Mahmoud's Iran Wonderland: Ahmadinejad "I'm in Favour of Protestors"

Oh, if only this exchange with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had been televised, instead of the President's dismissals of Charlie Rose and ABC's George Stephanopoulos. The Boston Globe, after going over the nuclear question and US-Iran relations, dared to bring up and to persist with questions on the domestic situation. Under pressure, Ahmadinejad gave answers which verged from the disingenuous --- "Nothing to do with me" --- to the fantastic, "Everyone is free; everyone is happily protesting in my country":

Iran Snap Analysis: Ahmadinejad’s Nuclear Roadtrip
Iran Follow-Up: Ahmadinejad “Bin Laden Lives in Washington DC!”
The Latest from Iran (6 May): Rattling the Cage

Q: You say you the people who protested your election are very unpopular... if so then what is the harm in allowing them to gather? Why put them in prison?

A: All the leaders of the opposition are free. All my competitors in the elections are free. They actually hold positions in Iran. They head organizations, institutions. They have a life. I ask you, if someone goes out into the street, sets a car on fire, breaks windows, what would you do?



Q. How about people like Saeed Laylaz? He is a prominent economist, but he has been sentenced to nine years in jail. Is he violent?

A: These are affairs of the judiciary... The law applies to everyone and it has nothing to do with the political circumstances of the country. Whoever commits a crime...

Q: Can you guarantee the safety of peaceful protesters?

A: Iran is the land of protest. In Iran, there is a protest of some sort every day.Millions of people pour on the streets here and there. On the anniversary of the Iranian revolution 40 million people were on the streets. In all cities, everywhere, everybody pours on the streets. Really, the bottom line is that there is not much to be concerned about in Iran. There are larger world issues at stake here. Iran is still standing strong, despite it all. Still strong. And at the end of the day, people accept the government they have, the government is around, they are friends and that's it. We also are friends with those who oppose us. We live together. There is a law. The judiciary will deal with it. I don't really see a problem.

UPDATED Iran Follow-Up: Ahmadinejad "Bin Laden Lives in Washington DC!"

UPDATE, 6 MAY: State Department Looks Around, Doesn't Find Bin Laden, Does Find Sense of Humour. I feel better now about my fellow Americans.

P.J. Crowley must have thought about his po'-faced, huffy comment on Twitter, as he decided that light-hearted was a better approach in a Washington press conference: "We've done an intensive search here at the Department of State -- every nook and cranny, every rock -- and we can safely report that Osama bin Laden is not here."

Iran: Bin Laden Lives in Tehran Shocker!

UPDATE 1900 GMT: Oh, dear, I think the US State Department has had a satire failure. Spokesman P.J. Crowley has just sniffed on Twitter, "Ahmadinejad says bin Laden is in DC. We don’t have him; what we do have is another wild Iranian accusation and no accountability."

P.J., you do know that Iranians have been known to pull the leg and tweak the nose of an obtuse interviewer, right?


---

From the ridiculous to the even more ridiculous....

Yesterday we had a bit of fun with Fox News' puffed-up, straight-faced "report" that Osama Bin Laden might be living the high life in Tehran. We thought this might be a one-day diversion, since this is not a real news story, but little did we know that George Stephanopoulos, former aide to Bill Clinton and host of ABC Television's Good Morning America, would take it to new levels of absurdity.

Closing his two-dimensional interview with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Stephanopoulos decided to spring an interrogator's surprise (since, presumably, Mahmoud does not watch Fox News):

STEPHANOPOULOS: One final question. There's a new documentary out that says that Osama Bin Laden is living in Tehran. And the subject of the documentary, a man named Alan Parrot, one of the world's foremost falconers living in Iran, says he's spoken to Osama bin Laden several times since 2003. Is Osama bin Laden in Tehran?

AHMADINEJAD: Your question is laughable.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Why?

AHMADINEJAD: The U.S. government has invaded Afghanistan in order to arrest Bin Laden. They probably know where Bin Laden is. If they don't know he is, why did they invade? Could we know the intelligence?

STEPHANOPOULOS: I think if they knew, they would find him. They would get him.

AHMADINEJAD: First they should have tried to find his location, then invade, those who did not know about his location first they invaded and then they tried to find out where he is, is that logical? Do you think this is logical?

STEPHANOPOULOS: What I think is that you didn't answer my question. Is he in Tehran or not?

AHMADINEJAD: Our position is quite clear. Some journalists have said Bin Laden is in Iran. These words don't have legal value. Our position towards Afghanistan and against terrorism is quite clear.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Is it true or not?

AHMADINEJAD: Maybe you know, but I don't know.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I'm asking you. You're the President of Iran.

AHMADINEJAD: I don't know such a thing, you are giving news which is very strange.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So, let me ask it a different way. If you did know that Osama bin Laden was in Tehran, would you show him hospitality? Would you expel him? Would you arrest him?

AHMADINEJAD: I heard that Osama bin Laden is in the Washington, D.C.

STEPHANOPOULOS: No, you didn't.

AHMADINEJAD: Yes, I did. He's there. Because he was a previous partner of Mr. Bush. They were colleagues in fact in the old days. You know that. They were in the oil business together. They worked together. Mr. Bin Laden never cooperated with Iran but he cooperated with Mr. Bush--

STEPHANOPOULOS: I'll ask one more time and then I'll let you go. If you knew that Osama bin Laden was in Tehran, which you say you don't. If you knew, would you expel him? Would you arrest him? Would you show him hospitality?

AHMADINEJAD: Our borders, our borders are closed to the illegal entry of anyone. Anyone who that may be. Whether it's the three American mountaineers, Mr. Bin Laden or anyone else. The borders are closed. Our position is clear.

I'm quite surprised, to see that you adjust your daily lives based on the news that is being broadcast. I'm concerned that the government of the United States takes positions based on such news. If it is so, it is too bad. The news must be accurate and accountable, otherwise it will disrupt the relations between the nations. Just like this, did the government of the United States knew about the location of Mr. Bin Laden? And you said, "No, they went to find out." Well, first you locate--

STEPHANOPOULOS: They lost the trail.

AHMADINEJAD: --to find out they have invaded Afghanistan. First they have to find out his location and then invade. It's like for a judge to arrest someone and then go after the evidence.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you deny categorically that he's in Tehran today? He is not-- Osama bin Laden is not in Tehran today?

AHMADINEJAD: Rest assured that he's in Washington. I think there's a high chance he's there.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I don't agree.

Thank you for your time, Mr. President.

Middle East Inside line: Israel's Nuclear Problem; Syrian Tensions with US & Israel

Israel's Nuclear Trouble: On Wednesday, at the United Nations conference on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the ~US, Russia, Britain, France, and China voiced support for making the Middle East a zone free of nuclear arms. There are two messages: one for Iran's nuclear programme and one for Israel's secret nuclear agenda.

"We are committed to a full implementation of the 1995 NPT resolution on the Middle East and we support all ongoing efforts to this end," the five permanent members of the UN Security Council members said in a statement. International Atomic Energy Agency chief Yukia Amano, in a letter, asked foreign ministers of the IAEA's 151 member states to share views on how to implement a resolution demanding that Israel accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and throw its nuclear facilities open to IAEA oversight.

Israel-Palestine: The Proximity Talks Starts Silently (Yenidunya)
Syria: A National Unity Government for More Democracy? (al-Assad)
Israel-Palestine Opinion: Discrimination in East Jerusalem (Eldar)
Israel-Palestine: Proximity Talks to Begin on Wednesday? (Yenidunya)

Syria-U.S. Relations at Odds?: On Monday, the U.S. renewed the six-year-old economic and diplomatic sanctions on Syria. In response Damascus criticized Washington harshly and said that the penalties reinforce hostilities in the region.



Deputy Foreign Minister Faysal Mekdad said the sanctions decision shows Washington has lost its credibility and failed to live up to its promises to Syria. "Obama is not serious about changing the relationship between the U.S. and Arab and Islamic states in the Middle East," Syrian officials said.

Hezbollah-Syria-Israel Triangle: On Tuesday, although there is still no evidence that Scud missiles were transferred to Hezbollah, the Israeli army's head of intelligence research, Brigadier General Yossi Baidatz, told the Knesset that the Scud transfer was the "tip of the iceberg", .
"Even today Hezbollah has missiles of all ranges types, including solid-fueled rockets that have a longer range are extremely accurate."

Baidatz then drew the picture of a multiple threat:

Hezbollah's long-range rockets allow them to position launchers deep within Lebanese territory and cover ranges far greater than we aware of in the past.

Hezbollah in 2010 is very different to Hezbollah in 2006 in terms of military capability, which has advanced a great deal. Hezbollah is now regarded by the Syrians as a component of their defense establishment.

Lastly and paradoxically,Baidatz stated that a political settlement with Israel is still a priority for Damascus:

A political settlement with Israel is high on Syria's list of priorities and intelligence shows a will to reach an agreement – but on their terms, meaning a return of the Golan Heights and American involvement.

Military intelligence believes Syria could radically alter its role – but Assad feels that political progress with the current Israel government is impossible and has therefore avoided confidence-building measures.

Israel-Palestine: The Proximity Talks Starts Silently (Yenidunya)

On Wednesday, U.S. Mideast special envoy George Mitchell met Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. A spokesman for the Prime Minister's Office said that the two had a three-hour discussion and described the atmosphere as good. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley also said the meeting was good and productive. Mitchell is scheduled to see Netanyahu again on Thursday and the leader of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas on Friday.

Israel-Palestine Opinion: Discrimination in East Jerusalem (Eldar)
Israel-Palestine: Proximity Talks to Begin on Wednesday? (Yenidunya)

However, there are still negative voices in Israel over the sustainability of indirect talks. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman expressed doubts about the Palestinians' intentions:

The Palestinians' indecision on holding indirect talks with all kinds of excuses raises questions about their seriousness. I hope that, despite this, we will succeed in holding talks in a proper fashion.

Meanwhile, Abbas was in Cairo and Amman on Wednesday for talks with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Jordan's King Abdullah II. Despite Israeli insistence that indirect talks are not for addressing key issues such as the final status of Jerusalem or the permanentl borders of the Palestinian state, Abbas declared, "Negotiations will focus on final status issues and there's no need to enter into details and small matters because we have had enough of that in the previous negotiations."

Abbas also pointed out the limits of talks in an interview with CNN. He warned that he would quit the discussions if Israel embarked on construction activity in the West Bank.

Iran Snap Analysis: Ahmadinejad's Nuclear Roadtrip

The Ahmadinedjad roadshow in the US has finally closed. Given that it was a last-minute decision for the Iranian President to go to New York for the nuclear non-proliferation conference, this was a major public-relations campaign. There were at least three significant television appearances  --- one of them on a national morning programme --- and several newspaper interviews in addition to the United Nations speech.

I think Ahmadinejad, on the ground he has chosen, was successful in the tour. Of course he is unlikely to swing the opinions of many in the US, but he was able to put down his American interviewers. More importantly, he had a platform to play to opinion beyond the US, trying to persuade other countries --- especially "non-aligned", non-nuclear states --- that Iran has the high moral and political position on the atomic question.



The question is whether those states will support Iran's case against the "established" order. Both the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Yukiya Amano, and United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon criticised Tehran's stance even before Ahmadinejad took the podium on Monday. The Iranian President's speech, beyond the 11-point proposal for global disarmament, carried this message: "In the end, 'we' will stand against you and the 'nuclear' states like the US and Israel."

Will that get Ahmadinejad enough political space to bolster Iran's position abroad and his authority at home? And, on the specific nuclear question: is he trying to use that space to get a deal on enrichment --- the latest flutter is that Brazil will broker the talks --- or is he trying to avoid any commitment altogether?