Afghanistan: Karzai's Victory over the US

Afghanistan Video: Hillary Clinton in Kabul (19 November)
Afghanistan: Obama’s Options (From Cage Fighting to Rugs)
Afghanistan Follow-Up: Civil War in the Obama Administration

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 excellent Rajiv Chandrasekaran has an article in The Washington Post this morning, "A Softer Approach to Karzai". It's an effective review of the US-Karzai relationship from the start of the Obama Administration, leading to a "reset" of Washington's approach: "It's not sustainable to have a 'War of the Roses' relationship here, where...we basically throw things at each other."

Chandrasekaran is too cautious a journalist to bring out the full significance of that "reset". It is an acceptance of the manipulation of the Afghan presidential election. It is the posting of a "longtime field officer close to Karzai to be the new [CIA] station chief in Kabul".



And it is the effective firing of President Obama's envoy on Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke. After his heated argument with Karzai over the August election, Holbrooke was effectively declared persona non grata by the President and his inner circle. So Holbrooke now will sit in Washington rather than envoy-ing.

So even if US officials tell Chandrasekaran "that Karzai has been an ineffective leader", don't let that obscure the rest of the picture. Karzai, the "tactically shrewd tribal chieftain", out-manoeuvred Obama and his advisors. And now Washington has no choice but to accept the Afghan President.

A Softer Approach to Karzai
Rajiv Chandrasekaran

When a team of senior U.S. officials led by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton entered the presidential palace in Kabul on Wednesday for a dinner meeting, they had little indication of what Afghan President Hamid Karzai planned to discuss, or whether questions about corruption and governance would pitch their host into a foul mood.

But instead of revisiting old disputes, Karzai brought in several cabinet ministers to talk about development and security. He explained details of a new effort to address graft. And halfway through a meal of lamb stew, chicken and rice, he looked across the table and said he had decided that the United States would be a "critical partner" in his second term, according to a senior U.S. official familiar with the meeting.

The Americans also turned on the charm. Clinton, wearing an embroidered floral coat she had purchased on an earlier trip to Afghanistan, told stories of her time in Arkansas and in the Senate, and listened with interest as the Afghans detailed how they recently exported 12 tons of apples to India by air.

As President Obama nears a decision on how many more troops he will dispatch to Afghanistan, his top diplomats and generals are abandoning for now their get-tough tactics with Karzai and attempting to forge a far warmer relationship. They recognize that their initial strategy may have done more harm than good, fueling stress and anger in a beleaguered, conspiracy-minded leader whom the U.S. government needs as a partner.

"It's not sustainable to have a 'War of the Roses' relationship here, where . . . we basically throw things at each other," said another senior administration official, one of more than a dozen U.S. and Afghan government officials interviewed for this article. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss internal policy deliberations.

The new approach, which one official described as a "reset" of the relationship, will entail more engagement with members of Karzai's cabinet and provincial governors, officials said, because they have concluded that the Afghan president lacks the political clout in his highly decentralized nation to purge corrupt local warlords and power brokers. The CIA has sent a longtime field officer close to Karzai to be the new station chief in Kabul. And State Department envoy Richard C. Holbrooke, whose aggressive style has infuriated the Afghan leader at times, is devoting more attention to shaping policy in Washington and marshaling international support for reconstruction and development programs.

The tension in the relationship stems from the cumulative impact of several White House decisions that were intended to improve the quality of the Afghan government. When Obama became president, he discontinued his predecessor's practice of holding bimonthly videoconferences with Karzai. Obama granted wide latitude to the hard-charging Holbrooke to pressure Karzai to tackle the corruption and mismanagement that have fueled the Taliban's rise. The administration also indicated that it wanted many candidates to challenge Karzai in the August presidential election.

Although there is broad agreement among Obama's national security team that Karzai has been an ineffective leader, a growing number of top officials have begun to question in recent months whether those actions wound up goading him into doing exactly what the White House did not want: forging alliances with former warlords, letting drug traffickers out of prison and threatening to sack competent ministers. Those U.S. officials now think that Karzai, a tactically shrewd tribal chieftain who is under enormous stress as he seeks to placate and balance rival factions in his government, may operate best when he does not feel besieged.

Criticism of the Obama administration's manner of dealing with Karzai has been most pronounced among senior military officials, who question why the State Department has not dispatched more civilians to help the Afghan leader fix the government or worked more intensively with him to achieve U.S. goals.

"We've been treating Karzai like [Slobodan] Milosevic," a senior Pentagon official said, referring to the former Bosnian Serb leader whom Holbrooke pressured into accepting a peace treaty in the 1990s. "That's not a model that will work in Afghanistan."

Read rest of article....

The Latest from Iran (16 November): Catching Up

NEW Iran Document: The International Atomic Energy Agency Report on Nuclear Facilities
NEW Iran: More on The Political Attack on the National Iranian American Council
The Latest from Iran (14 November): Political Fatigue?

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

1740 GMT: Judge for Yourself. We've posted a copy of the IAEA report on Iran's nuclear facilities. In my opinion, it's a slap on the wrist from the Agency for Iran for not declaring the second enrichment facility before September 2009 and for saying it was begun in 2007 (the IAEA goes for 2006). The IAEA also wants an assurance there are no more nuclear surprises out there. But that, in contrast to the overblown press coverage, is about it.

1715 GMT: Iran Human Rights Voices Reports that 48 protesters detained during 13 Aban demonstrations in Shiraz went on trial on 11 November.

1653 GMT: Spin, Spin, Spinning Iran (see 1555 GMT). Some folks somewhere really want to kill off the idea of engagement by putting out the story of an Iran that breaks its agreements in pursuit of The Bomb. They hope to do so by framing the "Iran threat" in the latest International Atomic Energy report on uranium enrichment, before the IAEA discusses it on 26 November.

In The Washington Post: "A senior official said Monday that the U.N nuclear agency believes Iran plans to start enriching uranium at a previously secret facility in 2011. The official said the International Atomic Energy Agency also believes that the site near the holy city of Qom will be able to house 3,000 uranium-enriching centrifuges. The senior international official familiar with a new IAEA report said that number could allow Iran to enrich enough material to be able to arm one nuclear warhead a year. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the restricted nature of the information."

In Bloomberg News: "The United Nations atomic agency has lost confidence that the Persian Gulf country is telling the whole truth about its nuclear program and isn’t hiding additional secret facilities. Iran’s Qom enrichment facility, revealed in a Sept 21 letter, 'reduces the level of confidence in the absence of other nuclear facilities under construction and gives rise to questions about whether there were any other nuclear facilities in Iran which had not been declared,' the International Atomic Energy Agency said today in a 7-page report obtained by Bloomberg News.

On Al Jazeera: "Iran's belated revelation of a second uranium enrichment site has raised concerns about possible further secret nuclear sites in the country. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) raised its fears in a report obtained by several news agencies on Monday."

1644 GMT: A group of activists have gathered in Shiraz to collect signatures for a statement supporting Grand Ayatollah Ali Mohammad Dastgheib, who has been an outspoken critic of the Iranian Government.

1630 GMT: The Death of the Prison Doctor. Speculation is spreading about Ramin Pourandarjan, the physician on duty at the infamous Kahrizak Prison, who was said last week to have died from a heart attack or stroke.

It is claimed that Iranian security forces did not allow any autopsy and that the funeral of the 26-year-old Pourandarjan took place with security agents present. Pourandarjan had allegedly been detained for leaking patients' files and telling close friends about the abuse of detainees and, after his released, warned against making any further revelations.

1620 GMT: Free the Journalist. More than 50 Iranian writers and journalists have signed an open letter to the head of Iran's judiciary, Sadegh Larijani, urging him to release Javad Mahzadeh. Mahzadeh was detained more than a month ago.

1615 GMT: Fearing a Loss of Control? Speaking to reformist members of Parliament, Mehdi Karroubi has urged young protesters to refrain from "violent behaviour". Following similar statements by former President Mohammad Khatami, Karroubi's advice may be an indication that opposition leaders fear an angry and frustrated movement will go further in their demonstrations of resistance.



1555 GMT: Spinning Iran. The political battle over Iran's nuclear programme --- friend or foe? --- is being played out again in the media with the framing of the latest report from the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The report is the IAEA's summary of its inspection of the second uranium enrichment site near Qom. Although the IAEA itself has said it found nothing out of the ordinary, others, including sceptics within the agency, are hoping to find suspicious evidence. So they have leaked parts of the report to Reuters, who declare that the project began in 2002, paused in 2004, and resumed in 2006.

Much more interesting, however, is Reuters' headline, unsupported in the article, "Iran revelation could mean more secret sites".

1455 GMT: Russia Keeps Up Pressure. Meanwhile, Moscow --- in its role as the broker for an uranium enrichment agreement and following Sunday's warning by Presidents Obama and Medvedev that a deal needed to be completed soon --- may have just given Tehran a warning slap.

The Russians have announced that the opening of the Bushehr nuclear plant, scheduled for the end of 2009, has been delayed yet again. Russian Energy Minister Sergei Shmatko insisted that the postponement was due to technical difficulties, but --- call us cynics --- the timing of the declaration is a bit more than curious.

1450 GMT: Who's Pushing the Nuke Talks? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

It can't get much clearer than this:

As the West continues to threaten Tehran with fresh sanctions, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad expresses readiness to enhance nuclear cooperation with Western countries.

"The Islamic Republic of Iran is ready to have constructive cooperation with Western countries on nuclear technology," Iranian Student News Agency (ISNA) quoted Ahmadinejad as saying on Monday...."Nuclear rights of the Iranian nation are non-negotiable and our nuclear cooperation and activities will be carried out within the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency."

1435 GMT: Who's Pushing the Nuke Talks Inside Iran? Press TV has an intriguing post, "Turkey Still Wants Role in Iran Nuclear Deal".

The website quotes, from Turkish newspapers, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu's statement that Turkey is still happy to serve as the third country in an uranium enrichment deal. Iranian uranium would shipped to Russia for enrichment and then held/reshaped by Turkey as metal plates for uses in Iran's medical research reactor. Davutoglu said, "From our point of view, the door is open. We will store that [uranium] as a kind of a trustee."

That, however, is not the significant part of the story. Rather, it's the fact that it appears at all (and indeed has been at least the second story run by Press TV on these lines in the last few days) despite the rejection by Iranian politicians of the proposal for a Turkey broker, offered by the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohammad El Baradei, almost two weeks ago.

Indeed, Press TV uses Davutoglu to highlight the tension, "The Iranians trust us... but there is a great opposition within Iran. They say the problem is not Turkey, but the fact that the uranium will be taken abroad."

Which raises the question: if the deal was supposedly blocked by Tehran, why does the Turkish possibility keep re-appearing? Could it be that sources close to President Ahmadinejad are ensuring that Press TV keeps the option alive?

Although Tehran has ruled out the participation of third parties in a nuclear fuel deal with the West, Turkey says it is awaiting Iran's response on an offer to store the country's enriched uranium stockpile.
1420 GMT: We're back from our first break since 13 June in 24/7 blogging on the post-election crisis. Just catching up with the latest news inside and outside Iran: meanwhile, we have a new entry updating on the domestic political squabble in the US over the National Iranian American Committee.

Meanwhile, I have used the last 48 hours to review sources for what I hope will be a major re-evaluation of the Obama Administration's approach to the Iranian Government the nuclear talks, and the Green Movement. The aim is to post this tomorrow but here's a teaser:

1. IT'S THE NUKES, STUPID --- "The driving force for the Obama Administration's approach to Iran is the quest for an agreement on uranium enrichment."

2. GETTING THE GREEN MOVEMENT WRONG --- "What is astounding is how a Washington distraction, an appearance by Ataollah Mohajerani at a conference, became the foundation for some in the CIA to bury and/or fear the Green movement."

3. THE MYTH OF THE PLAN B: SANCTIONS --- "How can a stricter round of sanctions, if nuclear talks break down, change Ayatollah Khamenei's positions?"

Iran: Why is Washington Belittling the Green Movement?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Afghanistan: The Pentagon (and US Companies) Dig In for "Long War"

Afghanistan: A US-Pakistan Deal? Karzai Stays, Talks with the Taliban
The US in Afghanistan: “The Long War” Still Waits for a Strategy

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 TomDispatch, Nick Turse reveals the extent of US military and corporate plans and operations for a long-term involvement in Afghanistan:

In recent weeks, President Obama has been contemplating the future of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan. He has also been touting the effects of his policies at home, reporting that this year's Recovery Act not only saved jobs, but also was "the largest investment in infrastructure since [President Dwight] Eisenhower built the Interstate Highway System in the 1950s." At the same time, another much less publicized U.S.-taxpayer-funded infrastructure boom has been underway. This one in Afghanistan.

While Washington has put modest funding into civilian projects in Afghanistan this year -- ranging from small-scale power plants to "public latrines" to a meat market -- the real construction boom is military in nature. The Pentagon has been funneling stimulus-sized sums of money to defense contractors to markedly boost its military infrastructure in that country.

In fiscal year 2009, for example, the civilian U.S. Agency for International Development awarded $20 million in contracts for work in Afghanistan, while the U.S. Army alone awarded $2.2 billion -- $834 million of it for construction projects. In fact, according to Walter Pincus of the Washington Post, the Pentagon has spent "roughly $2.7 billion on construction over the past three fiscal years" in that country and, "if its request is approved as part of the fiscal 2010 defense appropriations bill, it would spend another $1.3 billion on more than 100 projects at 40 sites across the country, according to a Senate report on the legislation."



Bogged Down at Bagram

Nowhere has the building boom been more apparent than Bagram Air Base, a key military site used by the Soviet Union during its occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s. In its American incarnation, the base has significantly expanded from its old Soviet days and, in just the last two years, the population of the more than 5,000 acre compound has doubled to 20,000 troops, in addition to thousands of coalition forces and civilian contractors. To keep up with its exponential growth rate, more than $200 million in construction projects are planned or in-progress at this moment on just the Air Force section of the base. "Seven days a week, concrete trucks rumble along the dusty perimeter road of this air base as bulldozers and backhoes reshape the rocky earth," Chuck Crumbo of The State reported recently. "Hundreds of laborers slap mortar onto bricks as they build barracks and offices. Four concrete plants on the base have operated around the clock for 18 months to keep up with the construction needs."

The base already boasts fast food favorites Burger King, a combination Pizza Hut/Bojangles, and Popeyes as well as a day spa and shops selling jewelry, cell phones and, of course, Afghan rugs. In the near future, notes Pincus, "the military is planning to build a $30 million passenger terminal and adjacent cargo facility to handle the flow of troops, many of whom arrive at the base north of Kabul before moving on to other sites." In addition, according to the Associated Press, the base command is "acquiring more land next year on the east side to expand" even further.

To handle the influx of troops already being dispatched by the Obama administration (with more expected once the president decides on his long-term war plans) "new dormitories" are going up at Bagram, according to David Axe of the Washington Times. The base's population will also increase in the near future, thanks to a project-in-progress recently profiled in The Freedom Builder, an Army Corps of Engineers publication: the MILCON Bagram Theatre Internment Facility (TIF) currently being built at a cost of $60 million by a team of more than 1,000 Filipinos, Indians, Sri Lankans, and Afghans. When completed, it will consist of 19 buildings and 16 guard towers designed to hold more than 1,000 detainees on the sprawling base which has long been notorious for the torture and even murder of prisoners within its confines.

While the United States officially insists that it is not setting up permanent bases in Afghanistan, the scale and permanency of the construction underway at Bagram seems to suggest, at the least, a very long stay. According to published reports, in fact, the new terminal facilities for the complex aren't even slated to be operational until 2011.

One of the private companies involved in hardening and building up Bagram's facilities is Contrack International, an international engineering and construction firm which, according to U.S. government records, received more than $120 million in contracts in 2009 for work in Afghanistan. According to Contrack's website, it is, among other things, currently designing and constructing a new "entry control point" -- a fortified entrance -- as well as a new "ammunition supply point" facility at the base. It is also responsible for "the design and construction of taxiways and aprons; airfield lighting and navigation aid improvements; and new apron construction" for the base's massive and expanding air operations infrastructure. The building boom at Bagram (which has received at least a modest amount of attention in the American mainstream press) is, however, just a fraction of the story of the way the U.S. military -- and Contrack International -- are digging in throughout Afghanistan.

Read rest of article....

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.