UPDATED Iran's Nukes: Obama's Team Buys Time for Engagement

UPDATE 1110 GMT: Cole also has posted the text of the IAEA resolution, which bears out both his analysis and that of EA.

UPDATE 1050 GMT: Another useful analysis, this time from Juan Cole. Cole first offers a detailed background with his "breakout" thesis on Iran's nuclear programme:

Tehran genuinely does not want to actually construct and detonate a nuclear device....But having a rapid breakout capability --- being able to make a bomb in short order if it is felt absolutely necessary to forestall a foreign attack --- has a deterrent effect. So Iran would have the advantages of deterrence without the disadvantages of a bomb if it could get to the rapid breakout stage.

Cole's immediate reading of the current position is hit-and-miss: he's on shaky ground with his analysis that the Revolutionary Guard has vetoed the Supreme Leader's acceptance of an enrichment deal (I don't think anyone except Ayatollah Khamenei knows what he will do), but Cole is invaluable in reading the non-Iranian politics: don't expect BRIC (Brazil-Russia-India-China) to accept a move towards harsh economic measures agianst Tehran.

And Cole's conclusion hits the bull's-eye:

Bottom line: Friday's vote was likely symbolic and a signal to Iran from the international community that there is discomfort with its secretiveness and lack of transparency, and that many are suspicious of its motives. In China's case, it may have been a warning against actions that could harm the Middle Kingdom's burgeoning economy. What it likely was not was a harbinger of tougher international sanctions against Tehran or a sign that BRIC is softening on that issue

UPDATE 0950 GMT: A ray of journalistic light --- Sharwine Narwani offers an excellent analysis, "Eleventh-hour CPR On Iran Nuclear Talks": "Our core problem is not with Iran's enrichment program or it's recently revealed Fordow nuclear plant buried under a mountainside. The central issue clogging up our hotlines is that we do not trust Iran. And they do not trust us."

Looking once more at yesterday's International Atomic Energy Agency resolution on Iran's nuclear programme, it is a most impressive two-card trick by the US Government.

Impressive initially because the first trick is on the media. So far, every major journalist whom I've read or listened to has been taken in by the magician's display of a united "hard line" against Tehran. CNN headlines, "U.N. watchdog urges suspension of Iran nuclear facility", never realising that the 2nd enrichment facility at Fordoo is now just a distraction. The New York Times, in print and in podcast, follows the same sleight-of-hand, adding the flourish that the "sharp rebuke that bore added weight because it was endorsed by Russia and China".

Iran’s Nukes: IAEA Non-Resolution on Enrichment Means Talks Still Alive

How did the White House pull off this trick?

Easily, with a sustained effort in Washington as well as Vienna, to put out the distracting message. Beyond the official statement trumpeting the "broad consensus" behind the resolution, "a senior administration official" added:

What happened in Vienna today is a significant step, and it’s a sign of the increasing seriousness of the international community [and its] growing international impatience....Time really is running out. We hope that the board of governors [vote] reinforces the message that, you know, we’re committed to putting together a package of consequences if we don’t find a willing partner.

How then to uncover the trick and reveal the real strategy of the Obama Administration? Well, the unnamed official offered a sneak peek in those final words "if we don't find a willing partner". At this point, at least some key members of the Obama Administration are still pursuing "willingness".

To be blunt, because that seems to be necessary to knock professional observers out of their wide-eyed daze: the White House has not closed off the talks for a deal of Iran's nuclear enrichment.

Those officials who want a deal, primarily those in the State Department but also I suspect the President, are not willing to give up on months of effort, and they certainly do not want to face both the diplomatic difficulties of pursuing tough sanctions --- watch how quickly it becomes near-impossible to maintain that line of "broad consensus" --- and facing the consequences. It will no longer be a question of losing possible co-operation with Tehran in areas like Afghanistan but of facing possible Iranian counter-moves in the region, including Iraq.

At the same time, those pro-deal officials are fighting a contest against Administration colleagues who just want to go through the motions of negotiations to set up the increased pressure of harsh economic measures. Those colleagues (to find them, go to the National Security Council and follow the path to a Mr D. Ross' office) are the ones spinning newspapers like The Washiington Post that this IAEA resolution is the symbolic step to a sanctions regime which will include Russia and China. (They also are the ones willing to play up the "Israeli military action" that would follow if sanctions are not adopted.)

So the IAEA magic-show pulls out two tricks: it holds the Obama White House together while setting a very real line on the discussions with Iran. The Ahmadinejad Government and the Supreme Leader are being told publicly that "third-party enrichment" has to occur outside Iran; no swaps of uranium inside the country. This is getting close to a take-it-or-leave-it declaration to the regime.

But what if Ahmadinejad and/or Khamenei says "Leave It"? Then, I suspect, you'll see the magic evaporate. For while Ross and others wanting a showdown may get it, I'm not sure they have thought through their next tricks.

The Latest from Iran (27 November): Where Now?

2020 GMT: We've posted news of a campaign, "I Am Atefeh", to express support for Atefeh Nabavi, the first woman jailed for post-election protest.

2015 GMT: Ayatollah JavAdi-Amoli announced, during today's Friday Prayers in Qom, that this was his last sermon. Since June, Javadi-Amoli had expressed his displeasure over post-election events.

NEW Iran: The Campaign to Free Atefeh Nabavi
NEW Iran: A Nobel Gesture from Obama Towards the Green Movement?
NEW Iran’s Nukes: IAEA Non-Resolution on Enrichment Means Talks Still Alive
Iran: Where Now for the Green Wave(s)? A Discussion on (Non)-Violence
Iran: Where Now for the Green Wave(s)? The EA Discussion
Latest Iran Video: BBC’s Neda Documentary “An Iranian Martyr”
NEW Iran MediaWatch: Has “Green Reform” Disappeared in Washington?
NEW Iran: 3 Problems (for the Greens, for the US, for Ahmadinejad
The Latest from Iran (26 November): Corridors of Conflict

1815 GMT: One More Time --- The Talks Go On (But Time for Tehran to Deal). Here's the White House statement on today's IAEA resolution:

Today's overwhelming vote at the IAEA's Board of Governors demonstrates the resolve and unity of the international community with regard to Iran's nuclear program. It underscores broad consensus in calling upon Iran to live up to its international obligations and offer transparency in its nuclear program. It also underscores a commitment to strengthen the rules of the international system, and to support the ability of the IAEA and UN Security Council to enforce the rules of the road, and to hold Iran accountable to those rules. Indeed, the fact that 25 countries from all parts of the world cast their votes in favor shows the urgent need for Iran to address the growing international deficit of confidence in its intentions.

The United States has strongly supported the Director General’s positive proposal to provide Iran fuel for its Tehran Research Reactor - a proposal intended to help meet the medical and humanitarian needs of the Iranian people while building confidence in Iran’s intentions. The United States has recognized Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy and remains willing to engage Iran to work toward a diplomatic solution to the concerns about its nuclear program, if - and only if - Iran chooses such a course. To date, Iran has refused a follow-on meeting to the October 1 meeting with the P5+1 countries if its nuclear program is included on the agenda. Our patience and that of the international community is limited, and time is running out. If Iran refuses to meet its obligations, then it will be responsible for its own growing isolation and the consequences.

Here's what it means:

1. The second enrichment plant at Fordoo near Qom --- of no relevance except as pretext;
2. The El Baradei statement of a "dead end" on verification --- tangential
3. The Iranian response to the Vienna "third-party enrichment" deal --- the be-all and end-all of this meeting.

In other words, this IAEA meeting has been a two-day setpiece to put Tehran's feet to the fire on the October proposal. If Iran now refuses that plan, and if the "West" decides that the Tehran counter-offer of a "swap" is out of bounds, then and only then will there a move beyond engagement. Even then, it is far from clear if that push for sanctions will have any backing from Russia and China.

1455 GMT: Forgive us for being Nukes, Nukes, Nukes, but little else is breaking at the moment. More posturing, this time from Iran's ambassador to the IAEA Ali Asghar Soltanieh, but note that this follows script of keeping channel open for discussions --- "jeopardise" is a mild democratic warning not to go farther:

.Adoption of this resolution is not only unhelpful in improving the current situation, but it will jeopardise the conducive environment vitally needed for success in the process of Geneva and Vienna negotiations expected to lead to a common understanding.

1355 GMT: At some point someone is going to figure out that IAEA members have not forced a showdown with Iran and, indeed, that they have not even moved away from talks and towards further sanctions. Here's the latest coded signal, courtesy of British Foreign Secretary David Miliband:

The resolution passed today by the IAEA Board of Governors sends the strongest possible signal to Iran that its actions and intentions remain a matter of grave international concern. As the resolution makes clear, Iran needs to comply with its obligations both to the IAEA and to the UNSC. Unless it does this, it remains impossible for the international community to have any confidence in Iranian intentions.

Britain and the other members of the E3+3 have made it very clear that our hand is stretched out to Iran. We are waiting for Iran to respond meaningfully. But if it is clear that Iran has chosen not to do so, we will have no alternative but to consider further pressure on Iran, in line with the dual track policy we have been pursuing.

And this position is not altered by Prime Minister Gordon Brown's rhetorical blast: "[Iran] should accept the offers that have been made that they can have civil nuclear power with our support, but they've got to renounce nuclear weapons. I believe the next stage will have to be sanctions if Iran does not respond to what is a very clear vote from the world community."

1210 GMT: We've just posted an urgent assessment on the International Atomic Energy Agency's resolution, passed today, on Iran's nuclear programme. The real significance --- and this is being missed by the media, who are just following the original Reuters report (see Al Jazeera English, for example) --- is that it is a very mild rebuke of Iran. That in turn means talks with Tehran on uranium enrichment are still alive.

1120 GMT: Iran's Nobel Prize Response. We saw this one coming yesterday when we reported on the Iranian Government's seizure of the Nobel Peace Prize medal and diploma of lawyer and human rights activist Shirin Ebadi. Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehman-Parast said today, "Much the same as European countries, tax evasion is a crime in Iran and individuals would face legal penalties should they commit such an act."

Mehman-Parast added that if Norwegian officials really cared about human rights, they would not have abstained in the United Nations vote on the Goldstone Report on the Gaza War.

1023 GMT: Filmmaker Mohsen Makhmalbaf has won the Freedom to Create Prize, donating the $125,000 prize to non-governmental organisations helping victims of Iran's post-election conflict and dedicating the award to Grand Ayatollah Montazeri. A video of the presentation has been posted on YouTube.

0955 GMT: Nuke Update. Nothing yet coming out of the International Atomic Energy Agency meeting in Vienna. The media, as in this CNN report, is just recycling yesterday's leaked soundbite of Mohammad El Baradei's statement that IAEA analysis of Iran's nuclear status is at a "dead end".

0945 GMT: Dutch television has obtained an interview with Mehdi Karroubi. The exchange is in Farsi with Dutch subtitles.

0830 GMT: Morning Media Moment. Emily Landau of The Jerusalem Post gets in a pre-emptive strike of fanciful "analysis" with her claim, "Dangerous Misreading Iran". That "misreading" is any thought that Iran's position in the nuclear talks is affected by internal development and, in particular, the post-12 June tensions:

The confusion emanating from Iran is simply the most recent manifestation of a well-known pattern that has been repeated in different forms for close to seven years. The "yes, no, maybe" answers from Iran are the tactic that serves its overall strategy in the nuclear realm.

Which would be a fair hypothesis if Landau produced a paragraph, a sentence, even a few words setting out this "well-known pattern". She doesn't.

The serious point here is a leading Israeli academic, "the director of the Arms Control and Regional Security Project, Institute for National Security Studies, Tel Aviv University", could show not one scrap of perception about the internal dynamics behind Iran's nuclear programme and foreign policy. Instead, "analysis" rests on the unshakeable position: There Cannot (and Should Not) Be a Deal with Iran.

At least the headline's good: I just suspect it's better applied to the author than to her straw-person targets.

0755 GMT: The international media are likely to be dominated today by speculations and leaks about the second day of discussions at the International Atomic Energy Agency on Iran's nuclear programme.

So, before getting drawn into that issue, we've taken the time --- with the help of readers and fellow bloggers --- to post two discussions about the next steps for the Green Wave(s). The use of the plural is deliberate, as you'll soon see in the debate on the evolving nature of the movement(s); the other, equally important discussion is on non-violence as protest moves towards 16 Azar (7 December) . So is our desire in posting them, not for a conclusive answer but for reflection on how and where protest and resistance develop in this marathon conflict.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sweden currently holds the European Union's rotating presidency.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iran Nuclear Special: What Tehran's Latest Offer Means (and Why the West Should Consider It)

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

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

Enduring America's Mr Smith carries out a close reading of the latest Iran move in the nuclear negotiations and how to respond to it:

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki's remarks on Thursday, reviewing the the nuclear dispute between Iran and the West, are a clear departure from the proposal floated in October by the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohammad El-Baradei. Indeed, that proposal now appears dead in the water. Iran is progressively coming out with a spirited defiance against the idea of having its low-enriched uranium (LEU) processed abroad and returned in the form of 20% enriched nuclear fuel, suitable for its Tehran medical reactor.

The reasons behind this position are not irrational. Russia has once again delayed the operational start of the Bushehr nuclear reactor, cold-shouldering Iran as it has frequently done on the issue in the past decade. Historically, France has manipulated provision of nuclear fuel from the Eurodiff consortium, in which Iran is a dormant stakeholder. So, in the eyes of Tehran, both parties to the El-Baradei deal have a poor track record and therefore cannot be trusted to deliver nuclear fuel on time.

Iran's counter-position is not entirely unreasonable, either. Mottaki's statement was not technical and contained a degree of vagueness, but the offer amounted to a simultaneous exchange of some parts of the Iranian low-enriched uranium stock for the 20% nuclear fuel, which would now be processed abroad and delivered, ready for use, inside Iran. This arrangement would allay Iranian fears that its uranium supply might be held indefinitely by some foreign party, including Russia.

What is uncertain is the fate of Iran's uranium stockpile. Mottaki's statement is not clear this would be stored permanently inside Iran, as most news services reported today or whether it could eventually be transported abroad. It is clear, however, that the Iranian Foreign Minister is talking about an uranium "exchange" to be agreed a new technical meeting in Vienna.

The West has to approach this Iranian counter-proposal carefully, avoiding gut reactions like that of French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner. The end-goal of the West is to ensure that Iran is unable to use its stock for weaponisation, so it has to push for the neutralisation of the low-enriched uranium, a task that can take place even inside Iran if the IAEA is able to coordinate it. It should be noted that Iran is now willing to relinquish total control of its uranium, a concession that was unthinkable a few months ago.

Mottaki's opening is therefore worth consideration by the Obama Administration and the Europeans, even as they face increased pressure from the Israeli Government and US neo-conservatives in Washington that Mottaki's statement is further proof of the military goals of Iran's programme. The ideal course of action is to corner the Iranians into giving up control of their stock, wrestling as many concessions as them as possible to get leeway on the issue of shipping uranium out of Iran.

In the end? It's far better to have as much low-enriched fuel locked up securely inside Iran, rather than slapping on further sanctions while Tehran keeps its hands firmly on its uranium.

The Latest from Iran (17 November): An Obama-Ahmadinejad Alliance?

NEW Latest Iran Video: The Protests of Ehsan Fattahian's Execution (16 November)
NEW The Bomb, The Bomb: Distorting the Latest Report on Iran's Nuclear Programme
NEW The Iran Cul-de-Sac: 4 Points on Obama’s Embrace of Ahmadinejad (and Rejection of the Green Movement)
Iran Document: The International Atomic Energy Agency Report on Nuclear Facilities
The Latest from Iran (16 November): Catching Up

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

1925 GMT: On a Positive Note (see 1855 GMT). The Public Broadcasting Service documentary, "Death in Tehran", on the shooting of Neda Agha Soltan airs at 8 p.m., Eastern Standard Time in the US (0100 GMT). It has been developed and filmed in conjunction with the good folks at Tehran Bureau.

1915 GMT: Former President Mohammad Khatami, speaking to Tehran University students, has called for reform of Iran's election laws and condemned violent government policies. He maintained that the “Iranian movement” cannot be suppressed by “fear":

This movement is a deep and widespread movement....The people of Iran want freedom; they want financial, economic, social and political security and because they have suffered through despotism, they want to be masters of their destiny.

1855 GMT: Worst Iran Coverage of the Day. From The New York Times review of a Public Broadcasting Service TV documentary on the death of Neda Agha Soltan:

“A Death in Tehran,” Tuesday’s “Frontline” [documentary] on PBS, is dismaying not just because it deals with a life ended in its prime. It also makes us realize just how quickly the protest movement vanished from the headlines. A part of the world that seemed on the verge of grass-roots-generated change now looks as if it’s back to business as usual.

Vanished from which headlines? Perhaps those of newspapers who are under the delusion that all is "back to business as usual" in Iran?

1850 GMT: The Convictions So Far. Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting reports that five people have been sentenced to death and 81 have received jail terms of up to 15 years in connection with post-election protests.



1840 GMT: The Iranian Parliament has confirmed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s nominees for the Ministries of Welfare and Social Security (Sadegh Mahsuli), Education (Hamid-Reza Haji Babai), and Power (Majid Namjoo).

The votes complete Ahmadinejad's Cabinet; the Parliament rejected his original appointees for the three ministries last month.

1810 GMT: New Trials. Back from an afternoon of teaching to catch up with today's trials of French student Clotilde Reiss and Iranian economist and journalist Saeed Laylaz. Al Jazeera has a video report.

1315 GMT: Widening Engagement. We've said for months that the US need for support in Afghanistan was one factor propelling the extension of the "unclenched fist" to Tehran. We have even suggested that there were quiet, back-channel talks between the US and Iran on the matter.

So this statement from Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, speaking in New Delhi: "In responding to the current Obama and US administration messages asking Iran's help in dealing with the problem in Afghanistan, we have defined the new approach....We are hopeful of taking some steps in this regard."

1125 GMT: The Death of the Prison Doctor. Another revelation in the case of Ramin Pourandarjan, the 26-year-old physician at Kahrizak Prison, who supposedly died of a heart attack or stroke (see yesterday's updates). Shortly before he died, Pourandarjan had told a Parliamentary committee of abuses of detainees at Kahrizak.

1120 GMT: We've posted video of the Tehran University demonstration protesting the 11 November execution of Ehsan Fattahian.

1055 GMT: More Leaking & Sabotage. Now I can't keep up. The Times of London benefits from a leak with a different slant: "UN nuclear chief in secret talks with Iran over deal to end sanctions".

The mission of IAEA head Mohammad El Baradei for a compromise agreement isn't exactly "secret", since we have revealed --- from the very non-secret Press TV --- that El Baradei was proposing Turkey as the third country in an Iran-Russia uranium enrichment plan and that the Iranian establishment is split over the suggestion. What makes The Times story distinctive is that the newspaper was handed a 13-page IAEA document outlining El Baradei's approach. In addition to the third-party enrichment scheme, Iran would also be a participant in a globally-managed nuclear fuel bank.

And who else has put forward that notion of a nuclear fuel bank? Step up, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

1050 GMT: Counter-Spin. And in the opposition corner from The New York Times on the IAEA report on Iran, it's the Iranian Ambassador to the IAEA, Ali-Asghar Soltanieh:

The latest report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohamed ElBaradei proved that political hype and propaganda about Fordo plant were baseless. The report confirmed that no centrifuges had been introduced into the facility and that no nuclear material had been used in it.

1035 GMT: And from Montazeri: Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri, has replied to a letter from the mother of a detained senior member of the reformist Islamic Iran Participation Front:

The situation which has happened for the country is very regretful.....Calling peaceful demonstration of people a 'riot' does not solve anything. There is only one acceptable legal solution and that is returning from the path of mistake and making up for it. Freeing the political prisoners is the first step that the officials must do immediately and even preventing the freedom of innocent people for one hour is a major sin.

1025 GMT: And With Sane'i.... Grand Ayatollah Yusuf Sane'i told members of the Islamic Association of Art School on Sunday:

The increase and exacerbation of problems does not point to the domination and rule of oppression but rather is a sign of weakness....Be certain the efforts and suffering of the people, especially the academics, will be fruitful....Lying is the characteristic of oppressors, when they see they are losing ground they turn to lying and rely on lies....Increased pressure is a sign of weakness; arresting, imprisoning, and torturing are signs of weakness.

1010 GMT: Catching Up With Karroubi.... Mehdi Karroubi visited Ayatollah Bayat-Zanjani, who suffered a heart attack last month, in hospital yesterday. Before his illness, Bayat-Zanjani had been a strident critic of the Ahmadinejad Government.

Earlier Karroubi had spoken to reformist members of Parliament, advising youth to "avoid the violent acts which is what certain movements would want to happen....Don’t let some sick individuals provoke people to radical behaviours and as always keep rationality and humanity as the role model for the Green movement."

0925 GMT: Whipping Up the Fear. Following our updates yesterday on the initial exaggerations of the IAEA's report on Iran's nuclear programmes, we have a snap analysis of the misleading media coverage, fed by sources trying to "break" the talks with Tehran, drawing on this morning's treatment in The New York Times.

USA Today drops by to offer us further evidence: "U.N. report: Iran nuke site apt for bombs, not power".

0915 GMT: The Public Finger-Wagging. The Obama Administration's engagement strategy depends on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad overcoming domestic opposition to a nuclear deal, and Obama has to keep his own opposition at bay. So the US President issued a boiler-plate warning this morning during his press conference with Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao: "Iran has an opportunity to present and demonstrate its peaceful intentions, but if it fails to take this opportunity, there will be consequences."

0900 GMT: We're back in place after an excellent seminar in Dublin in "Blogging in Iran" with our partners at the Clinton Institute, University College Dublin. To mark the occasion (and match the headline), we've posted what we hope will be an important evaluation --- based on inside information and open sources --- of the Obama Administration's current policy on Iran.

We're also following the latest developments surrounding Iran's nuclear programme, building on the text of the International Atomic Energy Agency's report on Iranian facilities.