The Latest from Iran (13 November): Accusations

NEW 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 (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

1805 GMT: Another Move for the Nuke Deal. Looks like the Ahmadinejad-military axis has put down another marker with the statement of the head of Iran’s armed forces, Major-General Hassan Firouzabadi, supporting the uranium enrichment agreement: “We will not suffer a loss from the exchange of fuel. Rather, in obtaining fuel enriched to 20 percent as needed by the reactors, nearly one million of our people would take advantage of its medical possibilities annually....The quantity of 3.5 percent enriched uranium [to be shipped out] is not so large as to cause damage to Iran’s supply."

1605 GMT: What's Happening at the Revolutionary Guard? Radio Fardi summarises the changes in higher commander at the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps, including the head of the Tehran command. I'll have to leave it to others to assess whether these are "normal" changes in the organisation or whether there is a political story behind them.

1515 GMT: Confidence or Concern? Reuters has now picked up the statement of Mojtaba Zolnour, a representative of the Supreme Leader in the Revolutionary Guard, that the Assembly of Experts cannot remove him from office.

Zolnour told a gathering of Khamenei's representatives in Iranian universities, "The members of the assembly...do not appoint the Supreme Leader, rather they discover him and it is not that they would be able to remove him any time they wish so."

Now is Zolnour saying this because he is feeling good that the Supreme Leader is secure in his seat of power or is his warning prompted by fears that members of the Assembly, who raised the possibility of removal in August/September, may not be pacified?



1500 GMT: Football Story of Day. Or maybe, thanks to the Green movement, a non-story because there was a non-crowd. Persian2English writes about a disappointing turnout for the Iran v. Iceland match in Azadi stadium on Tuesday, citing state media: “In spite of efforts...to have spectators show up in the stadium, only 100 attended to watch the match between the two countries' national teams." (Goal.com say "only a few hundred" turned up to watch a "low-key friendly".)

1400 GMT: We've posted a long statement, adapted from the website linked to Mir Hossein Mousavi, made by former President Mohammad Khatami to academics. Khatami appears to be going to great lengths to set out "legitimate" protest (as opposed to "radical" activity) criticising the failure of the Government to serve the Iranian people and uphold the Constitution.

1315 GMT: Tehran Prosecutor General Abbas Jafari Doulatabadi has announced that Shapour Kazemi, the brother of Mir Hossein Mousavi's wife Zahra Rahnavard, will be tried in Revolutionary Court.

1200 GMT: Your Tehran Friday Prayer Report.

Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, the former head of the Guardian Council, used his speech to put 13 Aban in the "right" context. The presence of students has demonstrated the Revolution's resolve against the "enemy flag" of the United States. Washington also gave Jannati the opportunity to attack the Iranian opposition --- despite the fact that he did not see them on 13 Aban --- "$55 million" authorised by the US for subversive activities.

1100 GMT: Persian2English reports on the Revolutionary Court's sentencing of Hassan Salamat, a master’s student at Tehran University, to four years in prison. Salamat was arrested in post-election protests on charges of "propagating aganist the regime and conspiracy to disrupt national security". He spent two months in Evin Prison before being released on $200,000 bail.

1010 GMT: An intriguing interview with Tehran Chief Prosecutor Abbas Jafari Doulatabadi on the Islamic Republic News Agency website. It's intriguing in part because Doulatabadi is clearly on the defensive about allegations of abuses by the regime. He admits that the Constitution in principle puts forth open trials but gives a convoluted explanation as to why this is not possible. He also expresses the hope that some trials can be completed in the next month.

Even more interesting, however, is the politics in the interview. Pointing to the regime's ongoing manoeuvres against former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, Doulatabadi says Rafsanjani's son Mehdi Hashemi --- accused in the first Tehran trial of corruption and intrigue in the Preisdential election --- should return from Britain to Iran if he believes the charges are false.

0825 GMT: Just catching up with news this morning.

Both The New York Times and Press TV share an interest in the seizure by US Federal prosecutors of properties, including the land where four mosques sit, of the Alavi Foundation. The prosecutors claim that the Foundation, whose 36-story office tower is also being taken, is illegally providing money and other services to Iran.

The Los Angeles Times goes instead for The Bomb, with a survey considering the reactions of Arab states and people to Iran's nuclear programme.

As for us, we're starting the day with two features outlining our concern over "Western" images of the Green Wave, which may point to a US Government policy shifting against the Iranian opposition: "Why is Washington Belittling the Green Movement?" and "Is This an 'Unravelling' Protest Beyond Mousavi and Karroubi?"

Iran's Nuclear Programme: Washington's Unhelpful Misperceptions

The Latest from Iran (9 November): Assessing the Government

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

In The New York Times this morning, David Sanger publishes an article, "Iran Is Said to Ignore Effort to Salvage a Nuclear Deal", which gives half the story on the current tangled state of the negotiations over uranium enrichment.

Half the story because Sanger's story is effectively a US Government press release. Here is the narrative of unnamed officials:

The Obama Administration...has told Iran’s leaders in back-channel messages that it is willing to allow the country to send its stockpile of enriched uranium to any of several nations, including Turkey, for temporary safekeeping....But the overtures, made through the International Atomic Energy Agency over the past two weeks, have all been ignored....Instead....the Iranians have revived an old counterproposal: that international arms inspectors take custody of much of Iran’s fuel, but keep it on Kish, a Persian Gulf resort island that is part of Iran....

That proposal had been rejected because leaving the nuclear material on Iranian territory would allow for the possibility that the Iranians could evict the international inspectors at any moment. That happened in North Korea in 2003, and within months the country had converted its fuel into the material for several nuclear weapons.

This version of events intersects not only with developments around El Baradei's latest proposal --- Turkey takes Iran's reprocessed uranium from Russia and reshapes it into metal plates --- but also the reports that Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov was in Tehran pushing a deal. The article is also notable for revealing the Kish proposal, which had not surfaced before.

The downside of the article, however, is that it misses the other half of the narrative. Yesterday Tehran's officials put out a counter-proposal for reprocessing outside Iran, in a two-stage delivery to Russia. Each shipment of uranium would be 400 kilogrammes; the total of 800 kilogrammes is about half of Iran's stock. That proposal, which could be a response to Ryabkov's intervention, may just be a case of the Iranian Government spinning out the discussions, but it is a far cry from an outright rejection.

Indeed, it is troubling that Sanger's article is riddled with distorting exaggerations. His claim that US officials "had now all but lost hope that Iran would follow through with an agreement reached in Geneva on Oct. 1 to send its fuel out of the country temporarily" overstates the situation --- Tehran's officials did not accept a plan but agreed to further technical talks in Vienna. Thus his follow-up, "Iranian officials told the energy agency on Oct. 29 that they could not agree to the deal that their own negotiators had reached", is an unhelpful simplification.

That would not be a major problem if this was just loose reporting. The worry is that this is also the perception of US officials:

“If you listen to what the Iranians have said publicly and privately over the past week,” one senior administration official said Sunday, “it’s evident that they simply cannot bring themselves to do the deal.”

Even the most casual of EA readers would have picked up by now that there is not a single Iranian view on the negotiations. Instead, there is a heated debate within the regime on how to conduct the talks with the US. The Washington narrative in Sanger's article misses this, ignoring for example that President Ahmadinejad is pressing for a continuation of discussions despite hostility from within the Iranian Parliament and possibly from the Supreme Leader's office.

If true, this misperception carries the consequence that it may be the Obama Administration rather than Tehran which breaks off the talks. This does not mean that it is giving up a likely agreement --- again, Ahmadinejad's primary objective may be to stay at the table rather than signing a deal --- but it will lead to Iran blaming Washington for the collapse (and there will be supporters for this view, such as Erdogan in Turkey) and undercut the possibility of China and Russia supporting the harsh sanctions that the US Congress will demand.

Yet even this is secondary to the wider significance of the Administration's fuzzy view. Simply put, if the statements in Sanger's piece are accurate, Obama officials have a poor understanding of the internal dynamics in Iran after 12 June, with little comprehension of the fault-lines within the Establishment. In the end, they fail to understand that the nuclear issue is, first and foremost, a pawn in a much bigger chess match inside Iran.

The Latest from Iran (6 November): The Day After The Day After

NEW Iran’s New 13 Aban: An Eyewitness Account “I Have Never Seen as Much Violence”
NEW Iran: Josh Shahryar on the Significance of 13 Aban
NEW Iran Video: The Tribute to 13 Aban’s Protesters
Iran Document: Ayatollah Montazeri’s Interview on Eve of 13 Aban
Iran’s New 13 Aban: “A Major Blow to Khamenei’s Authority”
Iran’s New 13 Aban: A First-Hand Account from the Streets
Iran’s New 13 Aban: “The Green Wave Has Bounced Back”
NEW Latest Iran Video: The 13 Aban Protests (4 November — 4th Set)
Latest Iran Video: The 13 Aban Protests (4 November — 3rd Set)
Latest Iran Video: The 13 Aban Protests (4 November — 2nd Set)
Latest Iran Video: The 13 Aban Protests (4 November — 1st Set)

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

1905 GMT: Tehran's Prosecutor General Abbas Jafari Doulatabadi says two Germans and a Canadian, detained on 13 Aban, have been released. It is unclear if the Canadian is one of the four foreign journalists who were arrested (see 1155 GMT).

1845 GMT: From the Streets. We've posted an eyewitness account by Persian  Umpire, which can be compared with that of our correspondent Mr Azadi, of the 13 Aban demonstrations.

1820 GMT: MediaFail of the Day. Even by the standards set by the Islamic Republic News Agency for "information", this is Gold-Medal journalism. From Mehdi Karroubi's son, Hossein Karroubi:

On Thursday [5 November], IRNA released an interview said to be with me which was completely false and lies. In these comments IRNA claimed that I have said Mr. Mousavi was not brave enough to attend the November 4th protest and that I have accused him of lying.

There is no need to explain that because of Mr. Mousavi’s and Mr. Karoubi’s character and of course their bravery that we know about, they will continue to lead the Green movement of Iran with unity in their actions and they will not give up until we reach the goals of the movement and eliminate the power of liars.These kinds of lies will only make the strong determination of Mr. Mousavi in fight against lies even stronger and will further prove that he has chosen his mission in this fight justly.

1725 GMT: What does "Obama, You're With Them or You're With Us" Mean? Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty has an interesting article, "What Does Iran's Green Movement Want from Obama?".  Assuming those interviewed are representative of the movement, the message is: 1) of course, no US interference but 2) no eagerness for a nuclear deal with the Ahmadinejad Government and 3) condemnation of Iran's human rights abuses with inclusion of the issue in any US talks with Tehran.

1550 GMT: More on Friday Prayers (see 1145 GMT). The Los Angeles Times has a lengthy summary of today's service in Tehran, from which a couple of interesting twists emerge.

The first is an apparent "concession" in the hard line normally set out by Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami. He began with his portrayal of a small, foreign-backed group trying to disrupt the pro-Government rallies on 13 Aban: "Out of the hundreds and thousands of people who take to the streets, only one or two thousand shouted [for the Greens]...."Americans must not be happy, as there is no red carpet waiting for them." And he pressed the evil sponsor theme: "My brothers and sisters who have fallen in the wrong and incorrect track, look who is supporting you, those who were named by the late imam [Ayatollah Khomeini] as 'blasphemous' and [whose] Islam was called 'Americanized Islam'. The miserable monarchists are supporting you."

Yet Khatami then offered a way back to the fold, "What is wrong if you follow the mainstream of the nation? Come back to the embrace of the nation and the nation will accept your repenting and remorse....Of course the criminals’ cases are different and they should be punished."

That apparent sign of reconcilation was not matched by an opening for the US. To the contrary, Khatami was so loud in his denunciation of Washington that it heightens suspicions that Iran --- possibly against the line set out by President Ahmadinejad --- is walking out on the nuclear talks. Khatami declared, "Since the 1953 coup against [Mohammad] Mosaddegh, the U.S. has done nothing except treason against our nation, and since the beginning of our revolution, as [Khomeini] said, we can compile a book about the crimes committed by the US", and he brought the story to the present, with the Obama Administration instigating ethnic groups and releasing $50 million for "toppling our system". Khatami concluded, "As long as the U.S. will not give up its arrogant character, our nation is not going to be engaged in satanic negotiations."

Khatami's line was introduced by Alaedin Boroujerdi, the head of Parliament's National Security and Foreign Affairs Committee, who denounced protesters for following the line of the Voice of America: "The leaders [of the opposition] used to be high-ranking officials. Now, they repeat the same slogans."

So, if Khatami is speaking for others higher up in the regime, is this an attempt to ease the internal conflict by offering an olive branch to the "less serious" offenders? And will this be matched by a linking of the "more serious" offenders --- say, the leaders of the opposition movement --- to the US, even if that means a suspension of engagement with the "West"?

Most importantly, is this shift in strategy a sign of weakness or strength? I'm voting for the former.

1430 GMT: Will The Regime Break The Opposition? Following our previous entry, Mr Smith checks in, "We may have underestimated the police resolve: Iranian human rights groups are now reporting that no less than 400 people have been picked up in the streets on 13 Aban and are now in Evin Prison."

I do not think we missed this. Rather, we may be seeing an important juncture in the post-election crisis. As we have noted over the last 48 hours, the Ahmadinejad Government may be lost for a political strategy, but it can still try to use blunt force to survive by pounding the opposition into submission.

1255 GMT: The Government Acts. Tehran's Prosecutor General Abbas Jafari Doulatabadi has confirmed that reformists Ali Tajernia, Saeed Shariati, and Ebrahim Amini will be tried on Saturday. Ahmad Zeidabadi and Behzad Nabavi will be in court on Sunday, and Mohammad Atrianfar will appear on Monday.

An Iranian activist is offering running updates on the latest developments with detentions and forthcoming court hearings.

1245 GMT: What Has Mohammad Khatami Been Doing? The former President, who has kept a low profile in recent days including 13 Aban, has resurfaced with a visit to Morteza Alviri, the former mayor of Tehran and Mehdi Karoubi’s representative on the committee to investigate detainee abuses, in his home. Alviri was arrested in a raid on Karroubi's offices in September and released on bail last week.

Khatami offered general remarks, praising Alviri's courage and long service to Iran.

1200 GMT: I can't help thinking that the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps has been seriously distracted by last month's bombing in southeastern Iran.

Brigadier General Hussein Salami, the IRGC's Deputy Commander, has given a lengthy interview to Fars News about the threat from Jundallah. He goes on at length about foreign support of the Baluch insurgents but this is the headline claim: Jundallah leader Abdolmalek Rigi was arrested in September but was released after interference from Pakistani intelligence services.

It's not a question of the attention that the Revolutionary Guard is now paying to the southeastern situation rather than to the internal challenge. Allegations like these are bound to complicate the Government's relations with neighbours such as Pakistan.

1155 GMT: Agence France Presse reports that four journalists --- two Canadian, 1 Japanese, and 1 Iranian working for AFP --- were arrested on 13 Aban.

1145 GMT: Your Friday Prayer Summary. Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami, known for his fierce denunciation of post-election opposition, led the prayers in Tehran, and he did not ease up on the evil of a Green movement led by the United States.

1. Observers should not mistake a "small group" of agitators backed by Washington as the message of 13 Aban, given the "flood surge" of people who came out for the Iranian nation, Government, and Supreme Leader.

2. Iran's great success in nuclear energy is being led by Ayatollah Khamenei. The West "says we should build confidence but we do not have confidence in you".

3. Give us the uranium for Iran's medical research reactor. Now.

4. The US is arrogant, but Iran will never negotiate with evil.

1120 GMT: Nuclear Face-Off. With news from inside Iran slow this morning, the Iranian Government has kept attention on the international talks. Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki has maintained on IRIB television, "The Islamic Republic examines all the proposals. We have examined this proposal, we have some technical and economic considerations [which need to be addressed]." Mottaki's remarks were an indirect response to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's insistence that the draft arrangement on uranium enrichment would not be changed.

Mottaki has also used remarks to the Islamic Republic News Agency to poke at the "superficial" comments of the French Foreign Minister, Bernard Kouchner.

0935 GMT: Really, I'm Going to Speak...but Football First. Fars News Agency reports:

President Ahmadinejad's speech to the nation has been postponed because of Thursday night's World Cup football match between Iran and Uruguay.

The President will speak after 9 p.m. on Saturday on the nuclear issue, the economy, and in particular information technology.

Postponed because of the football? Call me cynical, but postponed because of uncertainty and disarray is a less dramatic explanation. The original story was that the President would appear on Thursday, irrespective of any prospect that he might be overshadowed by a sporting event; the delay points to a Government that is trying to figure out how to respond to the show of opposition on 13 Aban.

0825 GMT: Following the assessments by Mr Smith and by Chris Emery of the outcomes of 13 Aban's marches, EA correspondent Josh Shahryar offers his assessment of the day's events and their political impact.

0735 GMT: Balancing our criticism of the rush by some back to the haven of Iran as Nuclear Threat, other newspapers do keep an eye on the opposition and internal developments. The Huffington Post has a feature on Mahmoud Vahidnia, the mathematics student who challenged the Supreme Leader during a speech last week. And The New York Times publishes a commentary by Nazenin Ansari and Jonathan Paris on "The Message from Tehran".

0700 GMT: An Enduring America reader wrote with concern a few hours ago, "Today was suspiciously quiet. No videos coming out and no statements....I’m not sure what to make of it." Josh Shahryar's excellent analysis, posted in a separate entry, offers an answer. I would add: 1) this lull happened after previous large demonstrations of opposition, as on 30 July and 18 September; 2) a pause was to be expected after the rush of energy and fortitude on 13 Aban; 3) the movement is already gathering itself for the next show of defiance, with planning beginning for Students Day on 16 Azar (7 December).

That's not to say that other folks are already leaving the party. The Washington Post exits with great haste to its priority of the nuclear issue. It features an article claiming, from the ever-present unnamed official, "Iran is demanding full delivery of reactor fuel before it gives up its stash of low-enriched uranium and has balked at further efforts to hold international talks on its nuclear program." That, however, is fair-and-balanced reporting next to the paper's editorial calling for an immediate cutoff of talks and twisting 13 Aban to fit that demand:

On Wednesday, the opposition protesters chanted: "Obama, Obama -- either you're with them, or with us." Sooner rather than later, Mr. Obama ought to respond to those messages.

The rush away from Iran to the nuclear front is likely to be accelerated by an "exclusive" in The Guardian this morning, "Iran tested advanced nuclear warhead design – secret report". Apparently "Iranian scientists have experimented with an advanced nuclear warhead design...known as a 'two-point implosion' device," and "nuclear experts" find this "breathtaking".

Translation: a "Western" official (US, European, or from the International Atomic Energy Agency) decided --- from genuine concern, a desire to wreck the enrichment talks, or both --- to leak another headline from the controversial 2008 IAEA report on Iran's nuclear programme. Without seeing the actual text, it is impossible to know the significance of the alleged warhead design. Indeed, two sentences deep in a side analysis in The Guardian tip off that this is far from an "imminent threat" story:

Most but not all of the material in the dossier relates back to the period before 2004. It does not necessarily conflict with the US National Intelligence Estimate two years ago, that found it likely that Iran suspended weaponisation work in 2003.

That, I suspect, will not deter media from racing to panic stations over the claim.

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).

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

Writing for Iranian Diplomacy, foreign policy analyst Keyhan Barzegar suggests a "middle way" in the enrichment negotiations, in which Iran can send some of its uranium to a third country --- thus meeting "Western" concerns --- but retain some of its stock.

Barzegar's view is very much that of a pragmatic diplomat, and I'm not sure it takes account of the political considerations both in Western countries and within Iran. (It is interesting to see his representation of Parliamentary objections to the Vienna deal as a reflection of public anxiety rather than as part of a power struggle within the establishment.) The bottom line of the analysis, however, deserves attention: for Barzegar, Iran's response to the enrichment proposal is not a manipulation or evasion but a genuine reflection of its technical as well as political concerns.


Translated by Iran Review:

Explaining about a draft agreement on nuclear fuel for the Tehran research reactor, the Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs Manouchehr Mottaki has noted, “The two sides decided to go through the draft. It has been done in Vienna and Iran will soon declare its viewpoint.” At the same time, some officials have already voiced their opposition to the recent nuclear agreement.

The main point evident in all those opposite remarks is lack of trust. Iran still distrusts the West and maintains that Western countries are trying to deprive it of its right to enrich uranium in the long run. Therefore, Tehran maintains that it should take a multilateral strategic approach to this issue.

In fact, they say, it is part of a US strategy to take all enriched uranium away from Iran and then raise expectations from Tehran in the next phase. It seems that their main concern is those expectations, which may finally bring the enrichment process, which has been a fixed policy of Iran, to a complete halt. This would cost dearly for those politicians who had insisted on enrichment in Iran, especially President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Therefore, if the negotiations fail to reach a clear result, it could be quite disconcerting.

The opposition heard in the Majlis (Parliament) is in line with the general anxiety in Iran and the idea that negotiations with the United States are not beneficial to Iran because the United States will use its power to inflict losses on Iran in a step by step manner. Therefore, they are totally suspicious about the role of the United States in its power game with Iran and maintain that Iran would be the weaker side of the game.

In the time of Bush, the game followed totally clear rules. He tried to force other countries through bullying and unilateralism to give in to US policies and this built international consensus against him. Obama, however, has adopted a new strategy according to which he is planning to engage in direct talks with Iran. This does not mean that Washington sympathizes with Iran or pursues special relations with Tehran, but it means that the Americans have found out that negotiations constitute the sole means of convincing Iran to give up its nuclear program and this is done through a step-by-step strategy. Iranian politicians, who are wary of the US role in international interactions, regularly oppose negotiations.

The opposition, however, does not signify total negation of the necessity of negotiations, but it should be considered a warning to negotiators that they must be careful not to give concessions to the opposite side. At the same time, the role of the Majlis in nuclear issue and foreign policy decisions indicates that key problems are solved through consensual solutions. This is very important with regard to the nuclear case because it will balance various power levers. At the same time, it shows the foreign side that the nuclear issue is of national importance to Iranians.

Forecasting Iran’s answer

Although it is difficult under the current circumstances to predict Iran’s response to the agreement, but all signs point to a middle way, which if chosen carefully, could be positive and in line with Iran’s national interests. In fact, if Iran kept part of the enriched uranium in the country and sent the rest to another country, it would pave the way for the continuation of cooperation. Iran should manage its nuclear case. I am not agreed to the recent opposition to the latest nuclear agreement because in any game, both sides try to benefit. If Iran believes in a win-win game, it should take a step and manage the situation. In fact, the trust building measures asked by Western countries should be started in Tehran. On the other hand, Iran is distrustful toward the West and expects Western countries to do something.

Therefore, a middle way can lead to a deal and that deal, under the current circumstances, would be to the benefit of Iran and its national interests. In any case, negotiations between Iran and the United States have reached a critical point and the nuclear case is the sole issue enjoying necessary potential to goad on those negotiations because it gives Iran a bargaining chip which forces the United States to accept to talk to Tehran.

Therefore, Iran should be careful not to sell that bargaining chip, that is, independent nuclear fuel cycle, for a low price. Both sides are taking steps to reach the agreed point. Iran is on the path to positive negotiations and is trying to take a positive step to pave the way for a deal. In the meantime, however, a middle way would be the best option to protect Iran’s national interests.