The Latest in Iran (19 November): It's the Nukes Today

NEW Iran: What Happened on Election Night? The Ghalam News Editor’s Account
NEW Iran Nuclear Special: What Tehran’s Latest Offer Means (and Why the West Should Consider It)
NEW Iran’s 16 Azar Video: Greens Fight “The Pirates of the Persian Gulf”
The Latest Iran Video: Demonstration at University in Karaj (17 November)
Iran: Re-Evaluating the Green Movement After 5+ Months
The Iran Cul-de-Sac: 4 Points on Obama’s Embrace of Ahmadinejad (and Rejection of the Green Movement)
The Latest from Iran (18 November): Bubbling and Surfacing

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

2055 GMT: Keeping the Students Down. The Government effort to contain student protest continues. Iran's national student organisation Daftar-Tahkim-Vahdat reports that its political director, Abbas Hakimzadeh, has been arrested.

Kohzad Esmaili, head of the Gilan branch of the alumni organisation Advar-Tahkim-Vahdat (Office of Strengthening Unity), has been re-arrested after being freed on $20,000 bail.

2045 GMT: A Non-Crowd Story? While those pre-occupied with the nuclear issue try to read Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Tabriz speech for signals (see 1425 GMT), the Green movement has other concerns, namely those who did or did not turn out:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad received a very cold welcome from the citizens. Yoldash, the Green news organisation in Tabriz, reported that, despite the fact that the chief of "popular welcoming staff" of Ahmadinejad assured 100,000 people would be present at his speech today, only about 10-15,000 people participated in this event which can be easily recognized in the pictures taken by pro-coup Mehr news agency.

An EA source says that the Government tried to ensure a large turnout by giving university students, school children, and workers time off and transport to the rally. However, possibly because of the rain, possibly for other reasons, seats remained empty.

1805 GMT: Is Rafsanjani Lining Up with the Government's Nuclear Proposal? Former President Hashemi Rafsanjani has told the Swedish Ambassador to Iran that the International Atomic Energy Agency is legally obliged to provide 20 percent nuclear fuel to Tehran.

Sweden currently holds the European Union's rotating presidency.

1800 GMT: Clinton Speaks Out? Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared to journalists in Kabul:

It is a very unfortunate, distressing development to see these sentences handed down in Iran, imposing the death penalty on people who participated in expressing their opposition to the government in demonstrating in the streets.It underscores the approach that the government in Iran takes for their own people.

We will continue to stand up for the rights of the people of Iran to speak for themselves, to have their votes counted, to be given an opportunity to have the measure of freedom and rights that any person deserves to have

1755 GMT: What Happened on Election Night? We've posted the account of Abolfazl Fateh, the editor of Ghalam News, a paper close to Mir Hossein Mousavi.

1550 GMT: Football Politics. In its latest friendly match, Iran's national football team drew 1-1 with Macedonia. The Tehran Times says 1000 people attended; an EA source says the number was closer to 500.

Still, that's better than the 100 who turned up at the match earlier this month with Iceland.

1455 GMT: The Clerics Plot. An EA source brings intriguing information from Qom. On Wednesday, Ayatollah Makarem-Shirazi and Ayatollah Nouri-Hamedani, whom Karroubi wrote last week, discussed next moves in the post-election crisis. Nouri-Hamedani reportedly said,  "I am ready to go to Tehran and talk to both sides" about a plan for national unity, and the two clerics (possibly joined by others) decided to seek a meeting with the Supreme Leader.

1440 GMT: And What is "The West" Doing? "Six world powers will meet in Brussels to discuss what measures could be applied against Tehran for its refusal to halt its nuclear enrichment program, an EU official said Thursday. Friday's meeting will include the U.N. Security Council's permanent members — Britain, China, France, Russia and the U.S. — plus Germany, the official said on condition of anonymity because she was not authorized to disclose details of the gathering."

1435 GMT: Negotiating from Strength, I Tell You. And hundreds of miles away in The Philippines, Foreign Minister Mottaki --- having put the Iranian counter-offer on uranium enrichment --- is serving as Ahmadinejad's wingman, warning against further sanctions on Iran: "“I think they [the world powers] are wise enough not to repeat failed experiences. Of course it's totally up to them."

1425 GMT: Mahmoud's Negotiating from Strength. Back from an academic break to read about President Ahmadinejad's speech in Tabriz today. His twin-track rhetoric is now established: the door is open to agreement with "the West", but Iran is holding that door open out of its principled leadership in the world, not out of weakness:

Iran is a nation supportive of peace and friendship and backs constructive cooperation on the international arena. Tehran is therefore ready to cooperate with the international community in different arenas including the revival of economy and the establishment of stable security across the globe....

....Iran is not after aggression. It only seeks its legal rights ... Those who say they want constructive interaction should know that...if the Iranian nation witnesses a genuine transparent change of their policy…if they respect the rights of the Iranian nation…if they honestly extend their hand of friendship then the people of Iran will accept [such overture]....

But the President added, "They should also know that if they are after deception and corruption in our region,” the Iranian nation would be the same “decisive” answer that it has already given to arrogant powers.

1140 GMT: Worst Media "Analysis" of the Day. In The Wall Street Journal, Mark "Black Hawk Down" Bowden explains, "How Iran's [1979] Revolution Was Hijacked". The historical part of the article is OK, with Bowden --- who has written a book on the US Embassy crisis -- claiming, "Nine months after Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi fled it was still unclear what kind of government Iran was going to have....[Ayatollah Khomeini] was ambivalent about the idea of clerical rule."

It's Bowden's jump to 2009 that turns reflection into farce: "So 30 years after seizing power, the mullahs of Qom find themselves in a difficult spot. To turn back the domestic tide of reform they must employ the very tools employed by the despised shah—mass arrests and trials, torture, execution and censorship."

Which "mullahs of Qom" would these be? Montazeri? Sane'i? Bayat-Zanjani? Dastgheib? Safi Golpaygani? Makarem Shirazi?

1050 GMT: The Preview of the Deal? Press TV, quoting from the Islamic Republic News Agency, has just posted a significant statement from Iran's envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, who says that UN inspectors will visit the second uranium enrichment facility at Fordoo today.

Here is the key line, however, from Soltanieh: "This site will from now on be under the IAEA supervision." That may be an unsubtle olive branch to the international community for the bigger deal: you can oversee our facilities inside Iran, so you can trust that we'll let you oversee uranium stocks as well.

1000 GMT: So What About Those Sanctions? President Obama may be issuing the warning that he's opening up a can of economic pain if Iran does not accept a nuclear deal, but the signals --- which we've noted for weeks --- are that the US is limited in what it can do:

Western powers are gearing up for talks on a fourth round of U.N. sanctions against Tehran over its nuclear program but will not target Iran's energy sector to ensure Russia's and China's support....The scaling back of the West's expectations for new U.N. steps against Iran for defying Security Council demands to stop enriching uranium shows that the Europeans and Americans have accepted that Moscow and Beijing, with their close trade ties to Tehran, will not let Iran's economy be crippled.

Diplomats said the Western powers are eager to ratchet up the pressure on the Islamic Republic. But they also need to keep Moscow and Beijing on board to send a clear signal to Tehran that the world's big powers are united against it.

If there is a move for UN sanctions, they will target "at least another bank, more individuals, more companies -- possibly a shipping company -- a tighter ban on arms, possibly political measures". Meanwhile, Washington will fall back on the notion that it can organise multilateral restrictions outside the United Nations. Steps could include a ban on Euro transactions for Iranian and withholding technology to produce liquefied natural gas.

0855 GMT: Extending our initial update (0650 GMT), Mr Smith brings us the Analysis of the Day, considering the latest Iranian offer in the nuclear talks and advising the "West" how to respond to it.

0815 GMT: Anticipating the protests of 16 Azar (7 December), we have posted a video "advertisement" for the demonstrations which is a pretty good parody: Welcome to "The Pirates of the Persian Gulf".

0800 GMT: Away from the nuclear issue, Michael Slackman of The New York Times has picked up on the case of Ramin Pourandarjan, the 26-year-0ld physician at Kahrizak Prison who died in mysterious circumstances (see our updates throughout this week).

0650 GMT: International media is likely to be dominated this morning by stories on the nuclear negotiations. Most outlets have noted Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki's counter-proposal, replacing the delivery of 50-80% of Iran's uranium stock to Russia with a "swap" inside Iran of 20% enriched uranium for Tehran's 3.5% supply. And almost all are jumping on the soundbite reactions, from French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner to President Obama.

Obama warned again that time was short for a deal and "consequences" would follow if Iran did not accept an agreement. He did the same on Sunday but, on this occasion, he added a tough if vague post-script: "Our expectations are that over the next several weeks we will be developing a package of potential steps that we could take that will indicate our seriousness to Iran." (It's notable that not only international media like Al Jazeera but also Iran's state broadcaster Press TV are carrying the story.)

But do the news agencies really have a handle on what is going on? CNN, for example, headlines, "Iran rejects key part of nuclear deal" and drops in, as one line in a 26-paragraph story, "Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Iran might allow its nuclear material to be reprocessed inside Iran."

In contrast, the Los Angeles Times devotes almost all of its article to Mottaki's statement. Its headline and opening sentence, however, are just as negative: "Iran's foreign minister vowed Wednesday that his nation wouldn't allow any of its enriched uranium supply out of the country." This is "either a dismissal of a U.S.- and United Nations-backed proposal to ease international tensions over Iran's nuclear program by lowering Tehran's supply below the threshold required to make a bomb, or an attempt by Iran to haggle over the deal".

None of the coverage considers that, from the perspective of the Ahmadinejad Government (and possibly others), Mottaki's response is far from a rejection or a dismissal. Instead, it is a counter-offer which keeps the discussions alive --- indeed, I suspect it may have come out of talks with International Atomic Energy head Mohammad El Baradei. It puts the question to the US and its partners: will they accept a bargain in which Iran's uranium supply is swapped for 20% fuel which is for civilian rather than military purposes? Or is the initial export and warehousing of the majority of Tehran's low-enriched supply an unconditional requirement?

Beyond the negotiating table, Mottaki's statement is a pointer to another story, one which I suspect will go unnoticed today. In the context of the Iranian establishment, this is an attempt to bring peace between battling factions. President Ahmadinejad wants an agreement --- not perpetual "haggling" but an agreement --- and Mottaki's suggestion keeps open that prospect. Others (the Larijanis? the Supreme Leader?) have consented to or been forced to accept the opening.

If the Washington-led "5+1" powers reject that proposal, however, what next? What next not only for the nuclear discussions but also for the interna contests in Iran?

The Latest from Iran (18 November): Bubbling and Surfacing

NEW The Latest Iran Video: Demonstration at University in Karaj (17 November)
NEW Iran: Re-Evaluating the Green Movement After 5+ Months
NEW Latest Iran Video: “A Death in Tehran” on Neda Agha Soltan (17 November)
The Iran Cul-de-Sac: 4 Points on Obama’s Embrace of Ahmadinejad (and Rejection of the Green Movement)

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

2105 GMT: Apparently Saeed Sharati was freed "on the order of Tehran's Revolutionary Court", which seems like an acquittal. If so, that would be to my knowledge the first release of a prominent reformist after a trial.

2045 GMT: Carrot and Stick. Is the Government showing confidence that it has the reformists under control with a combination of jail sentences for some and releases for others? Saeed Shariati, a high-ranking Islamic Iran Participation Front members detained for more than three months, and Ashkan Mojallali, Mahdieh Minooie, and Iman Mirabzadeh, arrested at a prayer gathering last month, were freed --- presumably on bail --- earlier today.

1820 GMT: When Analyses Attack. From this morning's post: "One explanation for the shift may be that the Government’s 5+ months of restrictions on the communications and movements of the oppositonal leadership, “supported” by detentions and trials, have worn down the scope of the leadership’s declarations and ambitions."

This afternoon's news: "Rasoul Montajeb-Nia, the vice chairman of the Etemad Melli party [of Mehdi Karroubi] in an interview said that they are waiting for the authorities to remove the ban on this party's main office for further legal operation and activities."

Meanwhile, former President Mohammad Khatami visited Fatemeh Shahidi, a journalist for the reformist (and suspended) Etemade Melli newspape,) who was recently released after months in detention.

1355 GMT: Is This the End of the Nuclear Deal? Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki has made a declaration to the Islamic Students News Agency which appears to be significant:

We reviewed [the Vienna proposal] from an economic and technical aspect. We will definitely not send out our 3.5 percent enriched uranium....We will [instead] consider swapping the fuel simultaneously in Iran....Iranian experts are reviewing the issue of swap to see how much fuel can be transferred. The amount they mentioned for the swap is not acceptable ... and our experts are still studying it.

If I read this correctly, Iran is proposing that a delivery of "20 percent uranium" be brought in from outside the country and swapped for Iran's "3.5 percent uranium". That would mean no initial reduction in Iran's overall uranium stock of 1500 kilogrammes --- the Vienna proposal would have taken up to 80 percent outside Iran for enrichment in Russia.

Considered this way, the question thrown back at the "5+1" countries is whether they can accept that the existing level of uranium production and stock will remain inside Iran's border and thus in its control. That's not a death blow to the negotiations; as Mottaki noted in another interview:

Q: From what I gather, you are looking to modify the basic P5+1 proposal but U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said this is a ‘take it or leave it’ offer.

A: In diplomacy, we do not have zero or hundred. Therefore, flexibility is considered the essence of diplomacy. I believe this, and I guess the American side will understand this point as well…. Earlier, when they wanted to talk to us, they put some preconditions (like suspension of enrichment).But today they are talking and participating in talks without any preconditions.

However, the swap suggestion could be a measure too far for the US and European countries. As Mottaki noted, "We have called for another meeting of the technical people who were part of Vienna talks and we will explain our considerations. But so far such meeting has not convened."

1305 GMT: Iran's chief of police Esmail Ahmadi-Moghaddam has declared that the death of Ramin Pourandarjan, the 26-year-old physician at Kahrizak Prison, "was the result of suicide. The doctor had complaints of being threatened with a five-year jail term and had lost his spirit." Previously, state media said Pourandarjan had suffered a heart attack or stroke (see updates earlier this week).

"He committed suicide after he was summoned to the court."

1255 GMT: Journalist Kambiz Norouzi has been sentenced to two years in prison and 76 lashes after conviction "advertising against the establishment" and participating in post-election protests.

Ali Behzadiyan-Nejad, the nephew of Mir Hossein Mousavi's campaign manager, has been sentenced to six years in prison for “disturbing the security of the country” and “advertising against the establishment”. Behzadiyan’s lawyer said some of the evidence used against  by the prosecutor were “comments people wrote in [Behzadiyan's] personal blog”.

1225 GMT: Don't Do It. The commander of Basij militia, Mohammad Reza Naqdi, has warned that his forces will confront any further "street riots". Naqdi claimed that demonstrators had staged riots in response to calls from US-based satellite stations run by Iranian expatriates: "Those groups that chant slogans against the revolution's values ... should know that they will be confronted by Basij."

1015 GMT: The Banknote Rebellion. Soon after the post-election crisis began, protesters began inscribing Green slogans and criticism of the Government on Iranian banknotes. An EA reader points us to the follow-up story that the Central Bank of Iran has tried to take the banknotes out of circulation, but with so many about, they have given up the effort.

1000 GMT: Nuclear Manoeuvres. Trying to offset apparent pressure from Russia, the spokesman for Parliament's National Security Commission insists that the Bushehr nuclear reactor will soon be operational. Russian officials said earlier this week that the plant would be delayed past its proposed opening date of the end of 2009.

0930 GMT: A Surfacing from Raf? An interesting article, given the relative silence of former President Hashemi Rafsanjani since August. Emrooz, the newspaper linked to Tehran mayor Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, claims inside information from a meeting of Rafsanjani with several former members of Parliament.

One of those former MPs says Rafsanjani set four conditions, first offered in his 17 July sermon, for his return to Tehran Friday Prayers: the release of political prisoners, support for those injured in post-election conflict, rebuilding of relations with Grand Ayatollahs and clerics, and an opening-up of state radio and television to different viewpoints. Another source claims, “Without naming any specific individual, Hashemi warned against the growth of a movement that seeks to ignore the regime’s achievements and implicate everyone who cares about the regime.”

0920 GMT: A later start this morning, as we worked on an analysis of the shifts in the Green movement and their significance; even as leaders show caution in their statements, the signs of a long-term but far-from-disappearing movement persist. We have also posted the Public Broadcasting Service documentary, shown in the US last night, "A Death in Tehran" on the story of Neda Agha Soltan and the post-election protests.

Regular readers will note our frequent references to and use of sources from the Facebook page supporting Mir Hossein Mousavi. Tehran Bureau has a profile of the man behind the site, Mohammad Sadeghi.

Lebanon: Did Hillary Clinton Just Change US Policy on Hezbollah?

Sharmine Narwani for Huffington Post:

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared to break with US policy on Tuesday when she discussed Lebanese resistance group Hezbollah on the Charlie Rose show, identifying only the organization's "military wing" as a terrorist concern.

Discussing the recent negotiations between the five UN Security Council nations plus Germany -- P5+1 -- and Iran, Secretary Clinton told Rose:

"I mean, the Iranians not only worry us because of their nuclear program, they worry us because of their support for terrorism, their support for the military wing of Hezbollah, their support for Hamas, their interference in the internal affairs of their neighbors, trying to destabilize gulf countries and other countries throughout the greater region."

Hezbollah has been on the US State Department's List of Terrorist Organizations since 1999, with no distinctions thus far made between the group's military or political branches. Hezbollah itself rejects distinctions between its various bodies.

Earlier this summer, the British government did make that distinction however, placing only Hezbollah's military wing on its list of organizations banned under the 2000 Terrorism Act. Globally, only the United States, Canada and Israel view Hezbollah as a terrorist group.

A State Department spokeswoman, however, denied any policy shift, saying: "The Secretary's statement is fully consistent with our existing policy. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization."

But if Clinton's statement during the lengthy interview with Rose was a mere slip of the tongue, it was a very precise and specific gaff.

Which begs the question, is the US administration about to tweak its decade-long position on Hezbollah, and if so, why now?

The US Secretary of State's new phrasing comes exactly one day after the formation of a unity government in Lebanon, led by US-backed Prime Minister Saad Hariri.

The government's new cabinet includes ten ministerial positions for the Hezbollah-led opposition, two of which will go to Hezbollah members.

Any change in the US's position on the Lebanese resistance group could reflect this new reality: that Hezbollah participated in democratically held elections and is now part of Lebanon's official governmental body.

In the background, however, lurks another possible incentive for a US policy shift. A war of words between Israel and Hezbollah has persisted since the end of Israel's 33-day war on Lebanon in mid-2006. The stalemate that resulted was widely viewed as a defeat for Israel, a country that has relied on the psychology of victory to act as a deterrent for its Arab neighbors. And this perception of defeat has caused significant frustration within Israel's military establishment.

This past summer, Israeli rhetoric threatening Lebanon peaked when it became clear that although the pro-US coalition had won the Lebanese elections, a unity government including Hezbollah was inevitable.

"If Hezbollah joins the Lebanese government as an official entity, let it be clear that the Lebanese government, as far as we are concerned, is responsible for any attack -- any attack -- from its area on the state of Israel," Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said as recently as August. These comments followed similar statements by Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, increasing speculation that another military conflict could be in the offing.

Could the US administration be softening its stance on Hezbollah in order to give Lebanon's new government a shot at succeeding, and simultaneously warning Israel to back off? President Obama has a lot on his plate, juggling talks with Iran -- an Israeli foe and Hezbollah ally -- managing US military activities in Afghanistan and Iraq and trying to jumpstart peace talks between Palestinians and Israel. The last thing he needs is another large-scale armed conflict in the region to distract from his Mideast agenda.

In August, Obama's Assistant on Homeland Security and Counter-terrorism, John Brennan introduced more moderate language about the Lebanese resistance group at an event held at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in DC.

While reiterating the US position on Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, Brennan painted a more nuanced picture of the group:

"Hezbollah started out as purely a terrorist organization in the early '80s and has evolved significantly over time. And now it has members of parliament, in the cabinet; there are lawyers, doctors, others who are part of the Hezbollah organization ... And so, quite frankly, I'm pleased to see that a lot of Hezbollah individuals are in fact renouncing that type of terrorism and violence and are trying to participate in the political process in a very legitimate fashion."

In an article in The Nation a few days later, a State Department spokesman responded to Brennan's comments: "U.S. policy toward Hezbollah has not changed. We do not make any distinction between the political and military wings."

But his Secretary of State just did.

Whether Clinton on Tuesday deliberately meant to redefine US policy on Hezbollah or not, it seems the thinking within the administration has taken a turn anyway.

Israel-Palestine: State Department Changes Tone on Settlements

Israel: Obama’s Photograph Politics
Israel-Palestine & France: Sarkozy Calls Abbas after Meeting Netanyahu
Palestine: Abbas Bluffs & Wins — January Election Postponed
Netanyahu in Paris: Is France Mediating Israel-Syria Talks?
Inside Line on Hamas & Hezbollah: Their Thoughts on Obama, Unity Governments, & Oprah

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

Following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's "unproductive" visit to Washington, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William J. Burns said on Tuesday said that the Obama administration does not "accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements". Only days after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton praised Tel Aviv's "unprecedented" steps, Burns offered a correction in tone:

We consider the Israeli offer to restrain settlement activity to be a potentially important step, but it obviously falls short of the continuing Road Map obligation for a full settlement freeze.

Obama administration is committed to achieve two states living side by side in peace and security

A Jewish state of Israel, with which America retains unbreakable bonds, and with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, that ends the daily humiliations of Palestinians under occupation, and that realizes the full and remarkable potential of the Palestinian people...

Afghanistan Special: The Obama Administration Breaks Apart Over Military Escalation

Afghanistan Video: Obama Rejects “All Military Options”?
Afghanistan: The Pentagon (and US Companies) Dig In for “Long War”
Afghanistan: A US-Pakistan Deal? Karzai Stays, Talks with the Taliban
The US in Afghanistan: “The Long War” Still Waits for a Strategy

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

And no, that is not too dramatic a headline.

Twenty-four hours ago, everything was A-OK in the Obama Administration: "Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton [were] coalescing around a proposal to send 30,000 or more additional American troops to Afghanistan." OK, maybe "President Obama remain[ed] unsatisfied with answers he has gotten about how vigorously the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan would help execute a new strategy," but each of the four options on the table provided for some increase in the US military presence. The issues were "how much of Afghanistan the troops would seek to control and different time frames and expectations for the training of Afghan security forces".

And then all that coalescing fell apart.

This morning's New York Times reveals, "The United States ambassador to Afghanistan, who once served as the top American military commander there, has expressed in writing his reservations about deploying additional troops to the country, three senior American officials said Wednesday."

So "the position of the ambassador, Karl W. Eikenberry, a retired lieutenant general, puts him in stark opposition to the current American and NATO commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who has asked for 40,000 more troops". But even that is merely a dramatic support for a bigger indication of the divisions in the Administration?

Who were the "three senior American officials" who leaked Eikenberry's memorandum?

Presumably Gates, Clinton, and Mullen, given their reported acceptance of most of the McChrystal increase, would not be spreading secrets to undermine the proposal. So is Vice President Joe Biden, who has been held up as the chief opponent of an intensive escalation for "counter-insurgency" with his preference a targeted "counter-terrorism" effort, trying to sabotage the four options? What about special envoy Richard Holbrooke, who has no love for Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai and bitterly fell out with him after the August Presidential election, given Eikenberry's reported "strong concerns about...Karzai’s reliability as a partner and corruption in his government"?

The mystery will be pored over, without an answer, in the next days. Even more important, however, is the apparent effect of the Eikenberry objections on the President. The White House spin, after yesterday's eighth review conference on the Afghanistan options, is that no decision has been taken but that the President is making clear that the US commitment to the Karzai Government is not "open-ended". That's far from a ringing endorsement, either for the US ally in Kabul or for McChrystal's plan.

Indeed, if I was putting 2+2 together to make more than 4, I would add a question for detective journalists, "Who is to say that those 'senior officials' who ensured the Eikenberry memo went public this morning are not on Obama's White House staff?"

For months I expected this political kabuki, for all the appearances of Administration tensions, differing proposals, and persistent doubts, to end in the "compromise" of a troop increase that would meet most of McChrystal's demands. After all, that was the script in March when Obama approved the escalation of 30,000 more US soldiers and support units.

Now, however, that expectation is suspended. I would not go as far as the Associated Press report that the President "has rejected all military options" (see video in separate entry); supporters of a troop increase will not go away quietly, so there are further chapters in this political story.

Instead, Obama is buying himself some time with his trip to Asia, declaring that no decision will be taken before his return to Washington next week, even as those pressing for escalation scream, "Ditherer". Yet there is a glimmer --- if only a glimmer --- that the President may draw the line on the upward spiral of US military intervention.