Iran: A Response to "What If the Green Movement Isn't Ours?" (The Sequel)

Iran: A Response to an American Who Asks, “What if the Green Movement Isn’t ‘Ours’?
Iran: More 13 Aban Videos
The Latest from Iran (3 November): 24 Hours to Go

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

UPDATE 1030 GMT: Interestingly Daragahi is now singing a somewhat different tune on Twitter, quoting a "Tehran analyst": "Youth seem determined 2 show up for 13 Aban. May not be huge number but significant and agile walk of youth will turn up. Numbers will be enough to make BBC Persian and VOA other news agencies [notice]. The way every official is warning the young [against gathering is going to be counterproductive."

Again, with apologies in advance, I am reacting to an article in a US newspaper about the Green movement in Iran.

I do not want to do this. It is only 24 hours since I wrote about themisinformation and (in my opinion, misplaced) priorities of Jackson Diehl's opinion piece in The Washington Post. And the focus, not only for 13 Aban but on every day, should be on what is happening in Iran rather than the diversions of the "Western" media.

However, this morning there is an analysis by Borzou Daragahi in the Los Angeles Times which is so partial, so distorting, so wrong that it verges on sabotage of the demands, aspirations, and ideas of the Green movement.

Daragahi, who has been one of the best journalists writing for a US newspaper on Iran, initially offers a straightforward "Iran Students Carry on Protests", depicting university demonstrations over the last week. In the sub-headline, however, there is an ominous sign of the real point of the article: "In the West, some analysts have begun to discount the opposition movement's power."

And so the piece dissolves into unsupported soundbites. Mark Fowler, "a former CIA analyst who now heads Persia House, a service run by the Booz Allen Hamilton consulting firm in Washington", declares:

Our view is that the regime has largely neutralized the opposition. It seems to us that they have pretty much decapitated the opposition in terms of leadership. I don't think the government is particularly worried about it.

And then, just to put the boot in if anyone was holding on to faith in the Green movement, Fowler pronouces, "Mousavi is not a liberal per se. When he was prime minister, he would have made the conservatives and the hard-liners proud." Like Jackson Diehl yesterday, Daragahi then invokes last month's visit to the Washington Institute of Near East Policy by Ataollah Mohajerani, "a confidant of opposition figure Mehdi Karroubi [who] refused to distance himself from Ahmadinejad's nuclear policies", as a high-profile representative of the internal opposition.

Daragahi twists the knife further by citing the articles of former US officials Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, calling on the Obama administration "to abide by the results of Iran's election and to engage with Tehran's current leadership". What Daragahi does not mention is that the Leveretts' initial proclamation of the legitimacy of the Ahmadinejad victory, offered within days of 12 June in an article with the University of Tehran's Seyed Mohammad Marandi, has been challenged by a wide range of analysts, let alone by the Green movement.

It should be noted that Daragahi also quotes the opinion of Gary Sick, another former US official, that some U.S. foreign policy hawks "regard any 'reform' movement in Iran as a distraction from further sanctions and the outright U.S.-Iran hostility that they favor as a way of clarifying and simplifying U.S. policy choices in the region". But, given that Daragahi has already portrayed Fowler and the Leveretts as neutral, objective experts rather than "hawks" --- and along the way questioned the credentials and strength of the internal call for reform and justice --- Sick's comment is no more than a whistle in the anti-Green wind.

Of course, Mark Fowler and the Leveretts should be free to express their opinions. But it would be useful if those opinions were supported, in a one-sided article, by some semblance of evidence. And it might have occurred to Daragahi to consult an expert source inside Iran --- despite the regime's determined efforts to shut down any notion of a live opposition, those analyses come out day after day --- or an analyst whose primary contacts are not with officials within the Iranian Government or economic elite.

At the end of the day, however, this considered approach is not Daragahi's because --- like Jackson Diehl --- his primary attention is not on the desires, concerns, hopes within the Islamic Republic: "Iran's nuclear program remains a top Washington priority. And few U.S. officials expect the opposition to cause any shift by the Iranian government on nuclear policy in the next year, a critical period in which many fear Tehran could move dramatically closer to gaining the capacity to build an atomic bomb."

Which is fine. It's not my concern, however, and I dare say that it is not the primary thought for those who are on the frontline, rather than filing from a bureau in Beirut (or writing in a living room in Birmingham, England). So it would be appreciated if Daragahi simply said, "Nukes First, Nukes First", rather than trashing the opposition movement to fulfil that agenda.

However, let me close with the positive rather than the negative. Having provoked disbelief and then anger, Daragahi ultimately --- and unwittingly --- gives hope and raises a smile. For there, four paragraphs from the end of his piece, is the line:

"The Iranian government itself has yet to write off the protest movement."

Quite right, because the Iranian government might have better information than a Mark Fowler and his consultancy or the Leveretts and their quest for engagement. And here, from another group with pretty good information, is the sentence that could be added:

"The protest movement has yet to write itself off."

It is less than 24 hours to 13 Aban.

Latest from Iran (2 November): 36 Hours to Go

NEW Latest Iran Video: Protest & Hunger Strike at Sharif University
NEW Iran: A Response to an American Who Asks, “What if the Green Movement Isn’t ‘Ours’?
NEW Iran Nuclear Talks: Tehran's Middle Way?
Video: Sharif and Khaje Nasir Universities Protests (1 November)
Video Flashback: Ahmadinejad v. The Giant Flying Bug
Iran: More 13 Aban Videos
Latest from Iran (1 November): Is This the Opposition’s Moment?

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

2125 GMT: More University Protests. In addition to today's demonstration and hunger strike at Sharif University (video in separate entry), about 400 students at Islamic Azad University of Roodehen, near Tehran, chanted “Ya Hossein, Mir Hossein", “We support the brave Karroubi” , “Death to Dictator”, “Courageous student, join us at the November 4th rally” and “Viva Karoubi, Viva Mousavi” (English summary). There is also video of a rally at the University of Kashan, south of Tehran.

1930 GMT: Mir Hossein Mousavi and his wife, Zahra Rahnavard, have visited the family of detainee Feizollah Arabsorkhe and claimed "investigators have been challenged by their daily conversations and dialogues with the children of the Revolution”.

Feizollah Arabsorkhi is a leading member of the reformist Mojahedin of the Islamic Revolution and has been in prison since June.

Mr. Mousavi insisted that political activists and youth in the post-election protests are not “sabotaging or destroying”: “If the media were free and people were allowed to have their say, we would not have fallen to this state.”

1915 GMT: Back from a break to find a couple of stories on a relatively quiet day, as various forces prepare for 13 Aban.

Journalist Fariba Pajooh has ended her hunger strike, begun on 26 October, because of serious health problems. Pajooh was arrested on 22 August and has been detained in Tehran’s Evin Prison.

Iranian authorities have barred Emaddedin Baghi from leaving the country to collect the Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders. Baghi is a prominent opponent of the death penalty in Iran and founder of the Society for the Defense of Prisoners’ Rights.

1525 GMT: The Facebook site associated with Mir Hossein Mousavi has published an English translation of the account of Mehdi Karroubi's meeting this weekend with the student organisation Daftar-Tahkim-Vahdat. Beyond his claim that votes were allocated in advance of the Presidential election on 12 June, Karroubi's speech was a rallying call:

In this circumstance it is necessary that activists maintain their network and use the opportunities for meetings and gatherings, and don’t let people to be pushed to corners. Activists should announce their ideas, and in our ideas and methods we should emphasise those that are based on the national and religious identity of our beloved Iran like the anniversary of the victory of the Revolution, the celebration of Ghorban [one of the Islamic celebrations after Haj], and Ashora [the day Imam Hossein, the third Imam of Shia Islam, was martyred]. Today my advice to you is to maintain forces and ideas and to retain our just position.

1335 GMT: Iran's press supervisory body has banned publication of the leading business daily, Sarmayeh, for "repeated violations of the press law." Sarmayeh's editor Saeed Laylaz has been detained since June.

1325 GMT: More than four months after his detention, the file on former Vice President Mohammad Ali Abtahi's case has been sent to the Revolutionary Court. This raises the prospect of formal charges, possibly this week.

1320 GMT: It's Official --- Karroubi Marches. Mehdi Karroubi's Tagheer website has just confirmed that the cleric will be at Hafte-Tir (7 Tir) Square in Tehran, at 10:30 a.m. local time, for 13 Aban ceremonies. This supersedes previous claims that Karroubi would join students at Amir Kabir University.

1125 GMT: Video Specials. We've just gotten the footage from today's demonstration and hunger strike at Sharif University and have posted two clips. And an EA reader has pointed us to one of the finest speeches on modern Iran and the Green movement, delivered by a 7-year-old student, that we have had the privilege of hearing.

1100 GMT: I've just posted one of the most difficult articles that I have attempted since 12 June. It's a response to an opinion piece in today's Washington Post that dismisses the Green movement as "Iran's Unlovable Opposition".

0920 GMT: We've posted, courtesy of Iran Review, an analysis by Iranian foreign policy analyst Keyhan Bazargar of a possible "middle way" by Tehran to resolve talks on uranium enrichment.

0810 GMT: Meanwhile, The Internal Battle. Here is how complex the fight inside the Iranian establishment over talks with the "West" has become: the Islamic Republic News Agency is featuring an interview with a "State Department nuclear consultant", who emphasises the guarantees that the International Atomic Energy Agency will put in any agreement on Iran's nuclear programme.

That to me is a pretty clear indication that the Ahmadinejad Government, for internal reasons, wants to spin out discussions. But, given the now open hostility of high-profile members of Parliament and both Ali and Sadegh Larijani, how much support does the President have?

And what does the Supreme Leader think of all this?

0755 GMT: That Latest Iran Move on Uranium Enrichment (see 0700 GMT). Foreign Minister Mottaki's statement, made during a conference in Malaysia, was that Tehran had submitted its response to the International Atomic Energy Agency on Saturday. This was for a technical commission to review the Vienna proposal of the "5+1" powers (US, UK, France, Russia, China, Germany), which was for 80 percent of Iran's uranium stock to be enriched in Russia.

Interpretation? Go no further than Enduring America last Friday:

Given Ahmadinejad’s position, the political advantages of spinning out the talks are there to be grasped. If there are alterations in the plan to reduce the amount shipped below 80 percent and to send it out in stages rather than in one delivery, these will be concession to Iran’s and the President’s strength. If the “West” walks away from the table, this will be an indication of their continuing deceptions and mistakes — despite their apparent request for forgiveness from Tehran — and Iran will be in the right as it maintains nuclear sovereignty.

0700 GMT: 48 hours to go before the demonstrations of 13 Aban (4 November), and what we sense is growing excitement inside and outside Iran is making its way into international news coverage. The New York Times rather staidly notes, "Opposition in Iran Urges Continuing Challenge", while The Observer of London announces, "Iran Students Plan Return to Street Protests".

The coverage, following Reuters' initial lead, is still troublesome with its distortion of the impending rally. The New York Times, perhaps unwittingly, links Green opposition to hostility to the US: "The occasion is the 30th anniversary of the takeover of the United States Embassy in Tehran by hard-line students on Nov. 4, 1979. The day is marked every year with anti-American rallies." And both newspapers are bizarrely cautious about the open challenge of Mir Hossein Mousavi, Mohammad Khatami, and Mehdi Karroubi in recent days: "Mousavi appeared to back the protests yesterday....Although the opposition leaders...did not openly call for street protests, their remarks were widely seen as a call to arms on a day of considerable symbolic importance."

And "Western" journalists will still be distracted by even the slightest of remarks on the nuclear issue. This morning, for example, all have jumped on the comments of Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki that Iran has requested a technical commission to review the "third-party enrichment" proposal from the Vienna talks. (America's ABC News and even Fox News, which have not printed a word about 13 Aban, have seized on Mottaki's statement as a top story.)

Still, I cannot recall the "Western" media anticipating the last big marches on Qods Day (18 September), and it is interesting to note that The New York Times writes in retrospect, "Hundreds of thousands of protesters took to the streets." With the possibility that 13 Aban will bring out even bigger marches, news organisations --- print and broadcast --- will be on alert Wednesday. Their coverage does not reply or supersede the rallies, of course, but it may support the Green movement in a way not seen since early in the post-election crisis.

It is two days to 13 Aban (4 November).

Latest Iran Video: Protest & Hunger Strike at Sharif University

Video: Sharif and Khaje Nasir Universities Protests (1 November)
Iran: More 13 Aban Videos
Latest from Iran (2 November): The World Takes Notice?

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

Two of ten videos now posted on YouTube

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9O2nmg5VAjI[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRGiz2wSTCM&feature=channel[/youtube]

Iran: A Response to an American Who Asks, "What if the Green Movement Isn't 'Ours'?

LATEST Iran: A Response to “What If the Green Movement Isn’t Ours?” (The Sequel)

Iran Nuclear Talks: Tehran’s Middle Way?
Latest from Iran (2 November): The World Takes Notice?

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 want to be careful here. I don't want to be too emotive, and I don't want to be seen as taking a cheap shot at a US journalist. However, I have just read an opinion piece which is one of the most unsettling I have encountered since 12 June.

In today's Washington Post, Jackson Diehl frets about "Iran's Unlovable Opposition". This is his opening:

Iran has been controlled since June by a hard-line clique of extremist clerics and leaders of the Revolutionary Guard who believe they are destined to make their country a nuclear power that dominates the Middle East. It follows that their opposition -- a mass movement that has been marching to slogans such as "death to the dictator" and "no to Lebanon, no to Gaza" -- is bound to be a more plausible partner for the rapproachement that the Obama administration is seeking.

Or maybe not. The enduring nature of Iran is to frustrate outsiders who work by the usual rules of political logic or who seek unambiguous commitments.

What has disturbed Diehl to the point where he rejects the Green Wave? Apparently it is a single encounter "with one of the leading representatives outside of Iran of the 'green revolution', who seemed determined to convince would-be Western supporters that they were wasting their time".

That representative is Ataollah Mohajerani, a Minister of Culture in the Khatami Government and an ally of Mehdi Karroubi. In mid-October, Mohajerani was a speaker at the annual confernence of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, where --- in Diehl's words --- "the mostly pro-Israel crowd was primed to cheer what they expected would be a harsh condemnation of Ahmadinejad and his bellicose rhetoric, and a promise of change by the green coalition".

Unfortunately, Mohajerani didn't deliver what many in his audience wanted. He condemned the US for its involvement in the 1953 coup in Iran. He said "the green movement has no expectations whatsoever" on Western support for its cause. Most importantly, he refused to concede that Iran should not have a nuclear programme, pointing instead at Israel's undeclared atomic weapons, and "asked whether Israel had a right to exist, he refused to respond".

The point here is not to defend Mohajerani on these hot-button issues. Instead, it is to ponder how this one speech can be re-framed as a make-or-break movement for Iran's opposition when it comes to American support.

I knew at the time, from discussions with colleagues and contacts, that many in Washington were disturbed by what they saw as the former Minister's brusque and undiplomatic approach. But I couldn't see how Mohajerani was a spokesman for the "Green movement". I especially did not see him as an envoy asking for the endorsement of WINEP, given that the agenda of that organisation can often be seen as Israel-first and that some of its leading members have endorsed regime change, rather than reform, in Tehran.

And Diehl's article doesn't change that perception. It is based on two and only two people. There's Mohajerani. Then there's Mehdi Khalaji of WINEP, who dismisses the speech's importance, "The true leaders of this movement are students, women and human rights activists, and political activists who have no desire to work in a theocratic regime or in a government within the framework of the existing constitution." That's an argument Diehl immediately dismisses:

The fact remains that, were Karroubi and fellow opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi somehow to supplant Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the main changes in Iranian policy might be of style.

I'm not sure how Diehl knows that, since he has not spoken to Karroubi or Mousavi or Mohammad Khatami or Alireza Beheshti or Ayatollah Dastgheib or Mohammad Ghoochani or anyone involved inside Iran. I'm not sure how Diehl knows that because there is no evidence that he has read any of the political positions of the post-12 June movement apart from "statements last week by green-movement leaders attacking the uranium swap plan".

But I don't think Diehl wants to spend all his time dealing with complexities such as Iran's judicial system and the abuses of detainees or the concept of clerical leadership under velayat-e-faqih or accountability for Iran's economic policies or even rights to free expression and assembly.

Because even though Diehl positions himself as a staunch advocate of "democracy", often criticising the US Government for putting other political and economic interests ahead of the promotion of freedom, in this case his priority has nothing to do with the concerns of the Green Movement. Instead he is fixed on 1) Iran's position towards Israel and 2) Iran's nuclear programme. All else for him is window-dressing.

I don't think Diehl is as well-connected with the US Government as his fellow columnists David Ignatius or Jim Hoagland and he is not as influential as a Thomas Friedman. Yet he is still writing for one of the weather-vanes of the American political mood.

And doing so, he brings out all my fears about those who feign concern for what happens inside Iran but who seem --- forgive me here, but I must be honest --- to have an apparent lack of knowledge, understanding, or even appreciation about and for Iranians. I worry that these writers of opinion, who are not "neo-conservative" activists but self-styled "liberals", reduce all that has happened before and after 12 June into a little box that fits political agendas far removed from Tehran, Isfahan, Tabriz, and Mashaad.

I worry that, for these defenders of freedom, Green is only a distracting colour.

Video & Transcript: Clinton-Netanyahu Press Briefing (31 October)

Israel: Gideon Levy’s Plea “Washington, Stop Sucking Up to Tel Aviv”
Israel-Palestine: Criticism Mounts over Clinton Trip
Clinton’s Trip: Desperately Seeking Israeli Concessions

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

Saturday's press briefing by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dY7OhBiM-d4[/youtube]

MODERATOR: Good evening, and we welcome Secretary of State Clinton. We shall start with a few words, and then we’ll take two questions from each side. Prime Minister, please.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: It’s my pleasure to welcome Secretary of State of the United States Hillary Clinton to Jerusalem. Welcome, Hillary. You are a great friend and a great champion of peace. I think that we owe a vote of thanks to you, to George Mitchell, to your staffs, and of course, to President Obama and the entire Obama Administration for the tireless efforts to re-launch the peace process – the peace process between us and the Palestinians, and between us and the Arab world – following the President’s vision of a regional peace.

We are eager to advance on both. We think that the place to resolve outstanding issues and differences of opinion is around a negotiating table. We think we should sit around that negotiating table right away. We’re prepared to start peace talks immediately. I think what we should do on the path to peace is to simply get on it and get with it. So I’m sure we’ll discuss these things and other things in the spirit of friendship between us and you, between Israel and the United States. Welcome to Jerusalem.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you so much, Prime Minister. It is a great personal pleasure for me to be back in Jerusalem and a great honor to be here as Secretary of State once again. And I look forward to our discussion, and I appreciate the very positive words about the need to get back into a negotiation that would be in the best interests of Israel and Israel’s security, as well as create a state for the Palestinian people. Both President Obama and I are committed to a comprehensive peace agreement because we do believe that it holds out the best promise for the security and future of Israel, and for the aspirations of the Palestinians.

So I’m looking forward to our discussion tonight. I know you’re someone who is indefatigable, so even though we’re starting our meeting so late, I have no doubt that it will be intense and cover a lot of ground. And I’m very much eager to begin those discussions.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, do you think both sides should re-launch the peace process without any preconditions?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I want to see both sides begin as soon as possible in negotiations. We have worked – and of course, Senator Mitchell has worked tirelessly – in setting forth what are the approaches that each side wishes to pursue in order to get into those negotiations, so I’m not going to express my opinion as to whether or not there should be conditions. The important thing, as the prime minister just said, is to get into the negotiations. I gave the same message today when I met with President Abbas.

We know that negotiations often take positions that then have to be worked through once the actual process starts. I think the best way to determine the way forward is, as the prime minister said, get on the path.

MODERATOR: Mark.

QUESTION: Mark Landler, New York Times. Madame Secretary, when you were here in March on the first visit, you issued a strong statement condemning the demolition of housing units in East Jerusalem. Yet, that demolition has continued unabated, and indeed, a few days ago, the mayor of the city of Jerusalem issued a new order for demolition. How would you characterize this policy today?

For the prime minister, sir, there’s been increasing tension, as you know, around – surrounding the Temple Mount, some civil unrest in the streets. Every time the peace process has lagged, often matters have been settled through violence. Are you worried that we are heading into that phase?

And then a last question, if I may. (Laughter.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: That’s the New York Times, for you. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Dr. Abdullah’s aides in Kabul have confirmed that he’s not going to take part in the runoff. Are you concerned that a Karzai government elected without the benefit of a runoff, given all the fraud in
the first round, will be lacking in legitimacy?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, let me say I have nothing to add to my statement in March. I continue to stand by what I said then.

With respect to Afghanistan and Dr. Abdullah’s decision, I think that it is his decision to make. Whatever went into that determination is obviously his choice. But I do not think it affects the legitimacy. There have been other situations in our own country as well as around the world where, in a runoff election, one of the parties decides, for whatever reason, that they are not going to go on. I do not think that that in any way affects the legitimacy. And I would just add that when President Karzai accepted the second round without knowing what the consequences and outcome would be, that bestowed legitimacy from that moment forward, and Dr. Abdullah’s decision does not in any way take away from that.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: I’m concerned with the attempts to create provocations around the issue of the Temple Mount. There are parties who are trying to do that. I assure you that the Government of Israel is not one of them. There are also extraordinary falsifications. My staff decided to have a meeting, a free evening, a few weeks ago. They decided to have it in the Old City. In the David City there’s a little restaurant there. They said, “Could you come for dessert,” because I worked long hours. I said, “Sure, I’ll see what I can do. I don’t promise, but we’ll make the arrangements.”

Our security people went there. Within an hour, Palestinian news agencies carried the story that Netanyahu was coming to the Old City to burrow a new tunnel under the Temple Mount. So help me God, this became an issue of great consequence. There were rumors that the violence would break out, exactly as you said. Now, this is entirely false. I give that as one example. There are daily examples of this and daily actions by militants, particularly the militant Islamic radicals who are trying to stir up trouble on the Temple Mount.

We are going to continue our efforts to keep Jerusalem safe, open, quiet, accessible to all three great faiths – Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. And the city is now very robust. It’s got a lot of tourism, as you see in the entire area. And the best way to see what is happening there is to go for yourself. Go take a look. You’ll see. And you’ll see our actual policy in place. We want a peaceful Jerusalem without provocations on the Temple Mount or anywhere else.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, you went to Abu Dhabi, and I believe you came up with not much from Abu Mazen, who is actually presenting Israel and the United States with lots of no’s. Also, United States is encountering many no’s from Iran. At the moment, it doesn't look like some arrangement is being made at the moment. What is your reaction to what – receiving the no’s from the Arab world? And the same question, please, to Prime Minister Netanyahu.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first of all, I believe that strategic patience is a necessary part of my job, and I view the conversations that we had this morning with President Abbas and his team as being very constructive and useful in continuing the move toward engagement that leads to negotiations. So if Senator Mitchell and I appear to be patient and persistent, it’s because we are. We think it’s worth being both.

With respect to Iran, there is not yet a final decision with respect to the Tehran research reactor. The important matter that I would underscore is the unity among the P-5+1, which includes not only the United States but the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, China, and also the EU, in putting forth and in staying firm with this. The world is united in a view that Iran should not have or acquire nuclear weapons capacity. And our view is that we are willing to work toward creative outcomes like shipping out the low-enriched uranium to be reprocessed outside of Iran. But we’re not going to wait forever. Patience does have, finally, its limits. And it is time for Iran to fulfill its obligations and responsibilities to the international community, and accepting this deal would be a good beginning.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: You asked two questions, one on Iran and the other on the peace process. On Iran, I want to express our appreciation for the very clear stance adopted by President Obama that has united, as Secretary Clinton has just said, an international consensus that Iran must cease its efforts to become a nuclear military power. I think the fact that there has been unity that has not been seen for a long time on this position is something very valuable, very important. And I think it’s important not only for Israel, I think it’s important for the Middle East, for our region, for the peace of the world. So I want to commend the efforts of you and President Obama and the Western and other leaders have taken here to – on this issue that I think is central to the future of the world, to the future of peace.

As far as the question about the peace process is concerned, look, first let me, before you talk about the no’s, talk about the yes. And I want to put rhetoric aside and talk about facts. It’s a fact that since my government took office, we dismantled hundreds of earth blocks, checkpoints, facilitated movement in the Allenby Bridge, and eliminated a lot of bureaucratic hurdles to daily life and economic activity in the Palestinian Authority’s areas. And as a result, there’s been a Palestinian economic boom. That is a fact.

The second fact is that I gave a speech at Bar Ilan University in which I said that Israel will accept the vision of two states for two peoples, a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the Jewish state of Israel. It wasn’t easy to do, but we did it. That is a fact.

The third fact is that we’ve been talking earnestly, openly, and transparently to the American Administration, and we’ve talked about measures that we can take to facilitate further the launching – the re-launching of the peace process. That is a fact.

The simple fact is this: We are willing to engage in peace talks immediately without preconditions. The other fact is that, unfortunately, the other side is not. It is asking and piling on preconditions that it never put on in the 16 years that we’ve had that the peace process since the annunciation of the Oslo Accords.

There have not been these preconditions. It’s a change of Palestinian policy, and I hope they change back to the right thing, which is to get into the negotiating tent. We’re eager and sincere in our desire to reach an agreement to end this conflict. I happen to think that we’re able to do this, contrary to all the pessimists around us. But the only way we can get to an agreement is to begin negotiating, and that is something that we are prepared to do. That is a fact.

MODERATOR: Finally, Joe Klein from Time Magazine. Yes.

QUESTION: I’m tempted to ask why is this night different from all other nights --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Do you want us to burst into song? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Yes. For 40 years, we’ve seen American secretaries of state and Israeli prime ministers in a similar situation. Despite the prime minister’s optimism, the talks are stalled. The prospect of talks is stalled. And while you’ve said yes without preconditions to talks, so many of your – you’ve said no to a settlement freeze. And I wonder whether that would be open to negotiation.

And Madame Secretary, is the Obama Administration still in favor of a
total freeze? And if not, what’s plan b?

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: Joe, the specific question you asked about the settlements also has to be fully factual. The fact of the matter is that we – I said we would not build new settlements, not expropriate land for addition for the existing settlements, and that we were prepared to adopt a policy of restraint on the existing settlements, but also one that would still enable normal life for the residents who are living there.

Now, there has not been in the last 16 years – not 40 years but 16 years, since the beginning of the peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians – any demand every put not on restraint, but on any limitation on settlement activity as a precondition for entering negotiations. This is a new thing. Now, it’s true that you can take a new thing and you can repeat it ad nauseum for a few weeks and a few months, and it becomes something that is obvious and has been there all the time. It’s not been there all the time.

QUESTION: It was there in the first Bush Administration, right?

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: No, there has not been a precondition for entering or continuing with the peace process between us and the Palestinians. There’s not been a demand coming from the Palestinians that said we will not negotiate with you unless you freeze all activity – something that is problematic in so many ways, judicial and in other ways. I won’t get into that. But this is a new demand. It’s a change of policy, the Palestinian policy. And it doesn't do much for peace. It doesn't work to advance negotiations. It actually – this uses a pretext, or at least does something as an obstacle that prevents the reestablishment of negotiations.

Now, mind you, the issue of settlements, the issue of territories, the issue of borders – these will be engaged in the negotiations, and they’ll have to be resolved for a peace agreement to be achieved. But you can’t resolve it in advance of the negotiations, and you certainly shouldn’t pile it on as a precondition.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I would add just for context that what the prime minister is saying is historically accurate. There has never been a precondition. It’s always been an issue within the negotiations. What the prime minister has offered in specifics of a restraint on the policy of settlements, which he has just described – no new starts, for example – is unprecedented in the context of the prior two negotiations. It’s also the fact that for 40 years, presidents of both parties have questioned the legitimacy of settlements.

But I think that where we are right now is to try to get into the negotiations. The prime minister will be able to present his government’s proposal about what they are doing regarding settlements, which I think when fully explained will be seen as being not only unprecedented but in response to many of the concerns that have been expressed. There are always demands made in any negotiation that are not going to be fully realized. I mean, negotiation, by its very definition, is a process of trying to meet the other’s needs while protecting your core interests. And on settlements, there’s never been a precondition, there’s never been such an offer from any Israeli government. And we hope that we’ll be able to move in to the negotiations where all the issues that President Obama mentioned in his speech at the United Nations will be on the table for the parties to begin to resolve.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: Thank you very much.