The Latest from Iran (20 November): Manoeuvres in Washington and Tabriz

NEW Iran: The Ahmadinejad Speech in Tabriz (19 November)
NEW Iran: Green Message to Obama "Back Us Instead of Dealing With Ahmadinejad"
Iran: What Happened on Election Night? The Ghalam News Editor’s Account
Iran Nuclear Special: What Tehran’s Latest Offer Means (and Why the West Should Consider It)
Iran’s 16 Azar Video: Greens Fight “The Pirates of the Persian Gulf”
Latest Iran Video: “A Death in Tehran” on Neda Agha Soltan (17 November)
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

2225 GMT: Today's UN Condemnation of Iran. The Third (Human Rights) Committee of the United Nations General Assembly has "expresse[d] its deep concern at serious ongoing and recurring human rights violations" in Iran. The non-binding resolution passed 74-48, with 59 abstentions.

The Committee voiced "particular concern at the response of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran following the Presidential election of 12 June 2009 and the concurrent rise in human rights violations", including "harassment, intimidation and persecution, including by arbitrary arrest, detention or disappearance, of opposition members, journalists and other media representatives, bloggers, lawyers, clerics, human rights defenders, academics, (and) students".

The outcome, the Committee asserted, had been "numerous deaths and injuries" Iwith "forced confessions and abuse of prisoners including ... rape and torture".

2115 GMT: The Brussels Non-Talks and Non-Sanctions. The New York Times has snippets of the statement issued by the delegations of the "5+1" powers after their review of the nuclear talks with Iran (see 1240 GMT):

We are disappointed by the lack of follow-up to the three understandings reached [at Geneva on 1 October]....[Iran has] not responded positively to the I.A.E.A. proposed agreement for the provision of nuclear fuel for its Tehran research reactor...[or] engaged in an intensified dialogue. ....[Iran should] reconsider the opportunity offered by this agreement to meet the humanitarian needs of its people and to engage seriously with us in dialogue and negotiations....[We will meet again soon] to complete our assessment of the situation and to decide on our next steps.

Read this carefully and you'll see that "the meeting...a sign of exasperation with Iran" is issuing a holding statement while the "West" tries to figure out a response to the Iran counter-offer, giving the appearance of stern action when nothing has been or will be decided.

It's good enough to take in The Times, which has seems to have no clue about the Mottaki counter-offer (1315 GMT), Iran's manoeuvres with Russia and Turkey (0945 and 1620 GMT), or even the manoeuvres of the International Atomic Energy Agency (1620 GMT). Thus, its simple depiction of the Iranian position as "rejection".

2020 GMT: Today's Media Stupidity Awards. First, the Gold Medal for Reasoned Argument for Mindless Violence. Step up, editorial writers of The Washington Times: "Get Ready to Bomb Iran: It's the last best chance for peace".

And now the Gold Medal for "Intellectual" Dismissal of The Other Side. It's Mamoun Fandy of the Christian Science Monitor:

Should the West trust Iranian promises? The short answer is "no." But the underlying question is "Why not?"

The answer lies in Iranian belief systems – notably the doctrine of taqiyya, a difficult concept for many non-Muslims to grasp. Taqiyya is the Shiite religious rationale for concealment or dissimulation in political or worldly affairs. At one level it means that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his regime can tell themselves that they are obliged by their faith not to tell the truth.

1955 GMT: More on Student Arrests (see 1410 GMT). Radio Zamaaneh have published summaries of the detentions of student leaders this week. Payvand also has information.

1945 GMT: You Better Watch Out. Back from a break for a debate on climate change and the Copenhagen summit to Iran’s Prosecutor General and former Minister of Intelligence, Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejeie, is getting tough with protesters. He warned yesterday on Iranian state television, "The Judiciary is determined to decisively and primitively confront any new unrest [caused] by those against the results of the Presidential Elections of Iran.”

1620 GMT: You Read It Here --- The Iran-Turkey Deal. Mr Smith checks in, and we think he may have an exclusive on the nuclear discussions:

It's interesting to spot smoke signals on the nuclear issue. The meeting of Ahmadinejad and Turkish Foreign Davutoglu meeting in Tabriz makes no sense unless Davutoglu was called in to discuss the nuclear issue, given the frequency of Iranian-Turkish encounters in the past weeks.

And I find El-Baradei's statements in Berlin to be subtly quite important. He said, according to AFP, "We have not received any written response from Iran. What I got...is an oral response, which basically said, 'We need to keep all the material in Iran until we get the fuel.' That to me is a case of extreme mistrust."

This is the gist of what I wrote in my own analysis the other day: mistrust by Iran, low-enriched uranium remaining inside Iran UNTIL fuel arrives. El Baradei's statement cannot be underestimated, as it gives hope to Turkey to be able to broker the deal. Needless to say, this would be the diplomatic coup of the century by Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan. It would raise his stature incommensurably and allow him to press on with the politics of the Nabucco energy pipeline.

1500 GMT: Not much fuss about Friday Prayers today, but there's a short clip up on YouTube.

1455 GMT: Ahmadinejad's Move for Legitimacy. We've posted a copy of the President's Thursday speech in Tabriz.

1410 GMT: Cracking Down on the Students. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty summarises a story we've been following for days: "arrests [as] a move by the authorities to prevent students from protesting against the government on December 7".

1315 GMT: The Mottaki Counter-Offer. Just picking up, after prompting from an EA reader, on an important signal from Iran's Foreign Minister. Most of the Western coverage of Iran's "rejection" of the deal on uranium enrichment (rather than consideration of Iran as taking the next step in negotiations) is based on a weak translation of Mottaki's interview with the Iranian Students News Agency. Almost unnoticed was the Foreign Minister's words to the Hindu newspaper:

We believe that with the continuation of the diplomacy going on now, it is possible to reach an agreement and compromise.... The truth of the matter is [the] interaction [of the "5+1" with the Iran proposal] could somehow build confidence among the Iranians.

1255 GMT: Nuke Discussions Still On. Can't be clearer than this. The US position, as outlined in Kabul yesterday:

The U.S. doesn’t consider the Iranian foreign minister’s rejection of a United Nations- brokered proposal to enrich Iran’s uranium overseas to be “the final word,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said.

While disappointing, she said, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki’s Nov. 18 statement won’t yet trigger the “consequences” that the U.S. and other nations on the UN Security Council have threatened.

1240 GMT: The Brussels "5+1" Talks. First (non)-news out of Brussels on discussions amongst representatives of the US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, and China after Wednesday's counter-offer by Iran for a "swap" of uranium. The meeting was of Foreign Ministry/State Department officials below ministerial level --- the US was represented by Undersecretary of State William Burns and Russia by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov. The delegates reviewed the situation but made no decisions.

This is unsurprising. Contrary to the partial and inaccurate reports in Western media this morning (see 0725 GMT), Washington has not closed the door on discussions and is not moving aggressively for more sanctions. This meeting most likely considered a response to the Iranian counter-offer --- expect to see signals at the start of next week.

1155 GMT: Mahmoud is Proud of His Election. In his tour of Tabriz, President Ahmadinejad is emphasising that while elections in other countries are "entirely predetermined", the 85 percent participation in Iran's Presidential election in June shows the endpoint of the Islamic Republic's development.

Ahmadinejad also spoke about his economic plans, including subsidy and tax proposals, but it is notable that he --- or at least the Islamic Republic News Agency --- relegate this to a secondary position behind the President's words about an election hed more than five months ago.

0945 GMT: Two Smoke Signals on the Nuclear Deal. Turkish Foreign Ahmet Davutoglu will meet President Ahmadinejad in Tabriz today "to discuss the latest developments in Iran's nuclear case" with a view "to solv[ing] tensions between Iran and the West".

That reads as an effort by Iran to get Turkey's support for the "swap" of uranium inside Iran, rather than sending Tehran's uranium stocks outside the country for enrichment. It should be considered alongside Iran's manoeuvres with Russia: it is being reported that Russian Energy Minister Sergei Shmatko has told the Iranian Ambassador that "Russia will continue its cooperation with Iran".

0900 GMT: We've now posted an analysis of the significance of the mission by Mohsen Makhmalbaf, the campaign spokesman for Mir Hossein Mousavi, to Washington.

0725 GMT: On the surface, a quiet morning and a day that --- for the "Western" media --- will again be dominated by coverage of developments in the nuclear talks.

If last night's advance copies of articles are an indication, expect a distorted piece in The Washington Post claiming an Iranian rejection of the "5+1" proposals, highlighting a tough US response, and ignoring the significance of Wednesday's Iranian counter-offer. (That's distorted on two important counts: Tehran, or at least the Ahmadinejad Government is pushing for a deal and may have gotten some movement from the Supreme Leader to make the counter-offer, and the Obama Administration is far from concluding that the talks are over.)

That means a development which is just as important, if not more so, will be missed. The Wall Street Journal breaks the news of an "unofficial" visit by filmmaker Mohsen Makhmalbaf (pictured left) to Washington. Makhmalbaf, the spokesman for Mir Hossein Mousavi's Presidential campaign, "called for President Barack Obama to increase his public support for Iranian democrats and significantly intensify financial pressure on Tehran's elite military unit, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps".

A disturbing piece of news. Sources are claiming that Iranian security services are sending ominous SMS texts warning against further demonstrations.

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

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

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

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

Israelis and Obama
Henry Siegman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why do Israelis dislike Barack Obama?
Bradley Burston

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two Birds, One Stone: Netanyahu Attacks UN & Iran

Israel-Palestine: UN General Assembly Endorses Goldstone Report on Gaza
Iran-Israel Ship Encounter: Hezbollah & Syria Call Reject Claims of Tel Aviv’s “Pirates”

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

On Thursday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu targeted Iran and United Nations. He linked his twin targets through the incident of the ship, allegedly carrying tons of weapons for Hezbollah from Iran, intercepted by Israeli forces:

The bulk of the shipment included rockets whose aim is to hurt our citizens and kill as many civilians as possible. This constitutes a war crime. This is a war crime which Iran intends to commit again in the future.

This gave Netyanahu the opportunity to slide towards his second target, a United Nations which just happened to be considering the Goldstone Report on Gaza:

The UN General Assembly should have investigated and condemned this crime [by Iran and Hezbollah] and the UN Security Council should have convened a special session to debate this incident.

The international community should be focusing on this, but instead, the world condemns Israel and the Israel Defense Forces and undermines our right to self defense [through consideration of the Goldstone Report].

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

Two Birds, One Stone: Netanyahu Attacks UN & Iran
Palestine: The Reactions to the Election Bluff of Mahmoud Abbas
U.S. House of Representatives Opposes the Goldstone Report
Israel-Palestine: Clinton’s Cairo Visit Pushes Talks Into the Distance

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

On Thursday, the 192-member United Nations General Assembly adopted the Goldstone Report on the Gaza War.  Its resolution called on the Israeli government to carry out an "independent and credible" internal investigation and on the "Palestinian side" to carry out an investigation of alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity by Hamas. The resolution also includes a recommendation that the signatories of the fourth Geneva Convention convene in emergency session to discuss Israel's violations of the treaty. Palestinians rejected the British-French proposal to send the resolution back to Geneva for further consideration by the UN Human Rights Council.

In the Assembly, 114 countries voted in favor, 18 opposed, 44 abstained, and 16 were absent. The United States and Israel voted No. The European Union was split --- while Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, and the Czech Republic opposed the resolution, Britain and France abstained.

Although the decision of the Assembly are non-binding, they can put pressure on parties for further action. In particular, it bolsters the call of the Goldstone Report for the Security Council to intervene if Palestinians and Israelis fail to launch credible investigations within three months.

Israel's top UN official, Gabriela Shalev, said: "Rather than discuss how to better stop terrorist groups who deliberately target civilians, this body launches yet another campaign against the victims of terrorism, the people of Israel."

Israel-Palestine: Britain & France Try to Contain Goldstone Report

Israel-Palestine: Clinton Praises Everyone, but No Progress on Talks
Palestine: Goldstone Report Goes Back to UN General Assembly

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

The United Nations General Assembly is scheduled to discuss the Goldstone Report on Wednesday. However, a joint French-British statement, delivered to the members of the Assembly on Monday, is calling for the members to agree on three "red lines" already confirmed by the 27 members of the European Union. The "red lines" are:

- A resolution brought for the approval of the General Assembly will not include operational steps, like taking the matter to the Security Council or the International Court of Justice.

- The resolution would call on Israel and the Palestinians to embark on an independent investigation into the events of Operation Cast Lead, and the allegations of war crimes.

- The handling of the Goldstone report will return to the Human Rights Council, the UN body in Geneva. The parties will have to report to the council on the findings of their investigations in a few months.

Even if Palestinian leaders were inclined to accept these condition, they now face signficant pressure from their own constituents. On the other hand, it is also certain that there will be no sanctions on Israel from the Security Council since Washington, Paris and London had already declared their positions regarding the Goldstone Report. Welcome to the deadlock of politics....