Middle East/Iran (& Beyond) Revealed: US to Expand Covert Activities (Mazzetti)

Moments before we posted Sharmine Narwani's provocative analysis, "How the US Lost the Middle East and Iran", we read this investigative report from Mark Mazzetti of The New York Times. We leave it to readers to draw conclusions:

The top American commander in the Middle East has ordered a broad expansion of clandestine military activity in an effort to disrupt militant groups or counter threats in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and other countries in the region, according to defense officials and military documents.

Middle East/Iran Analysis: How the US Has Lost (Narwani)

The secret directive, signed in September by Gen. David H. Petraeus, authorizes the sending of American Special Operations troops to both friendly and hostile nations in the Middle East, Central Asia and the Horn of Africa to gather intelligence and build ties with local forces. Officials said the order also permits reconnaissance that could pave the way for possible military strikes in Iran if tensions over its nuclear ambitions escalate.


While the Bush administration had approved some clandestine military activities far from designated war zones, the new order is intended to make such efforts more systematic and long term, officials said. Its goals are to build networks that could “penetrate, disrupt, defeat or destroy” Al Qaeda and other militant groups, as well as to “prepare the environment” for future attacks by American or local military forces, the document said. The order, however, does not appear to authorize offensive strikes in any specific countries.

In broadening its secret activities, the United States military has also sought in recent years to break its dependence on the Central Intelligence Agency and other spy agencies for information in countries without a significant American troop presence.

General Petraeus’s order is meant for small teams of American troops to fill intelligence gaps about terror organizations and other threats in the Middle East and beyond, especially emerging groups plotting attacks against the United States.

But some Pentagon officials worry that the expanded role carries risks. The authorized activities could strain relationships with friendly governments like Saudi Arabia or Yemen — which might allow the operations but be loath to acknowledge their cooperation — or incite the anger of hostile nations like Iran and Syria. Many in the military are also concerned that as American troops assume roles far from traditional combat, they would be at risk of being treated as spies if captured and denied the Geneva Convention protections afforded military detainees.

The precise operations that the directive authorizes are unclear, and what the military has done to follow through on the order is uncertain. The document, a copy of which was viewed by The New York Times, provides few details about continuing missions or intelligence-gathering operations.

Several government officials who described the impetus for the order would speak only on condition of anonymity because the document is classified. Spokesmen for the White House and the Pentagon declined to comment for this article. The Times, responding to concerns about troop safety raised by an official at United States Central Command, the military headquarters run by General Petraeus, withheld some details about how troops could be deployed in certain countries.

The seven-page directive appears to authorize specific operations in Iran, most likely to gather intelligence about the country’s nuclear program or identify dissident groups that might be useful for a future military offensive. The Obama administration insists that for the moment, it is committed to penalizing Iran for its nuclear activities only with diplomatic and economic sanctions. Nevertheless, the Pentagon has to draw up detailed war plans to be prepared in advance, in the event that President Obama ever authorizes a strike.

“The Defense Department can’t be caught flat-footed,” said one Pentagon official with knowledge of General Petraeus’s order.

The directive, the Joint Unconventional Warfare Task Force Execute Order, signed Sept. 30, may also have helped lay a foundation for the surge of American military activity in Yemen that began three months later.

Special Operations troops began working with Yemen’s military to try to dismantle Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, an affiliate of Osama bin Laden’s terror network based in Yemen. The Pentagon has also carried out missile strikes from Navy ships into suspected militant hideouts and plans to spend more than $155 million equipping Yemeni troops with armored vehicles, helicopters and small arms.

Officials said that many top commanders, General Petraeus among them, have advocated an expansive interpretation of the military’s role around the world, arguing that troops need to operate beyond Iraq and Afghanistan to better fight militant groups.

The order, which an official said was drafted in close coordination with Adm. Eric T. Olson, the officer in charge of the United States Special Operations Command, calls for clandestine activities that “cannot or will not be accomplished” by conventional military operations or “interagency activities,” a reference to American spy agencies.

While the C.I.A. and the Pentagon have often been at odds over expansion of clandestine military activity, most recently over intelligence gathering by Pentagon contractors in Pakistan and Afghanistan, there does not appear to have been a significant dispute over the September order.

A spokesman for the C.I.A. declined to confirm the existence of General Petraeus’s order, but said that the spy agency and the Pentagon had a “close relationship” and generally coordinate operations in the field.

“There’s more than enough work to go around,” said the spokesman, Paul Gimigliano. “The real key is coordination. That typically works well, and if problems arise, they get settled.”

During the Bush administration, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld endorsed clandestine military operations, arguing that Special Operations troops could be as effective as traditional spies, if not more so.

Unlike covert actions undertaken by the C.I.A., such clandestine activity does not require the president’s approval or regular reports to Congress, although Pentagon officials have said that any significant ventures are cleared through the National Security Council. Special Operations troops have already been sent into a number of countries to carry out reconnaissance missions, including operations to gather intelligence about airstrips and bridges.

Some of Mr. Rumsfeld’s initiatives were controversial, and met with resistance by some at the State Department and C.I.A. who saw the troops as a backdoor attempt by the Pentagon to assert influence outside of war zones. In 2004, one of the first groups sent overseas was pulled out of Paraguay after killing a pistol-waving robber who had attacked them as they stepped out of a taxi.

A Pentagon order that year gave the military authority for offensive strikes in more than a dozen countries, and Special Operations troops carried them out in Syria, Pakistan and Somalia.

In contrast, General Petraeus’s September order is focused on intelligence gathering --- by American troops, foreign businesspeople, academics or others — to identify militants and provide “persistent situational awareness,” while forging ties to local indigenous groups.

The Latest from Iran (25 May): Panahi Freed; Will There Be a 12 June Protest?

1645 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Claimed photographs of Jafar Panahi after his release from Evin Prison today:



1435 GMT: A Government of Fake Doctors? According to Tabnak, Kamran Daneshjoo, the Minister of Science and Higher Education, has said that 1st Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi's claim of a Ph.D. is false.

Ironically, Daneshjoo has also been accused of presenting incorrect information that he has a doctorate from a British university.

NEW Iran Analysis: Towards the Final Battle? (Zahra)
Iran Document: The Mousavi-Karroubi Meeting (23 May)
Latest Iran Video: Ahmadinejad Heckled During Speech (24 Ma
The Latest from Iran (24 May): Rahnavard’s Statement, Ahmadinejad Heckled

1420 GMT: Panahi is Free. Tahareh Saeedi has told Agence France Presse that her husband, film director Jafar Panahi, is out of Evin Prison (see 1145 GMT): "Yes, he has been freed. He is fine. We are taking him to the doctor...[who will] prescribe a diet [for him]."


1335 GMT: Rahnavard on Resistance. Zahra Rahnavard, activist and wife of Mir Hossein Mousavi, has posted another statement on her Facebook site: "Women Will Resist Until Their Demands Are Fulfilled".

1145 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. After 24 hours of uncertainty (see 0735 GMT), film director Jafar Panahi has been released from Evin Prison on $200,000 bail.

0945 GMT: Government Not Worried at All. Really. Which is why Tehran police chief Hossein Sajedi has declared that  security forces will put down any protests on 12 June, the anniversary of the 2009 election: "Police will confront any illegal gatherings ... police are vigilant and in charge of public order and security."

0815 GMT: A Promise to March? Peyke Iran claims that youths leaving a football match in Tehran's Azadi Stadium shouted a message for President Ahmadinejad: "Football is a pretence/Khordaad will be an uproar".

0810 GMT: Assault. Rah-e-Sabz claims that reformist politician Ali Shakouri-Rad was attacked and insulted by Basiji students after his lecture at Elm-o-Sanat University in Tehran.

0800 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Daneshjoo News has posted a list of more than 80 imprisoned students.

Journalist and human rights activist Kaveh Ghasemi Kermanshahi, released on Sunday on bail after more than 100 days in detention, has spoken to Rooz Online about prison conditions and his hunger strike.

RAHANA reports that Kurdish artist Mokhtar Houshmand was arrested at his home on Sunday.

0745 GMT: The Revolutionary Guard and Oil. Peyke Iran claims that the sell-off of Iranian resources to the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps continues. The IRGC has allegedly acquired several large projects in the South Pars oil and gas fields, pipelines, and the Ilam refinery.

Meanwhile Rahmani Fazli, chief of Iran's audit office, says that daily oil production must rise to 7 million barrels per day for the Government's 5th Plan to be feasible. Current production is 3,9 million barrel per day.

0735 GMT: Waiting For/Protesting About Panahi. Still no confirmation that film director Jafar Panahi has been freed from Evin Prison, despite the assurance of the Tehran Prosecutor General that the Iranian bureaucracy is processing the release on bail.

Meanwhile Juliette Binoche, winning Best Actress at the Cannes Film Festival for her role in Abbas Kiarostami's A Certified Copy, makes a simple statement:



0655 GMT: Culture Wars. In her analysis this morning, Ms Zahra notes sharply, "Even a “cultural” step such as using hijab as a new cause for oppression attests to the weakness of this regime."

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty has a complementary article, "Iran has launched a new drive to enforce the obligatory Islamic hijab. Hijab and women who are considered as being badly or improperly veiled and their alleged threat to society is again among the main themes of speeches and comments by Friday Prayer leaders and other state officials."

Most striking, however, is not the summary of the state's intimidation but the snapshot of reaction from Iranian women. While most in a recent report on Iranian television supported the hijab, the video also had this vignette:

At the beginning the reporter interviews two women considered "badly veiled" who seem to be opposed to the enforcement of the dress code. Such women are usually never given a platform on state television.

The first woman says she dresses the way she wants. "I think that's more important than what others might think about how I dress," she says.

The second woman, whose face is blurred like the first (apparently because they didn't want to be identified), makes similar comments. "I wear what I want and I don't listen to what others say," she says.

0645 GMT: Power and Resistance. Looking at but going beyond 22 Khordaad (12 June), we have a special analysis from Ms Zahra, assessing the political situation and asking if a "final battle" is looming for the Government.

Meanwhile, a single incident has sparked attention from the global media to internal developments in Iran: the video of workers heckling President Ahmadinejad, during his speech in Khorramshahr yesterday, has been picked up by most international broadcasters and websites.

0630 GMT: We open this morning with continued discussion of the significance and even the exact wording of the statement from the meeting between Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi on Sunday. My initial reading of their declaration, as translated and posted by the Facebook page supporting Mousavi, was that the two men had set down a limit: they were calling on the Green Movement to march if a permit was granted but, if it was denied they would not take to the streets but would seek to extend awareness and present demands in other ways.

An EA correspondent put the emphasis on those "other ways": "[Mousavi and Karroubi] will not stand idle if, as expected, the permission is not granted." Then a reader brought out this information:

A friend in Tehran...tells me that what the original article in Farsi, on Kaleme.com, says is that if the permit is not given, then instructions for the march will be disseminated via Twitter, Facebooks, SMS, etc., not that the rally/march/demo will not be held. On the contrary...both Mousavi and Karroubi state that the demonstration will be held regardless.

So more watching and listening for signals today. What may be significant, while we're looking for resolution, is that there is even a discussion of how far the opposition will go on 12 June.

That is not a discussion that you have if the Green Movement is dead or dying....

Middle East/Iran Analysis: How the US Has Lost (Narwani)

Sharmine Narwani writes in The Huffington Post:

It's official. There is no longer any serious "cost" for defying the United States in the global arena. Unable to win wars or deliver diplomatic coups - and struggling to maintain our economic equilibrium --- Washington has lost the fundamental tools for global leadership. And no place does this impotence manifest more vividly than the modern Middle East.

Our pointless and protracted wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will be the last time we will launch a major battle in the region. That massive show of flexing brawn over brain burst a global perception bubble about our intentions, capabilities and reason.



This credibility was compromised further with our irrational support of Israel's attacks on Lebanon and Gaza in 2006 and 2008/9 respectively. And it has eroded with the double standards employed over Israel's violations of international law and its illegal nuclear weapons stash, particularly when viewed against the backdrop of our startling rhetoric over Iran's nuclear program.

But nothing highlights our irrelevance more than two recent developments:

1) The US's inability today to convene even perfunctory peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians, let alone push through a negotiated solution --- and this after 19 years of a "US-sponsored" peace process.

2) The US's inability to achieve a resolution with Iran over its nuclear program. The only breakthrough in this long-winded effort to tame Iran's nuclear aspirations was struck by Turkey and Brazil last week.

In short, the US seems incapable of resolving even a traffic dispute in the Middle East. It is Qatar that stepped in to broker a deal between Hezbollah and the Lebanese government in 2008, and is knee deep in negotiating a solution to the conflict in Darfur. Syria helped gain the release of prisoners in Iran and Gaza. And now Turkey and Brazil have cajoled Iran into accepting an agreement that the US, France, England, Germany, Russia and China could not.

We have been rendered irrelevant, despite our insistence on involving ourselves with every peep heard in the Mideast.

The Iran Nuclear Fiasco

After pushing for the nuclear swap deal with Iran since last October, we did an about turn and scorned the very same "confidence building" measure we had touted while simultaneously accusing Iran of bad intentions and negotiations trickery.

And we openly sneered at the valiant effort of two important UN Security Council member states --- one a NATO-member and the other the largest economy in our Latin American backyard --- to troubleshoot on behalf of the global community. The very next day, we childishly chose to undermine this important breakthrough by announcing an agreement on UN Security Council draft sanctions against Iran.

The fact is that no one other than England, France, Germany and Israel seems to want us to win this fight anymore. This is increasingly being viewed as a David vs. Goliath standoff, with Iran as the David, and its nuclear energy program a sacrificial lamb that is meant to appease our substantial ego as the world's remaining superpower.

Pundits and analysts, such as Pierre Tristam, James Lindsay and Ray Takeyh,  are even starting to argue for making room for a nuclear Iran --- all thanks to our unwavering scrutiny of this issue.

Indian External Affairs Minister S. M. Krishna said in Tehran two days after the nuclear swap deal was struck, "India praises Iran for fighting for its interests... We are both developing nations and we should make use of each other's capabilities and experiences in order to make progress."

These so-called "Middle States" like Brazil, India, and Turkey are regional economic and political hegemons with collective clout --- certainly more so than the waning authority of our European partners who are dealing with weak economies and uninspired geopolitical thinking, much like our own.

Who needs us when all we seem to bring to the table is bluster, threats and our dubious "hard power?" The "regional hegemons" have demonstrated that the cleverly-wielded soft power of diplomacy goes a lot further in easing tensions globally and creating vibrant trade and economic conditions across borders.

No Consequence to Defying the US

In a very significant perception shift, many of these countries are beginning to realize that there is no longer a "cost" to ignoring US threats.

This reality is swiftly becoming apparent in the Middle East. What have several rounds of Security Council sanctions done to harm Iran thus far? Iran has just learned to be more self-sufficient and our constant bullying has earned it a permanent global podium from which it has rallied impressive developing nation alliances from countries that admire its struggle and resolve.

And the Arab world, once hostile to Iran and its brand of Islamic government, has also warmed to the idea of a new regional worldview that rejects an aggressive American role and embraces a homegrown narrative that more honestly addresses their problems. Hence the growing influence of the Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas mindset, bolstered by their good relations with rising regional stars like Turkey and Qatar and the widespread support of the Arab and Muslim Street.

But more importantly, traditional US allies like Saudi Arabia and Lebanon are slowly shifting strategies. Both have sought rapprochement with Syria and appeasement of Iran in some form this past year. Lebanon has defended Hezbollah's right to maintain its weapons so long as a belligerent Israel exists down south. Saudi Arabia and Syria worked together to ensure a smooth, crisis-free election in Lebanon last June, and helped broker the formation of a government in its aftermath - with Iran giving its blessings along the way. And there is increased disunity amongst the six pro-US Arab nations of the Persian Gulf on whether Iran poses a serious threat in the region.

Perceptions Altered --- Can We Adapt Fast Enough?

A recent article in Foreign Policy magazine by Aaron David Miller argues that the Mideast climate has changed and therefore the US should examine its participation in regional affairs, specifically the peace process. Miller also warns:

The broader Middle East is littered with the remains of great powers that wrongly believed they could impose their will on small tribes. Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran...need I continue? Small tribes will always be meaner, tougher, and longer-winded than U.S. diplomats because it's their neighborhood and their survival; they will always have a greater stake in the outcome of their struggle than the great power thousands of miles away with many other things to do.

As we contract economically and our appetite for waging wars shrinks, those who resist our policies in the Middle East can flex their influence with fair certainty that we will not and can not retaliate effectively.

With no real cost to bear, the sympathy of the larger international community, and now a genuine compromise to wave in front of detractors, Iran is sitting pretty, leaving us to look like a churlish, patronizing bully that chooses to lead with club in hand.

In a rapidly changing Middle East, this fight with Iran is just churning up trouble for us and underlining our own shrinking relevance on the world stage. Iran's deal with Turkey and Brazil and our subsequent sanctions threat has demonstrated conclusively that the US is not necessary for brokering deals and may in fact be an impediment to conflict resolution.

And this perception makes our regional allies uncomfortable enough to investigate their options, specifically, dealing with those we call our foes. Regional state and non-state actors will be taking note of the against-all-odds success of the tripartite deal and wondering if they should look more locally for Arab-Israeli peacebrokering too.

The US needs to take a page out of Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu's foreign policy playbook before taking another false step in the Mideast. This is geopolitical thought leadership the likes of which we haven't seen in more than half a century.

You could call it Diplomacy 101. I'd like to call it our "last chance to practice what we preach".

US Politics: The Arizona Immigration Law (Haddigan)

EA correspondent Lee Haddigan assesses the recently-passed, controversial immigration legislation passed in the southwestern state of Arizona:

n Sunday, the Phoenix Suns faced the Los Angeles Lakers in Game 3 of their semifinal series in the National Basketball Association. Beforehand, there was an interview with a special guest. A huge fan of the sport named Barack Obama appeared to discuss his plans if he were NBA Commissioner for a day and the future of the star player LeBron James.

Oh, yes, he also mentioned the recent immigration legislation passed in the state of Arizona, where Phoenix is located.

Obama elaborated on his contention, made on the White House lawn last Wednesday, that the controversial law is "misdirected".  Many in the Democratic Party go farther, charging that the Arizona State Legislature has passed a discriminatory law establishing "racial profiling" as a basis for determining an individual’s immigration status.

US Politics: The Tea Party and the Dangers of a “Leader” (Haddigan)

However, in concentrating on the civil rights implications of the law, its opponents have failed to consider the implications of what Arizona's Senate Bill 1070 actually intends to do.


Democrats had cause to voice such worries, until the "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" was amended to address those concerns. Early drafts of the bill stated that law enforcement officers, upon “lawful contact”, were entitled to “determine the immigration status” of an individual. "Lawful contact" suggested a good deal of latitude for the officer to determine when they can approach an individual and ask for their residency papers. For instance, it could occur if the individual was the victim of, or witness to, a crime.

More troubling, however, was a provision in the original legislation, “A person is guilty of trespassing if the person is both: 1. Present on any public or private land in this State. 2. In violation of 8 United States Code Section 1304(e) or 1306(a).” Translated, anyone in Arizona without the correct residential documents on their person is committing the crime of trespass.

Under this preliminary version of the law, an officer could make ‘lawful contact’ (talk to?)
an individual on a public sidewalk or in their own home and, with “reasonable suspicion”, ask them to "determine their immigration status" as they might be trespassers in the state of Arizona. It's not exactly racial profiling, but nonetheless the law that could be construed as leading to the discriminatory treatment of Hispanics in Arizona.

That is not, however, the Bill that GovernorJan Brewer passed into law on 23 April. Senate Bill 1070, as amended, removed the offense of trespass, replaced "lawful contact" with "any lawful stop, detention, or arrest", and added the significant proviso that “a law enforcement official may not consider race, color or national origin in the enforcement of this section except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona constitution”.

The principal advocate of these changes was Governor Brewer herself. When signing the Bill, she was at pains to point out, “My signature today represents my steadfast support for enforcing the law --- both against illegal immigration and racial profiling.”

Brewer added the wording of the law protecting against racial profiling was not, by itself, sufficient.  Recognizing that de facto implementation of a law usually varies from the de jure provisions contained within it, Governor Brewer declared that she was issuing an executive order stipulating Arizonan police officers were to be trained in how to implement SB 1070. Importantly, “This training will include what does – and does not – constitute ‘reasonable suspicion’ that a person is not legally present in the United States.”

Arizona is not the first place to pass this type of legislation. Prince William County in Virginia passed a similar ordinance three years ago. But, as Governor Brewer acknowledged, the stakes are much higher in Arizona. How the law works in her State will determine much of the future of immigration reform legislation in the United States. She maintained that supporters across the US of an open door policy or amnesty for settled illegal aliens will “have an interest in seeing us fail.”  The Governor ended her statement with a plea to her fellow Arizonans to “react calmly,” and “prove the alarmists and cynics wrong”.

One consequence of the amendments to the original Bill is that the legislation is now drawing criticism from conservatives. On Fox News Sunday, Brit Hume commented that “this is a weak law”, arguing that federal immigration officers are allowed to stop an individual without reason to ascertain their residency status.

Amidst all the political debate surrounding the civil rights implications of SB 1070, the purpose of the law has been rarely mentioned. Advocates in Arizona argue that their state has experienced a rising violent crime rate in recent years, fuelled by the cartel wars in Mexico spilling over the unsecured border. The opening preamble to the law, in both the original and amended versions, “declares that the intent of this act is to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona”.

Supporters of the law assert that it is not meant to lead to mass deportations of illegal citizens. Instead, it has the primary focus of depriving them of work and forcing them to return to their country of origin from a lack of money. The majority of SB 1070's provisions, unnoticed by most, deal with strict enforcement of the federal regulations that prevent employers from using illegal labor.

This raises what be the most significant outcome of the law. Will the economically distressed individual or family return to a home country or will they just move from Arizona to a more accommodating state? If they do the latter, then we may find the consequences of SB 1070 are yet to be written. Arizona's law does not solve the problem of illegal immigration; it merely displaces the effects into neighboring states.

Iran Analysis: Towards the Final Battle? (Zahra)

EA correspondent Ms Zahra takes a close look power and resistance in Iran:

Recent news from Iran gives an ambiguous impression. The regime carries out more arrests. It concentrates and extends its power: political (President Ahmadinejad's chief advisor Esfandiar Rahim Mashai now holds 18 additional offices), economic (the extensive sale of state-owned companies to Revolutionary Guard foundations), and military sphere (new Basiji headquarters in Tehran, heavy security measures for any of Ahmadinejad’s provincial visits).

Yet, at the same time, even a "cultural" step such as using hijab as a new cause for oppression attests to the weakness of this regime. Major political, economic, and social issues remain unsolved, with no attempt to deal with them on the horizon.


POLITICAL: The nuclear case is unresolved, and more sanctions loom. Corruption investigations of high-ranking officials such as 1st Vice-President Mohammad Reza Rahimi, have been postponed temporarily but could be pressed again by the Govenrment's "conservative" opponents. The tension over the ban on the last two reformist parties, Mosharekat (Islamic Iran Participation Front) and Mojahedin of the Islamic Revolution, lingers.

ECONOMIC: Ahmadinejad's subsidy cut plan has not been implemented two months after its approval by the Majlis. Disinvestment in the oil and gas sector, such as the South Pars and Assalouyeh fields, continues, oil sales are impeded by undeclared sanctions, and the general decline in production is not halted. Unemployment and inflation are growing, while the cases of unreturned loans (allegedly up to $50 millions) to state banks are pending.

SOCIAL: Eleven months after the disputed presidential elections, thousands of protesters are still imprisoned, and the cases of more than 100 demonstrators killed on the streets, raped in prisons, or tortured to death in facilities such as Kahrizak remain unsettled. Purges in universities and offices have not quieted protest.

Instead of addressing these crucial problems, Ahmadinejad’s government resorts to “moral” issues to discipline youth and women, the two groups of Iranian society who have constantly established their resistance against his backward social policies.

Meanwhile the opposition is closing ranks: even though the clergy in general has remained silent, high-ranking clerics such as Ayatollah Sane’i or Ayatollah Dastegheib, following the example of the late Grand Ayatollah Montazeri, have sharply condemned governmental violence against protesting citizens.

This year’s May Day was an opportunity to build relations between the Green Movement and labour unions, and last Friday four Islamic labour associations declared that they would merge. Executions of Kurdish citizens have led to an unprecedented wave of solidarity, addressing the relationship of Iran's majority society to its ethnic minorities. Peaceful protests in Kurdish areas attest to a tacit adoption of the Green Movement’s principle of non-violence.

Editorial staffs of Green websites have issued a joint statement on resistance. Women of all political currents celebrated their union in a moving Nowruz meeting of publishers, lawyers, and human rights activists (for example, Shahla Lahiji, Nasrin Sotudeh, and Minou Mortazi) with Zahra Rahnavard. Students organise rallies and fasts for their imprisoned professors and comrades, popular artists boycotted the state-owned Islamic Repbulic of Iran Broadcasting, and the international Fajr Film Festival. Authors and their associations issue statements against repression and dedicate poems to the executed.

One may ask why the embattled Presidential candidates Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi and the former President Mohammad Khatami have not yet formed a joint front of opposition. The probable answer is that diversity is likely to attract more supporters from different political camps. Conflicting concepts, which become apparent in their statements such as Karroubi's last letter, can reflect the pluralistic nature of this popular movement.

Recent developments point to a growing division of Iranian society into two camps. The economic and military power of the Government, backed by the Revolutionary Guard and Basiji faces a majority of unarmed and impoverished people.

But the appearance of power vs. the powerless is superficial. This government is incapable to solve fundamental economic issues, which will impede its efforts to concentrate its military power in the long run. As soon as the government is not able to pay its (para)-military forces sufficiently, its last stronghold will crumble. Infusing Basiji and other paramilitary forces with “revolutionary” ideology may stop this disintegration temporarily, but even these troops do not live in a social vacuum. Even the pretext of the preservation of Islam to oppress dissidents has much lost of its credibility since the historically unprecedented killings of unarmed protesters on the religious festival of Ashura (27 December).

The Islamic Republic's most radical, undemocratic and reactionary forces have declared war on Iranian civil society, which has proven during the past 11 months its commitment to a modern, pluralistic, and peaceful Islamic state. This may the last battle of those forces as they try to deny the social and political transition of an Islamic state towards a democratic society.