

The Result?

Firstly, nostalga, patriotic praise, and pride, even if some may not know the details of 25 April 1982. The Sinai holds both historical and religious significance. It is the "East Gate of Egypt" where Ramses II fought with the Hittites and the site where Egypt fought the 1956, 1967, and 1973 wars with Israel. It was the location for the Exodus of the Israelites and Moses' receipt of the Ten Commandments.

Secondly, more holiday destinations to promote. The Sinai Peninsula from east to west, from the Aqaba Gulf to the Suez Canal, is a total of 870 kilometres (540 miles) in length with 30% of Egypt’s coastline. The return of the Sinai meant the return of Sharm el Sheikh, Taba (returned on 29 September 1988), Safaga, Ras Mohammed, Dahab, el Arish, Taba and Nuweiba: all on the Red Sea and all essential to the tourist industry in Egypt.

Last but certainly not least, natural resources. Here lie cement, magnesium, copper, precious stones, white and black sand (used for solar energy), uranium, marble, phosphate, and other minerals. With 6% of Egypt’s total land mass, -the Sinai is a gold mine, a diamond in the rough, its holdings waiting to be extracted and produced for the financial benefit of Egypt. And, in contrast to this exploitation, the Sinai mountains have been preserved for their "natural beauty".

On 13 October 1994, Dr Gamal Ganzoury , then Prime Minister, introduced "The National Project" for the purpose of "development" in the Sinai region. A sum of 75 billion Egyptian pounds (EGP) was to support this from 1994-2017.

When television presenter Mohammed Naser interviewed Dr Hassan Rateb, Chairman on the Board of Trustees at Sinai University, in April about the progress of ‘The National Project, the analyses wasn’t very promising. The total amount of investment projects in the region have come to 110 billion EGP; these are the outcomes:

• In the fishing industry in the Sinai region, they have reached 30% of their target.


• In projects relating to petrol in the region, they have reached 66% of their target.


• In projects relating to tourism, they have reached 38% of their target.


• In housing projects, they have only completed 5% of their target.

Many jobs were supposed to be created. However the growing trend is that labourers coming from Upper Egypt would start work and then be unable to return to their jobs. Coming back from holidays in Upper Egypt with the family, they are stopped at checkpoints. If they are unable to provide the sufficient paperwork, they never get back to the Sinai.

Where is the project money going? Well, just like the interviewer's, "Why are we celebrating today?", it is a question that gets few clear answers.

The Latest from Iran (7 May): The Original Post-Election Muddle

1415 GMT: Hunger Strike. Students at Azad University in Shahrekord in western Iran have entered the third day without food to protest limitations imposed by authorities on student activists.

1400 GMT: We Will Punch You in the Mouth (without Irony). Your Tehran Friday Prayers update....

One of our favourites, tough-talking Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami laying down the religious law today, especially to other nations: A senior Iranian cleric on Friday warned the world powers that if their threats continued, "If you threaten or attack our nation and religion, we will reply and you will get yourself a punch in your mouth and jeopardize all your world."

Khatami spun his clerical six-shooters and continued, "These people of ours are not afraid of sanctions and threats and the language of force against such people is irrational and futile. Whether you like it or not, Iran is already in the nuclear club and it would be better to acknowledge it."

Having calKhatami called on the world powers to adopt a "polite and logical dialogue" with Iran rather than using threats and intimidation.

1215 GMT: Nuclear Deal or Just Posture? After Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's flutter earlier this week about Brazil mediating a deal on uranium enrichment --- denied by the Brazilians --- Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki has said he will pay a surprise visit (which I guess is no longer a surprise) to Istanbul to discuss an arrangement for a uranium swap with his Turkish counterpart, Ahmet Davutoglu.

0850 GMT: Banning Books. We reported earlier this week that the stall with the works of the late Ayatollah Beheshti, a key figure in the Islamic Revolution, had not been allowed at the Tehran Book Fair because of the views of his son, Mir Hossein Mousavi's advisor Alireza Beheshti.

Now Rah-e-Sabz claims that the works of Grand Ayatollah Sane'i and the late Grand Ayatollah Montazeri were also barred.

NEW Iran: Ahmadinejad’s Chief Aide “Not Too Many People in the Prisons”
Mahmoud’s Iran Wonderland: Ahmadinejad Says “I’m in Favour of Protestors”
Iran Snap Analysis: Ahmadinejad’s Nuclear Roadtrip
The Latest from Iran (6 May): Rattling the Cage

0845 GMT: A New Website and New Information. The "Center to Defend Families of Those Slain and Detained in Iran" has established an on-line presence.

Rah-e-Sabz has posted a list of names of 32 students detained in Evin Prison.



0840 GMT: A Hospital Visit. Former President Mohammad Khatami has seen Ahmad Motamedi, a Minister in Khatami's Government and now professor at Amir Kabir University. Motamedi was stabbed earlier this week in his office.

0830 GMT: A Clerical Jibe. Ayatollah Javadi Amoli has declared that, if bribery is eliminated from Iran's judiciary, the country will prosper. He added, in a reference to an Ali Khamenei, "a certain cleric was Hojatoleslam, but became an Ayatollah when he got an office".

0745 GMT: After a night covering the British General Election and writing the assessment that it's all a big mess, it's kind of a relief to get back to the relative clarity of post-election Iran.

We open this morning, however, not with clarity but with fantasy. We've posted extracts from an extraordinary interview with Ahmadinejad right-hand man Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai, who declares, "There are not too many people in the prisons."

The International Front: "Have Some Food"

To put forward Iran's case on its nuclear programme, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki has hosted diplomats of other countries at a dinner in New York, amidst the United Nations conference on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

And, yes, an American official showed up.

Fighting for the University

Rooz Online has an interesting article about manoeuvres for control of Iran's private system of universities, Islamic Azad, reading them as  "a coming battleground [for the 'hardliners'] against [former President Hashemi] Rafsanjani".