Iran Text: Khatami on Legitimate Protest and Illegitimate Government (13 November)

Iran: Is This an “Unravelling” Protest Beyond Mousavi and Karroubi?
Iran: Why is Washington Belittling the Green Movement?
The Latest from Iran (13 November): Accusations

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



Adapted from the report on the Facebook site associated with Mir Hossein Mousavi:

Former President Mohammad Khatami, in a meeting with a group of faculty members of Iran University of Science and Technology, has strongly criticised the continuation of the militarised environment and the security measures enforced on Iranian society. He added that one of the problems of the society is the lack of understanding and not taking advantage of the role of academia: “In the current situation, unfortunately the [academic] environment is getting more restricted, and regretfully the losses that the country will suffer because of these limitations are unrecoverable.”

The former reformist president, emphasising the necessity of independence of the universities, said:

In our reformist administration, the concern of the government was for the universities to be independent and respected, and we tried so that the 'outside forces' would not get the authorisation to intervene and enforce their views by any means.

An intellectual is someone who recognises the expectations of his/her time....Our time is the time that no one accepts tyranny and dictatorship and rejects it in all forms....Today the dictators of our time are claiming to be from the people; these are the problems of our time and are not related to East or West. Today criticising Government and freedom of expression should be accepted as rights.

The main factors in weakening the system are people’s dissatisfaction and use of violence by the Government] in any form....The violence by the government will cause radicalism and distrust, and if there is increasing dissatisfaction and distrust in a society, Islam and an establishment that carries the Islamic title will receive the first blow. If God forbid...violence, intimidationm and threats are recognised means of the establishment, and the enemies take advantage of this fact as well, more than anything, it would be the establishment that is harmed by this.”

Today the question is whether the satisfaction of the society, especially of the intellectuals, has been increased, particularly during the events after the election? If not, one should find out what the problem is and those who created this situation and caused the increase of the dissatisfaction in the society are those who are weakening the establishment.

This society belongs to us, but why is it that environment has been restricted so much? Why is it that the valuable figures who have a [different] view or an objection, not only are being eliminated [from political scene] but are suffering all kinds of insults and have been put under pressure?

Students, professors, scholars, artists, and intellectuals who have a great background and even served the country during the Iran-Iraq war...are saying that they recognise the Constitution but have some criticisms as well. They are being insulted and falsely accused. So unfortunately some [radical] slogans of which none of us approve are being heard in the country. The establishment is weakened, and Iran suffers domestic and international damage.

These [problems] have been created because people are not being respected. Objection and criticism are being considered as efforts to topple the establishment, the [national] media have insulted and falsely accused those who people are looking up to, and all of this is harming the system.

We should all return to the Constitution and act according to the Constitution and teachings of Islam. It should be accepted that it is not possible to run the society and the universities with military force and this kind of management is harmful for the interests of the country including its wealth, moral values and dignity.

The expectation was that the military and security measures would be eased, not that criticism and objection would be so costly for the society. It should be remembered that those who are criticising are not trying to topple the establishment but rather are care about the revolution and the society.....

Isn’t it that those who are criticising [the government] are being accused of all kinds of allegations that are true for the worst enemies of the country and the nation? If the answers to these questions are positive; these are the signs of the diversions that should be modified and corrected.

The basis [of the nation] is the Constitution; we want to have a glorious Iran. We want the people to consider the government as part of them and for the government to see people as part of itself. We want the government to welcome the criticisms against it as a blessing.

Iran: Why is Washington Belittling the Green Movement?

Iran: Is This an “Unravelling” Protest Beyond Mousavi and Karroubi?
The Latest from Iran (12 November): Ahmadinejad Moves for Nuclear Deal

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

Recently I had sharp words for an article by Borzou Daragahi of The Los Angeles Times because it was "so partial, so distorting, so wrong that it verged on sabotage of the demands, aspirations, and ideas of the Green movement". Daragahi cited a few "analysts" who, more from their personal interests than from knowledge of the opposition, denounced Mir Hossein Mousavi and called on the US Government to recognise the outcome of June's Presidential election.

Fortunately, in my opinion, Daragahi quickly walked away from that piece, recognising that the 13 Aban protests would be "significant". However, he has now posted an interview with Karim Sadjadpour, one of the most prominent US-based analysts of Iran, which revives my concerns: "Is Obama administration dissing the 'green' opposition movement?"

Sadjadpour claims, in support of the headline, "There are certainly analysts in Washington, including within some branches of the U.S. government, who believe that Iran’s opposition movement is either dead or does not deserve to be taken seriously," then adding --- in an apparent contradiction --- "[But] I’ve never found them to be dismissive or unsympathetic towards the green movement". However, whether Obama's officials love, loathe, or have no time for the Green Wave, "They feel they can’t put all their eggs in the basket of the opposition."

My concerns are not over Sadjadpour, whose analysis I appreciate. Instead, it is with the "they" who he is invoking. I do not know their names. I do not know on what basis they are making their judgements. And I certainly do not know their motives for proclaiming the Death of the Opposition.

Sadjadpour throws out clues. Part of Washington's distance could be benevolent: "The Obama administration worries that if it is seen as too vocally supportive of the opposition...it could end up sabotaging the movement." On the other hand, it could be the calculation that a nuclear deal with Tehran trumps all other considerations: "The prospect of political reform in Tehran appears to be at best a medium-term process, while the prospect of Iran reaching a nuclear weapons capability is an immediate concern.

The point remains, however: We Just Don't Know. And my concern remains and now grows with each article --- the original Daragahi piece, the snide comments of Jackson Diehl on "Iran's Unlovable Opposition" in the Washington Post, and the distortions of David Ignatius in the same paper  --- that claims to "know" the Iranian opposition. Are the ignorance that poses as knowledge and the insults that pose as analysis not only representative of the authors but of Government officials who stand as unnamed sources behind them?

----
Is Obama administration dissing the 'green' opposition movement?
Borzou Daragahi

As the United States attempts to grapple with Iran over its nuclear program, some worry that it will sacrifice the Islamic Republic's grass-roots opposition movement.

Karim Sadjadpour is an Iran analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. He's regularly hobnobbing with Beltway policymakers and advisors as well as those within the kaleidoscope of think tanks issuing reams of recommendations for them.

He says that opinion in Washington is mixed. Though he himself believes that Iran's opposition movement remains a force to be reckoned with, some disagree.

"There are certainly analysts in Washington, including within some branches of the U.S. government, who believe that Iran’s opposition movement is either dead or does not deserve to be taken seriously," he said.

But, he said, "in numerous conversations with the key formulators of Iran policy in the Obama administration I’ve never found them to be dismissive or unsympathetic towards the green movement."

Still, for a whole bunch of reasons, the administration is also hedging its bets.

"They feel they can’t put all their eggs in the basket of the opposition," he said.

or one thing, they worry that Iran's drive to master nuclear technology is moving faster than its move toward democracy. "The prospect of political reform in Tehran appears to be at best a medium-term process, while the prospect of Iran reaching a nuclear weapons capability is an immediate concern," said Sadjadpour, who was last in Iran in 2005.

But there's another matter, says Sadjadpour. The Obama administration worries that if it is seen as too vocally supportive of the opposition, as has been demanded by some commentators, it could end up sabotaging the movement.

"They’re concerned that enthusiastic U.S. patronage of the opposition movement could prove more hurtful than helpful to their cause," he said.

The administration's uncertainty stems in part from mixed messages it's getting from Iran and supporters of the opposition.

"Some think the U.S. could and should be doing much more, others argue that this is an internal Iranian drama and further American support would be counterproductive," he said.

Following the beatings, mass imprisonments and televised trials of opposition members, Sadjadpour said he thinks the administration could get away with being more outspoken in criticizing Iran for failure to measure up to globally accepted standards of human rights and justice.

"I have no illusions that raising the issue of human rights will compel the regime to have second thoughts about employing repression and brutality," he said. "But if we continue engagement while neglecting to talk about human rights, the United States sends the signal to the Iranian people that America is a cynical superpower willing to 'do a deal' at their expense."

While dialog with Iran is important, diplomatic engagement is not an end in itself, but a way to curb Iran's nuclear program and moderate its foreign policy, he said.

Sadjadpour, for one, said he very much doubts that the current ruling establishment in Tehran seeks an accommodation with the U.S.

"As long as Ahmadinejad remains president and [Supreme Leader Ali] Khamenei remains leader, I am skeptical about Iran’s willingness to make and adhere to meaningful compromises on issues like the nuclear issue and Israeli-Palestinian conflict," he said.

That doesn't mean the U.S. should revert back to the "regime change" policies and rhetoric of the Bush administration. In fact, Sadjadpour said he was convinced that that Khamenei and Ahmadinejad would actually welcome a military strike.

"It may be their only hope to silence popular dissent and heal internal political rifts," he said.

But ruling out war doesn't mean the U.S. should get all lovey-dovey with Tehran's current establishment.

"We should certainly refrain from employing policies that dampen the momentum of the green movement, or alter its trajectory," he said. "This means treading carefully on 'engagement,' broadening the conversation beyond just nukes and avoiding military confrontation."

Iran: Is This an "Unravelling" Protest Beyond Mousavi and Karroubi?

Iran: Why is Washington Belittling the Green Movement?
The Latest from Iran (12 November): Ahmadinejad Moves for Nuclear Deal

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

I will be honest. I saw this article by Brian Murphy of the Associated Press earlier in the week but decided not to post it or even refer to it. I did so because I could not find the basis for his claims about the Green movement. Neither the quotes from his "some experts" do not or his knowledge of the situation (he claims, for example, that only "several thousand" demonstrators turned out in Iran on 13 Aban) support his sweeping conclusion of a "potential unravelling" of the opposition. They do not back his speculation that "Mousavi and Karroubi's reluctance could leave room for more militant opposition leaders to emerge in the future" --- indeed, Murphy's implication is that the mainstream of the Green protest desire revolution while Mousavi and Karroubi "have repeatedly said they do not seek to overthrow the ruling clerics".



On second thought, however, the far better-informed and thoughtful discussion amongst EA readers has considered the direction of the Green Wave after the latest protests and statements and actions by its leaders. So I'm posting Murphy's piece as his personal contribution to the debate and looking forward to the ideas and critiques of our own "experts" on the Comment board.

Iran's opposition steers challenge toward the top
Brian Murphy

Just minutes before anti-riot police charged opposition marchers in Tehran last week, a new chant bubbled up from the crowd: "Death to Nobody."

It was more than just a play on the "Death to America" slogans that are staples of Iran's political life. The cries give a sense of how much the protest movement has evolved since the raw outrage of last summer.

The demonstrations have moved beyond narrow attacks on President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his disputed re-election in June. They are now drifting toward a blanket challenge of the Islamic leadership's right to rule.

"It's gone from anti-Ahmadinejad to more of anti-regime in general," said Mustafa Alani, a regional analyst at the Gulf Research Center in Dubai. "That's an important shift."

And here lies the protesters' strength, but also their potential unraveling, some experts say.

An overall challenge to the powers of non-elected clerics — headed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — could provide the big picture goal to sustain the demonstrations for years. But it also carries risks. Top among them: alienating the opposition leadership, who remain still loyal to the Islamic system, and bringing even harsher crackdowns by authorities who can justify use of violence to protect the status quo.

The two senior figures in the opposition, Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mahdi Karroubi, have repeatedly said they do not seek to overthrow the ruling clerics. Since July, authorities have put on trial more than 100 pro-reform figures accused of being part of a plot to topple this religious hierarchy.

Mousavi and Karroubi's reluctance could leave room for more militant opposition leaders to emerge in the future.

The protests last week coincided with state-run rallies marking the 30th anniversary of the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. The timing, like the shouts of "Death to Nobody," were a symbolic challenge to one of the ideological pillars of the regime — the anti-U.S. fervor of the 1979 Islamic Revolution that toppled the pro-American shah.

Just blocks away from the opposition marches, the pro-government demonstrators were bellowing the standard beat of "Death to America" to mark the Nov. 4 embassy seizure.

Many pro-reform marchers still wore the green colors of Mousavi, who claims he is the rightful winner of the June 12 presidential election.

But much of the protesters' defiance went beyond Mousavi's complaints over the election and the subsequent crackdown and targeted Khamenei in acts that were almost unthinkable before the postelection meltdown. Protesters tore up or trampled images of the supreme leader, whose most ardent backers believe is answerable only to God.

Demonstrators also called on President Barack Obama to pick a side, in apparent frustration with White House efforts for direct talks with Iran's leaders. "Obama, Obama, you are either with them, or with us," they chanted.

The opposition leaders were not among the crowd. Reformist web sites say hard-line vigilantes kept Mousavi from leaving his office. Karroubi was overcome by tear gas and left before riot police moved in, according to his Web site.

More than 100 people were detained, including several journalists, but most were later released.

Karroubi later denounced the "very ugly" tactics of police, which he claimed included attacking women. Mousavi issued a statement calling for the rights of all Iranians to be respected. But there was nothing to suggest they would follow the protesters' lead in hardening their stance against Iran's political system.

After security forces crushed that massive protests that erupted after the election, opposition groups in recent months have used major state-backed events to stage rival rallies.

The next test could come Dec. 7, which marks the death of three students in 1953 during protests of a visit by then-Vice President Richard Nixon for talks with the shah.

Reform groups appear focused on trying to build a credible turnout for the next marches after just several thousand joined last week's protests.

Some reformist Web sites have urged students to stay off campus on the days of future marches so they can't be blocked from joining by security forces. Many other sites are carrying one of the new symbols of the opposition: a green-hued drawing of a young woman wearing a headscarf and thrusting up her fist in protest.

"The long-term crisis for the government isn't over," said Alireza Nader, an analyst of Iranian affairs at the RAND Corp. in Washington.

Still, authorities must be careful about how hard they push back or else they risk a backlash. The government crackdown so far "has been very violent but measured in some ways," Nader said. But if authorities carry out threats to arrest Mousavi and Karroubi, "this could fan the flames," he said.

Some high-level officials have offered talks with the opposition as a way to keep the tensions from spilling over to recurring cycles of protests and violence.

The former chief of the judiciary and close ally of Khamenei, Ayatollah [Hashemi] Shahroudi, was quoted Monday in Iranian newspapers as calling the postelection rifts a "family dispute" that can be worked out through dialogue.

But Meir Javedanfar, an Iran analyst based in Israel, said Khamenei "sees the reformist movement as a threat" and aims to "stifle its growth and, if he can, to completely suffocate them."

But the greater the pressure, the more risk he could rally people around the protests.

"Khamenei's actions could actually strengthen the reformist movement," he said.

The Latest from Iran (12 November): Ahmadinejad Moves for Nuclear Deal

NEW Iran: “Regime Change” Conference in Cleveland, Ohio!
Iran Video & Text: The Mousavi Interview with Jamaran (9 November)
Iran: The Story of How Mr Ahmadinejad Met US “Spies”
Iran: Shadi Sadr’s Speech Accepting “2009 Human Rights Defenders Tulip”
The Latest from Iran (11 November): Revelations & Connections

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

1900 GMT: An EA source tips us off to an on-line presentation from last month, "Debating Engagement: A Critical Dialogue on Iran and the Peace Movement".

1820 GMT: Iran's state Arabic-language satellite service Al-Alam is on air again after the French company Eutelsat agreed to carry its programmes. Al-Alam's former providers, the Saudi- and Egypt-based Arabsat and Nilesat, withdrew on 3 November.

1620 GMT: Families of political prisoners have gathered for the third time in front of offices of Iran's judiciary, calling for the release of all political prisoners and demanding the administration of law and justice for all. The families met representatives of the judiciary but failed to get an audience with the head of the judiciary, Sadegh Larijani.

At the end of this gathering, the families asked for the immediate release of those arrested during prayer and of innocent women. They called for “conducting public fair trials”, “allowing the prisoners to have the right of choosing their lawyers and naming those who are obstructing this right”, “identifying those who are putting pressure on some of the post-election prisoners’ families”, and “expediting court hearings and immediate release of those imprisoned with reduced bail".

1545 GMT: Punishing the Protesters. Pictures of orders banning students from their dormitories are now circulating on the Internet.

1535 GMT: For My Next Trick, I Will Solve Traffic Jams. This is either political genius or massive overconfidence: in the midst of conflicts over the economy, the nuclear issues, and his own legitimacy, President Ahmadinejad has declared his urgent priority to clear Tehran's roads: "We have solutions for Tehran and I believe I will soon have to personally intervene in Tehran's issues because I see that the traffic situation is making our citizens suffer."

Go a bit deeper, and you'll find a political battle which is far more than Mahmoud jumping into the middle of the Modarres Expressway to direct traffic. This is another play for power against an opponent within the establishment, in this case, Tehran Mayor Mohammad Baqer-Qalibaf:

Ahmadinejad went on to say that his administration plans to take over the control of the Tehran Metro Company from the municipality. The remarks came as the Tehran Municipality and government are in disagreement about providing the capital's subway system with state subsidies. The president also called on...Qalibaf and the Tehran City Council to agree with shifting the management of the metro to the government.

1110 GMT: Responsible Journalism? Marc Champion of The Wall Street Journal offers the dramatic story, "Revolutionary Guard Tightens Security Grip":

Seven different agencies have now been subordinated to...the Intelligence Organization of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, gutting the intelligence ministry of power....The seven agencies include the old intelligence directorate of the Revolutionary Guard, as well as its cyberdefense unit; the intelligence directorate of the Basij; parts of the now-gutted intelligence ministry; Mr. Khamenei's own intelligence unit, known as Office 101; and the plainclothes units and Tehran Revolutionary Guard headquarters tasked with controlling street protests in the capital.he seven agencies include the old intelligence directorate of the Revolutionary Guard, as well as its cyberdefense unit; the intelligence directorate of the Basij; parts of the now-gutted intelligence ministry; Mr. Khamenei's own intelligence unit, known as Office 101; and the plainclothes units and Tehran Revolutionary Guard headquarters tasked with controlling street protests in the capital.

Pretty serious news. Only problem is that Champion's information, initially cited as "interviews with Iranian analysts and opposition figures, along with recent government announcements", turns out to be a single source: Maryam Rajavi of the opposition group National Council for Resistance in Iran.

At no point does Champion note that the NCRI is the political arm of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, the group which for 30 years has sought the overthrow of the Iranian regime through violence and assassinations (he does put the qualification, "The NCRI is listed in the U.S. as a terrorist organization, though not in Europe). And nowhere does he notes that the NCRI --- as the group that he says is "responsible for exposing much of Iran's controversial nuclear-fuel program" --- has also been challenged over the years for providing distorted and inaccurate information.

1100 GMT: More University Protests (see 1000 GMT). Video has come in of yesterday's protest at Khaje Nasir University, where demonstrations have been occurring on a daily basis for more than a week.

1015 GMT: So Much for the Lull --- Ahmadi's Nuclear Push. Press TV summarises President Ahmadinejad's televised interview on Wednesday night as a claim that "the West has retreated in its nuclear dispute with Tehran, as it is no longer talking of suspension of Iran's uranium enrichment activities".

Ahmadinejad, declared, "We have now entered a stage of cooperation. At the moment, one of the key issues is Iran's participation in projects such as the international [nuclear] fuel bank or reactor and plant construction. There is no more talk of suspension. We have reached a stage where we are cooperating, on a high level, with other countries that have the technology through the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)."

Interpretation? This is the clear indication that the President doesn't just want continued nuclear discussions; he's looking for a deal. He is setting up the presentation that an agreement on enrichment in a third country, accompanied by acceptance of Iran into international projects, will be a great "victory" with the West bowing down and recognising Tehran's as a nuclear power. This would be a triumph of Iran's enemies, as "Israelis and a number of Western countries are angry about [the discussions]. They are trying to prevent us from forming cooperation. They want the talks to break down and end in dispute."

So on to the next questions. How do Ahmadinejad's opponents, not just within the reformist movement but within the establishment (Ali Larijani, the ball's in your court) react? Where is Hashemi Rafsanjani? And what does the Supreme Leader say/fail to say in response?

1000 GMT: University Protests. There is now video confirmation of a demonstration at Elm-o-Sanat University (Iran University of Science and Technology) in Tehran. HomyLafayette adds the observation that http://www.iust.ac.ir/ is considered a base of support for President Ahmadinejad and the regime and that the Supreme Leader maintains an office on the campus.

0900 GMT: Catching up on the morning headlines in Iranian state media, it appears they have uncovered a nasty plot to overthrow the Iranian system coming out of the revolutionary hotbed of Cleveland, Ohio. We've got the story.

0745 GMT: A quiet start to the day. There is little political movement from either the Government or the opposition. It appears that President Ahmadinejad's immediate priority is to get Parliamentary approval of his proposals for subsidy reform, with the internal tensions over nuclear talks put aside over the last 48 hours.

Meanwhile, surprisingly little follow-up on the Mousavi message on Monday to Jamaran. I am uncertain as to whether this is because knowledge of it inside Iran has been restricted, because the statement has not sparked as much interest as Mousavi's previous declaration, or for another reason. Mehdi Karroubi has been relatively muted in recent days, and other reformist groups have been curbed in their public positions because of Government pressure.

That leaves, it appears, the simmering protest on university campuses to prop up interest and spirits. And, however quiet it may be for the moment, there is always the beacon of 16 Azar (7 December).

Iran: "Regime Change" Conference in Cleveland, Ohio!

The Latest from Iran (12 November): Lull

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

So you want to know where the "velvet revolution" is being planned? Look no farther than the secret plots being openly discussed at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio.

That's the headline "exclusive" in Iranian state media this morning, as the Islamic Republic News Agency declares that various academics, activists, Jews, and troublemakers assembled this week for a conference on "Baha'i Unity".

I'm still not sure how discussions of a minority religious group, often pressured and prosecuted by Iranian authorities, adds up to an imminent threat of regime change, but the article presses on with a description of each of the speakers. Amongst the speakers are Patrick Clawson of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Barry Rubin of the Gloria Center in Herzliya, "occupied Palestine", Rabbi Eric Lankin of the Jewish National Fund, and Elihu Richter of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

For IRNA, however, the tip-off that this is a serious attempt at destabilisation comes in the presence of Jackie Wolcott, the State Department's Special Envoy for Nuclear Nonproliferation and her speech, "Iran and nuclear weapons proliferation". (Again, I personally would not design a velvet revolution by openly featuring a US Government official, but hey, I'm just a naive bystander.)

So was this really the nexus of the plot to topple the Iranian regime? The conference's description of itself is not so dramatic with the far-from-exciting title, "The Islamic Republic of Iran: Multidisciplinary Analyses of its Theocracy, Nationalism, and Assertion of Power". Case Western University's public relations unit, trying to drum up attendance, adds a bit of spice, "Issues surrounding Iran have made headlines, and Scholars for Peace in the Middle East will discuss concerns about the developments of nuclear proliferation and other events in Iran when they meet in Cleveland for their two-day conference." I'm not sure, however, that this makes the cut as a Declaration of the Overthrow of the Islamic Republic.

Some of the speakers at the conference are far from objective observers of Iran, and a couple are notable for Iran-bashing as part of pro-Israel activism. Yet, let's be clear, IRNA's primary targets are "reformist journalists" listed on the conference programme. Even thousands of miles away, in the Midwest of the United States, you can't be too complacent about the Green Wave.