Israel: Which is the Problem? Obama's Policies or Netanyahu's Culture of Fear?

Israel Update: Who’s Busted Now? White House Takes on Netanyahu

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

Is the strained relationship between Israelis and the Obama Administration the consequence of mistakes made by the Obama Administration, as argued by Haaretz's Bradley Burston, or of a fear culture promoted by the Netanyahu Government, as New York Times's Henry Siegman contends?

Israelis and Obama
Henry Siegman

Polls indicate that President Obama enjoys the support of only 6 to 10 percent of the Israeli public — perhaps his lowest popularity in any country in the world.

According to media reports, the president’s advisers are searching for ways of reassuring Israel’s public of President Obama’s friendship and unqualified commitment to Israel’s security.

That friendship and commitment are real, President Obama’s poll numbers in Israel notwithstanding. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sought to reinforce that message during her visit to Israel. The presidential envoy George Mitchell has reportedly been asked to make similar efforts during his far more frequent visits to Jerusalem.

The White House is about to set a new record in the number of reassuring messages and video greetings sent by an American president to Israel, as well as to Jewish organizations in the United States, on this subject. Plans for a presidential visit to Jerusalem are under discussion.

Presidential aides worry that the hostility toward President Obama among Israelis can be damaging to his peace efforts. This is undoubtedly true.

But a White House campaign to ingratiate the president with Israel’s public could be far more damaging, because the reason for this unprecedented Israeli hostility toward an American president is a fear that President Obama is serious about ending Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

Israelis do not oppose President Obama’s peace efforts because they dislike him; they dislike him because of his peace efforts. He will regain their affection only when he abandons these efforts.

That is how Israel’s government and people respond to any outside pressure for a peace agreement that demands Israel’s conformity to international law and to U.N. resolutions that call for a return to the 1967 pre-conflict borders and reject unilateral changes in that border.

Like Israel’s government, Israel’s public never tires of proclaiming to pollsters its aspiration for peace and its support of a two-state solution. What the polls do not report is that this support depends on Israel defining the terms of that peace, its territorial dimensions, and the constraints to be placed on the sovereignty of a Palestinian state.

An American president who addresses the Arab world and promises a fair and evenhanded approach to peacemaking is immediately seen by Israelis as anti-Israel. The head of one of America’s leading Jewish organizations objected to the appointment of Senator Mitchell as President Obama’s peace envoy because, he said, his objectivity and evenhandedness disqualified him for this assignment.

The Israeli reaction to serious peacemaking efforts is nothing less than pathological — the consequence of an inability to adjust to the Jewish people’s reentry into history with a state of their own following 2,000 years of powerlessness and victimhood.

Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, whose assassination by a Jewish right-wing extremist is being remembered this week in Israel, told Israelis at his inauguration in 1992 that their country is militarily powerful, and neither friendless nor at risk. They should therefore stop thinking and acting like victims.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s message that the whole world is against Israel and that Israelis are at risk of another Holocaust — a fear he invoked repeatedly during his address in September at the United Nations General Assembly in order to discredit Judge Richard Goldstone’s Gaza fact-finding report — is unfortunately still a more comforting message for too many Israelis.

This pathology has been aided and abetted by American Jewish organizations whose agendas conform to the political and ideological views of Israel’s right wing. These organizations do not reflect the views of most American Jews who voted overwhelmingly — nearly 80 percent — for Mr. Obama in the presidential elections.

An Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement has eluded all previous U.S. administrations not because they were unable to devise a proper formula for its achievement; everyone has known for some time now the essential features of that formula, which were proposed by President Clinton in early 2000.

Rather, the conflict continues because U.S. presidents — and to a far greater extent, members of the U.S. Congress, who depend every two years on electoral contributions — have accommodated a pathology that can only be cured by its defiance.

Only a U.S. president with the political courage to risk Israeli displeasure — and criticism from that part of the pro-Israel lobby in America which reflexively supports the policies of the Israeli government of the day, no matter how deeply they offend reason or morality — can cure this pathology.

If President Obama is serious about his promise to finally end Israel’s 40-year occupation, bring about a two-state solution, assure Israel’s long-range survival as a Jewish and democratic state, and protect vital U.S. national interests in the region, he will have to risk that displeasure. If he delivers on his promise, he will earn Israelis’ eternal gratitude.

Why do Israelis dislike Barack Obama?
Bradley Burston

There are many people, gifted with rare intelligence and tolerance for humankind, who, when addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, run off the rails.

This week, it was the turn of former American Jewish Congress national director Henry Siegman. Noting opinion polls showing that a bare six to eight percent of the Israeli public supports Barack Obama, Siegman concludes that the dislike for Obama is a reflection not of the president's policies, but of something essential - and fundamentally defective - in the Israeli people itself:

"The Israeli reaction to serious peacemaking efforts is nothing less than pathological," Siegman writes, calling it "the consequence of an inability to adjust to the Jewish people's reentry into history with a state of their own following 2,000 years of powerlessness and victimhood."

He concedes that polls show that a clear majority of Israelis favor a two-state solution, and thus, Palestinian statehood. But he argues that, while they insist that they much prefer peace, if put to the test, Israelis will prove to be liars, and opt for occupation. "Israel's public never tires of proclaiming to pollsters its aspiration for peace and its support of a two-state solution." Nonetheless, "the reason for this unprecedented Israeli hostility toward an American president is a fear that President Obama is serious about ending Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza."

Siegman's thesis makes no room for the possibility that the administration may have made more major mistakes in handling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, than it has made in any other primary policy sphere

There is no allowance for the sense that when Barack Obama made an early priority of his presidency a high profile visit to Cairo, its centerpiece an extended address to the Muslim world, a subsequent personal appeal to Israelis might have helped him advance his peacemaking goals.

There is no consideration of the possibility that the administration failed in doing requisite preparation with Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak prior to dropping on Israel the bomb of a blanket settlement freeze demand - which might have been well-received by the Israeli public, had it been accompanied by gestures on the Palestinian or wider Arab side. As it was, rumors of normalization moves were humiliatingly waved away by Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal, who wrote that a settlement freeze, even if agreed to by Israel, fell far, far short of his key nation's minimum preconditions for any steps toward relations with Israel.

Demanding not a freeze but total removal of all existing settlements as a mere initial precondition, the prince states that any gestures will have to wait until the return to Arab hands of the West Bank, the Golan, and Shabaa Farms in Lebanon. "For Saudis to take steps toward diplomatic normalization before this land is returned to its rightful owners would undermine international law and turn a blind eye to immorality."

But what should any of that matter to Henry Siegman? From the tone of his arguments, he belongs to the school of thought which suggests that hating Israelis is a form of working for peace.

So willing is Siegman to disavow any legitimate feelings on the part of Israelis, that he suggests that that their worst fears - of Iran, of rocket attacks, of world isolation and abandonment - not only are baseless, but are also a source of consolation:

"Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's message that the whole world is against Israel and that Israelis are at risk of another Holocaust - a fear he invoked repeatedly during his address in September at the United Nations General Assembly in order to discredit Judge Richard Goldstone's Gaza fact-finding report is unfortunately still a more comforting message for too many Israelis."

Siegman doesn't merely think that Israelis are mistaken. He loathes them. In his reading, they are venal, deceitful, the source of the conflict and the obstruction to its solution. In Siegman's reading "the conflict continues because U.S. presidents ... have accommodated a pathology that can only be cured by its defiance."

It may be argued that Israel has much more to fear from people who think like Henry Siegman, than from Richard Goldstone. A close reading of the Goldstone report, and an open hearing of his views, as in this interview with Rabbi Michael Lerner of Tikkun, shows that Justice Goldstone cares a great deal about Israelis and the direction in which their country is headed.

Meanwhile, given Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's opaque, work-in-progress assessment of current Israeli policy as an unprecedented restriction on settlement, but far short of what the administration would like, it should surprise no one in Washington if the White House has now managed simultaneously to alienate Israel's left, right, and center.

For Israel's sake, for the Palestinians' sake, and for the good of his presidency, the administration must radically reassess its approach to the Mideast conflict.

The fears of Israelis are real. The grievances of the Palestinians are just. If both peoples have one trait in common, it is that they cannot be bludgeoned, bribed, or sweet-talked into supporting a policy which favors only side.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are nothing if not good students. It is time to go back and hit the books. If they can broker a package deal which addresses the most critical needs of the Palestinians (including fostering Fatah-Hamas reconciliation, furthering PA security and solcial welfare responsibilities, easing the Gaza siege, and curbing settlement) as well as providing something Israelis can reasonably view as an advance over their current situation (such as making good on hopes for Muslim-world normalization measures), they have a chance of success.

If not, it is time to leave the people here who hate one another to themselves. And to Henry Siegman. In a place where dignity is everything, there is a certain honor to be gained in recognizing that you tried your best, but that peace will have to wait for a time when Israelis are less preoccupied with hating one another other, and Palestinians, the same.

The Latest from Iran (10 November): Uncertainty and Propaganda

NEW Iran: The Mousavi Interview with Jamaran (9 November)
NEW Latest Iran Video: Khaje Nasir University Hunger Strike (10 November)
NEW Iran: The Neda Agha Soltan Scholarship at Oxford University
Iran: An Eyewitness on 13 Aban “Protest An Inseparable Part of People’s Lives”
Iran’s Nuclear Programme: Washington’s Unhelpful Misperceptions
Latest Iran Video: More from 13 Aban & from Today (8-9 November)
The Latest from Iran (9 November): Assessing the Government

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

1920 GMT: We have posted, in a separate entry, the English translation of Mir Hossein Mousavi's interview with the Jamaran website.

1845 GMT: Mohammad Saleh Jokar, a senior official in the Student Basij organization, has announced that 6,000 Basij units will be created in elementary schools, seeking to promote Basij and revolutionary ideals among pupils from a young age. Jokar added that about 4.5 million students at elementary and high schools and 320,000 teachers are members of the Basij force.

1830 GMT: Rooz Online has published an English-language version of Ferehsteh Ghazi's interview with Grand Ayatollah Montazeri. The cleric asserts,

The confessions that have been extracted in prison have absolutely no religious or legal value and cannot be the basis for the death or prison punishments that have been issued. Those who are responsible and their accomplices for such confessions, are religiously and legally guilty and criminal.

Whenever the execution of a religious punishment leads to negative consequences on religion or society, the judge can and must stop the execution. (see also "Ayatollah Montazeri’s Interview on Eve of 13 Aban")

1820 GMT: Labour Activists Jailed. We reported in late October on the threats to detain leaders of the Syndicate of Workers of Haft Tapeh Sugar Cane Company after protests. Four of them --- Fereydoun Nikoufard, Jalil Ahmadi, Ghorban Alipour and Mohammad Haydari --- have now begun prison terms.

1800 GMT: Publish and Be Damned. Tehran's Prosecutor General Abbas Jafari Doulatabadi has warned that he will pursue sites that “publish baseless news”. The statement follows Monday's declaration by Esmail Ahmadi Moghaddam, Iran's commander of security forces, "There is need for greater supervision over the internet....Every time we have entered this scene, the media and individuals who show off as intellectuals attack and we step back.”

1330 GMT: A relatively quiet period, as we try to track down an English translation of the Mousavi statement on Monday to the Khomeini-owned Jamaran website, but as an EA correspondent notes: "This was a master stroke by the Khomeini family, as it places Mousavi under its own tutelage and wards off attempts to arrest him."

Meanwhile, we have video of today's hunger strike at Khaje Nasir University.

1130 GMT: US Tells Ahmadinejad, "We've Got You Covered". US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may have just given the clearest message that Washington will work with the Iranian President, whatever obstacles he faces, to get an uranium enrichment deal.

Speaking to the US Public Broadcasting Service, Clinton said, "Look, we don't have to trust or love each other to understand that it is in our interest to try to stabilize the world." Then, noting the post-election crisis, she extended a helping hand to Ahmadinejad: "We understand the internal political dynamics, and we've been, I think, patient in helping [Iran] to see that we're serious."

0850 GMT: More on "Neda's Scholarship". The Iranian Embassy in Britain has fiercely criticised the award of a graduate scholarship in the name of Neda Agha Soltan by Queen's College, Oxford University (see separate entry).

Writing to Oxford's chancellor, the embassy expressed surprise at "a politically-motivated move", which involves the university "n a criminal case which is still under investigation by the Iranian police".

The embassy adds that Neda's death was "far from the scene of protests [which] erupted after the June presidential election". Indeed, the Iranian officials hint unsubtly, her slaying was part of a "complicated and planned" scenario.

So, the embassy concludes, "The involvement of the university in Iran's internal affairs, particularly in the country's post-election events of which the British media played a leading role, would lead to the loss of the university's scientific prestige and academic goal. This has nothing to do with the university's position and goals and will not help Iran and Britain improve their relations."

0835 GMT: More Than Meets the Eye on the Nukes? President Obama has told Reuters, ""Although so far we have not seen the kind of positive response we want from Iran, we are as well positioned as we've ever been to align the international community behind that agenda."

On the surface, that is an unexciting, hold-the-line statement. Yet it appears prominently in Iranian state media via Press TV, and it follows the clear signal from the US, via its ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (see yesterday's updates), that Iran has time to negotiate the Vienna uranium enrichment deal.

So are there talks behind talks for a US-Iran agreement? And, if so, by whom with whom?

0735 GMT: EA readers have followed up our news about the petition to commute the death sentence of  Ehsan Fattahian, arrested in July 2008 and scheduled for execution tomorrow for "war against God". They point us to his open letter, "I Never Feared Death".

0730 GMT: EA readers point us to a video of a heated debate at a Tehran university between Mostafa Kavakebian, a reformist member of Parliament, and his counterpart Hojatoleslam Hamid Rasaee, about the rule of law in post-election Iran.

0725 GMT: We've posted a separate entry on the announcement of Queen's College, Oxford University, of a graduate scholarship in Philosophy in the memory of Neda Agha Soltan.

0630 GMT: A relative lull in the post-election crisis yesterday. The Government is still caught up in the detailed debate over its economic plans and the two-front confrontation --- at home and abroad --- over its response to the Vienna uranium enrichment deal. President Ahmadinejad is abroad, the Supreme Leader is silent for the moment, and surprisingly little has been heard from the military and security forces.

But only a "relative" lull. After each major gathering since June, there have been quiet phases, and yesterday was far from quiet. Mir Hossein Mousavi followed Mohammad Khatami into the post-13 Aban pages (and, again, note that the interview is being featured by the Khomeini family, which should be treated as an ally of the opposition) with his declaration for unity and warning that the Government could not hide behind the claim of an immutable Constitution, given that it was not living up to that document. Demonstrations are occurring each day somewhere on an Iranian university campus, and word-of-mouth is spreading the message that the mass gathering for 16 Azar (7 December) is less than a month away. And all of this is happening despite much, possibly the majority, of the Green leadership in prison or abroad.

This morning the news from the regime is of more uncertainty and mis-information. Kazem Jalili of Parliament's National Security Commission is pushing the anti-deal line that enrichment must be done inside Iran, using uranium purchased abroad, rather than in a country like Russia. Fars is claiming a private hospital refused to treat injured security forces, only treating a "certain group of people and turn[ing] away all bearded individuals who had a Basiji appearance".

And Khalil Hayat Moghaddam, a member of Parliament's judicial commission, has taken the propaganda that Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi have split (recall the false interview with Karroubi's son) to new depths:

These two have forgotten that they made a name for themselves under the banner of the Revolution, Leadership and martyrs...,as the tears of the mothers of the martyrs and the blood of the martyrs are what protect the establishment and the Leadership [from harm]. Mousavi and Karroubi's story brings to mind the tale of those people who were fighting over imaginary spoils of war; they have forgotten that they will not be able to inflict harm on the establishment and the Revolution. The harsh stance adopted by Hassan Karroubi against Mir Mousavi Mousavi clearly shows that disagreements are increasing between the supporters of the two political figures, and it will come to spelling each other's end. (English summary at Tehran Bureau)

Israel: White House Gets Busted on "Private" Meeting with Netanyahu

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

Transcript & Analysis: Netanyahu in US – Waiting for Obama, Talking about “Small” Israel

Contrary to initial reports from the US, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did get his private meeting with President Obama in Washington, with discussions on the Iranian nuclear programme and the Middle East peace talks. The White House headline statement was, "The president reaffirmed our strong commitment to Israel's security, and discussed security cooperation on a range of issues."

The problem for the Obama Administration is that journalists were unwilling to let "security cooperation" stand in place of other issues. State Department spokesman Ian Kelly was forced to hand trickier problems back to the White House:

QUESTION: On the peace process, is Senator Mitchell planning to go back to the Middle East, and what are you planning to do after the latest development on the Palestinian side?

MR. KELLY: Well, I think a lot of the focus today, of course, will be on the visit of Prime Minister Netanyahu. He’s meeting with the President tonight. We remain committed to our goal, which is the re-launch of negotiations between the sides and try and create the kind of atmosphere where these negotiations can succeed as soon as possible. As far as Senator Mitchell’s immediate plans, I’m not sure that he has plans in the very near term to return to the region. But of course, he’ll be ready to do so if that can be helpful.

QUESTION: Do you expect anything from the meeting between the President and Prime Minister Netanyahu?

MR. KELLY: Well, I’m not going to try and predict what – what’s going to come out of that meeting. I’ll leave that to the White House.

Meanwhile, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs could only take refuge in repeating Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's "our position has not changed":

Q - What does the White House -- well, one thing first, on the meeting with the Israeli Prime Minister tonight. Why is that closed, no press avail, the statements? What is the thinking there?

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, as you know, our schedule since late last week has been up in the air. The President was supposed to speak on Tuesday to the same group that Prime Minister Netanyahu is speaking to. He obviously looks forward to sitting down with the Prime Minister tonight -- and continue to work together to address issues like Middle East peace and the threat that's posed by Iran.

Q - And on the meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu, I just wanted to follow up. I understand the schedule has been in flux, but why no television cameras? Is it because you don't want to highlight the fact that there's not a lot of progress in these talks so far?

MR. GIBBS: No, the President wanted to have a meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu. That's what we're doing. I'm sure, Ed, that the contents of the meeting generally seem to be well read out and I trust that this time will be no different.

Q - But typically the President will go on camera if he wants to highlight what is a key initiative for him, and if Mideast peace is that important you would think that he would want to do that.

MR. GIBBS: Well, like the date didn't change from Saturday night to Sunday, I think it's pretty safe to assume that the President thinks no less of the importance of the Middle East peace process on simply by subtracting one television camera.

Q - And the last thing, on settlements. Last week, Secretary Clinton was in Israel, and suggested -- she wanted to praise the Israelis for some progress on settlements. And the Palestinians were upset because the U.S. policy has been a complete freeze on settlements.

MR. GIBBS: Policy dating back several decades, yes.

Q - Right, but specifically it was emphasized in the early days of this administration. And the Palestinians felt like maybe there were some back-peddling. Can you just clear up -- there was a sense that she seemed to be shifting last week.

MR. GIBBS: No, no, again, I judge from your question -- the policy of the United States government for many decades has been no more settlements. That's not something that is new to this administration. It's something that I think has gotten disproportionate media coverage, but it's not a policy difference in this administration and previous administrations.

So now a White House which was so embarrassed about the lack of progress on Israel-Palestine that it tried to hide talks with the Israeli Prime Minister finds itself in the floodlights of more indecision and even confusion. Not that this should worry the Israelis, who eagerly leaked news of the "private" talks. After all, they got their headline that Obama was "strongly committed" to them, irrespective of any minor difficulties such as those settlements.

Palestine Video & Analysis: Reactions to the Election Bluff of Mahmoud Abbas

Israel-Palestine: UN General Assembly Endorses Goldstone Report on Gaza

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

On Thursday, Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas said,"I have told our brethren in the Palestine Liberation Organization...that I have no desire to run in the forthcoming election" on 24 January.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGxXyzu2T5o[/youtube]

The head of the PLO Executive Committee, Yasser Abed Rabbo, quickly announced that the committee had rejected Abbas' announcement. Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri jumped in to allege Abbas was bluffing, urging his Western friends to put pressure on Israel. Zuhri suggested an alternative course, "We advise him to...face the Palestinian people and tell them frankly that the path of negotiations has failed. Halt negotiations with the occupation and take practical steps toward reconciliation."

Israel and the US are calling on Abbas to remain in the election. Israeli president Shimon Peres told Abbas in a phone call, "If you leave the Palestinians would lose their chance for an independent state. The situation in the region would deteriorate. Stay, for the Palestinian people's sake."

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, "Of the existing alternatives, if we want an agreement with the Palestinians then Abbas is the best partner." Clinton subsequently asked Arab foreign ministers and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to press Abbas for a change of decision.

The Latest from Iran (5 November): Riding the Wave

NEW Iran Document: Ayatollah Montazeri’s Interview on Eve of 13 Aban
NEW Iran’s New 13 Aban: “A Major Blow to Khamenei’s Authority”
NEW Iran-Israel "Silent War": Armed Ship Intercepted
NEW Latest Iran Video: The 13 Aban Protests (4 November — 4th Set)
NEW Iran’s New 13 Aban: A First-Hand Account from the Streets
NEW Iran’s New 13 Aban: “The Green Wave Has Bounced Back”
Iran: Mehdi Karroubi’s Son on 13 Aban Incidents
Latest Iran Video: The 13 Aban Protests (4 November — 3rd Set)
Latest Iran Video: The 13 Aban Protests (4 November — 2nd Set)
Latest Iran Video: The 13 Aban Protests (4 November — 1st Set)
Text: President Obama’s Statement on Iran (4 November)
Iran: Josh Shahryar on Fictions & Realities of “Revolution”
The Latest from Iran (4 November — 13 Aban): Today Is The Day

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



2135 GMT: For What It's Worth. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has stated sharply, possibly in response to Mohammad El Baradei's revelation that the International Atomic Energy Agency is looking for a compromise for the Vienna third-party enrichment agreement, "This is a pivotal moment for Iran. We urge Iran to accept the agreement as proposed and we will not alter it and we will not wait forever."

Whether the US Government holds this line, effectively suspending engagement, remains to be seen. It should be noted, however, that the "late October" window for the meeting of the 5+1 powers with Iran to seal a deal --- originally projected at the start of October when direct discussions between the US and Iran resumed in Geneva --- has come and gone.

1900 GMT: Shutting Away Journalists. Reporters Without Borders writes, “At least 100 journalists and cyber-dissidents have been arrested" in Iran since 12 June "and 23 of them are still being held. More than 50 journalists have left the country and those who have stayed are subject to constant harassment.”

The organization notes that, in addition to the arrest of Agence France Press correspondent Farhad Pouladi (see 1045 GMT), Nafiseh Zareh Kohan, a journalist who writes for various pro-reform newspapers, and blogger and human rights activist Hassin Assadi Zidabadi were arrested yesterday.

1850 GMT: On the Nuclear Front. It looks like Iran will get the all-clear on the second uranium enrichment plant near Qom, which caused such a fuss when it was "outed" by Western countries in September after Tehran notified the International Atomic Energy Agency.

IAEA head Mohammad El Baradei said inspectors found "nothing to be worried about" in their visit in late October. "The idea was to use it as a bunker under the mountain to protect things," in contrast to the open-air enrichment plant at Natanz, El-Baradei said. "It's a hole in a mountain."

El Baradei also said he was examining possible compromises to resolve the draft Vienna agreement on third-party enrichment, which Tehran balked at signing.

1830 GMT: Pedestrian, who often drops in on the EA comment section, offers an overview of 13 Aban and ponders, "What Now?":

Mousavi keeps referring to “social networks” and “communities”. The trick with that is that it makes individuals much more vulnerable. If people were to begin organizing events in their own community, they would be giving away their privacy: their address and their name could be identified. Any antagonist in the neighborhood could easily blow up their efforts. Before the revolution, people met in mosques. Each neighborhood has a mosque. Now, at least from rumors we hear, people might have even been held up in mosques. Whether these rumors are true or not, mosques are no longer an alternative (and amen to that!).

Be it in schools, in neighborhoods, at work - it seems to me as if smaller group activity may be a better alternative from now on.

1645 GMT: Catching Up. We've finally had a moment to post the English translation of a written interview with Grand Ayatollah Montazeri, on the eve of 13 Aban, on the 1979 US Embassy takeover, Iran's relations with the US, Russia, and China, and the state of the Iranian Government.

We're also posting the best of a steady stream of videos coming into us.

1545 GMT: A Crisis for Khamenei? Chris Emery, responding to this morning's analysis by Mr Smith, asserts that 13 Aban was "a major blow to Khamenei's authority". (We also have Mr Smith's reply.)

1345 GMT: Radio Zamaneh reports that families of those detained yesterday have clashed with security forces in front of the Vozara detention centre. It is also reported that the families blocked a bus taking detainees from Vozara to Evin Prison.

1340 GMT: The Regime Strategy. I think the response to 13 Aban may now becoming evident. While there is uncertainty over President Ahmadinejad's speech (some outlets quote Fars News as saying it will be on Saturday) and the general political response, the Government persists in trying to break the Green movement through arrests. A reliable Iranian source is passing on steady information about the detentions of student activists.

1330 GMT: Yes, State Media Setback. A follow-up to our 0745 entry: Press TV is now posting about a demand from Al-Alam, Iran's state Arab-language satellite channel, for an explanation from its Saudi hosts as to why it was taken off the air.

1300 GMT: Not So Weak. In a sign that the regime will press ahead with a heavy hand to deter opposition, it has been announced that Behzad Nabavi, a senior member of the reformist Mojahedin of Islamic Revolution party, will appear in Revolutionary Court on Sunday. This follows yesterday's hearing for two other post-election detainees, former Vice President Mohammad Ali Abtahi and journalist Hengameh Shahidi.

1050 GMT: Weak. What is striking about the "official" reaction to the 13 Aban protests is its relative lack of strength. Because they are not acknowledging and indeed featuring the opposition, as Press TV has, other outlets seem to be stumbling in their attempt to wish away the protest.

Fars News is no longer playing up its hostile recognition of the marches, blaming Hashemi Rafsanjani's son for leading 50-100 "goons" (and explaining that Mehdi Karroubi arrived at an empty 7 Tir Square after the goons were shooed away by Iranian security forces). Instead, it features an interview a member of the Confederate Party of Islamic Clergy who praises youth for being ready to stand against the arrogance of internal and external enemies. The strategy of the Islamic Republic News Agency is to focus on President Ahmadinejad's hosting of the Emir of Qatar.

Of course, this could all change with a forceful speech by President Ahmadinejad. For now, however, Is sense uncertainty.

1045 GMT: An Iranian reporter working for Agence France Presse was arrested during yesterday's demonstrations. The whereabouts of Farhad Poulardi are unknown.

0845 GMT: How the Green Wave Swept Over Press TV.

This was the opening of the state media's English-language report on its website at 1115 GMT, "Iranians mark US embassy takeover":

Rallies marking the 30th anniversary of the US Embassy takeover in Tehran have started in capital Tehran as well as other cities across the country.

Tens of thousands of people from all walks of life and many political persuasions have staged a rally at the site of the former US embassy in Tehran, better known in Iranian history as the 'Den of Spies'.

But this was overtaken by the opening of the report posted at 1930 GMT, "Opposed rallies on US Embassy takeover anniversary":

Thousands of supporters of defeated presidential candidates, Mehdi Karroubi and Mir-Hossein Mousavi, have held a rally in the Iranian capital as the country commemorated the 30th anniversary of the US Embassy takeover.

The main anti-government rally took place at a central square in Tehran on Wednesday, November 4, our correspondent Leila Faramarzi reported.

It was only in the 5th paragraph that the article noted, "Tens of thousands of Iranians took to the streets to commemorate the day, dubbed as the national day of fighting global arrogance."

0745 GMT: State Media Setback? Egypt's Middle East News Agency reports that Iran's Arabic-language satellite TV channel, Al-Alam, has been taken off the air by two Arab-controlled satellite companies.

The official explanation form Nilesat and Arabsat is "breach of contract", but there according to Egypt's MENA news agency, but there is speculation that Arab governments want to curb the reach and influence of the channel.

0740 GMT: Complementing our correspondent Mr Azadi's eyewitness report, the Green Freedom Wave has also posted a detailed summary of events throughout Iran yesterday.

0725 GMT: We start this morning with an apology. 13 Aban was notable not just for the events in Iran, but for the birthday of the daughter of one of our correspondents. In the flurry of events, we forgot to offer our best wishes.

Our correspondent noted, "I used to be happy she was born on 13 Aban because it marked my defiance of the Americans. Now I am happy because it coincides with another movement." But will there be celebrations today as well? We've posted an analysis by Mr Smith and a first-hand account from the streets of Iran. We're hoping another analysis will follow this morning, and we'll posting more videos that have emerged.

At the moment the biggest buzz, at least for CNN, is that President Ahmadinejad will be giving a televised speech. No clues yet as to content. Unsurprisingly, no sign either of the opposition's next move, as breath is caught after yesterday's emerging if partial triumph.