The Latest from Iran (3 November): 8 Hours to Go

NEW Latest Iran Video: Rooftop “Allahu Akhbar” Chants (3 November)
NEW Latest Iran Video: Protests at Iranian Universities (3 November)
NEW Iran: A Response to “What If the Green Movement Isn’t Ours?” (The Sequel)
Latest Iran Video: Protest & Hunger Strike at Sharif University
Iran: A Response to an American Who Asks, “What if the Green Movement Isn’t ‘Ours’?
Iran: More 13 Aban Videos
Latest from Iran (2 November): The World Takes Notice?

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

2200 GMT: And So To Tomorrow. We're going to pull down the curtain for a few hours, but please keep bringing in news and comments. Back at 0600 GMT for what should be quite a big day, indeed.

2115 GMT: An Embassy Apology (see 1730 GMT). Grand Ayatollah Montazeri has said that, “considering the negative effects and heightened sensitivity” it produced amongst Americans, the takeover of the US Embassy in 1979 was a “mistaken” act.

Montazeri said the seizure, which led to the holding of 52 American hostages for 444 days, was akin to “declaring war on that country” and claimed that even “some of the revolutionary and committed youth, who were instrumental in that act at the time, now believe that it was a mistake".

2050 GMT: Did You Write This with a Straight Face? Mehr News' English-language site offers a classic one-eye-shut view of events: "Call for massive turnout on Aban 13 rallies".

Here are the groups calling for that turnout: Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Navy branch (“Iran’s great nation, especially students [should] commemorate the day and foil the plot of the enemies of the Islamic Revolution"), Moderation and Development Party, Islamic Association of Teachers, Ministry of Defense, Society of Seminary Teachers of Qom ("vigilance of nation against the enemies’ attempts to undermine this epical day"), Iran's judiciary (“national unity, solidarity, obedience of the Supreme Leader, and resistance against hegemonic powers’ plots [will mark] the beginning of the downfall of the US").

Gee, anyone missing from that list? You know, any other groups that may have been today, all day, throughout the day in these updates?

2040 GMT: Homy Lafayette has posted routes of the marches in Tehran, Tabriz, Isfahan, Shiraz, Ahvaz, and Bushehr.

2035 GMT: More videos from universities in Iran --- Ferdowsi and Sajad in Mashaad in the east, Mazandaran in the north.

1950 GMT: Getting Louder. We've got video of tonight's "Allahu Akhbar" chants from Tehran rooftops.

1830 GMT: An EA source sends us the news that Ali Pir-Hosseinloo, a translator and book editor, blogger, and member of the reformist Islamic Iran Participation Front, has been freed from jail after spending 50 days in solitary confinement.

1805 GMT: Yet another video of protest at another Iran university. This one is from Yasouj University in southwestern Iran.

1745 GMT: Did We Mention 13 Aban is Tomorrow? The Washington Post puts out a story on today's speech by the Supreme Leader (see 1030 and 1230 GMT), "Iran's Khamenei rejects U.S. outreach, warns against talks". The authors, Thomas Erdbrink and William Branigan, pays much attention to the "harshest comments against the Obama administration to date" but never once considers that they may have some connection to the internal situation as well as the discussions on the nuclear programme.

Number of words in article: 1135
Number of references to 13 Aban protests: 0

1730 GMT: Fact and Rumor. Having had a go at Borzou Daragahi poorly-timed misrepresentation of the Green movement in the Los Angeles Times (see separate entry), it's only fair that we cast a critical eye on a story trying to boost the opposition.

In The Daily Telegraph, Damien McElroy and Ahmad Vahdat proclaim, "Iran Opposition to Apologise to US for Embassy Siege". Now, as our readers' comments suggest, people may fervently wish that is true, but there is a bit difference between wishing and reality.

The story is based on a single source: "Mohsen Makhmalbaf, an exiled film-maker who spearheads the opposition campaign overseas, said Iranians should repudiate the events of 1979, when a group of pro-regime agitators took over the US embassy and held diplomats and other occupants."

Makhmalbaf has been a high-profile, vocal proponent of the Green movement throughout this crisis but in no way is he a spokesman for the policies and plans of Iranian opposition groups. His desire for an overturn of the 1979 actions is not equivalent to a Green manifesto.

I fear that, once more, the problem is that non-Iranian media reduce Iranian actions and ideas to "what have you done for the US lately?". While it may be desirable to find reconciliation over the past, there is a lot more to be considered in the present.

1645 GMT: And an Important Assurance. The reformist Mojahedin of Islamic Revolution, adding to its call for participation in 13 Aban protests (see 0630 GMT) has warned of rumours that there will be violent action against foreign embassies, with the Green movement then accused of the attacks. The MIR stressed that the Green Wave is a civil, peaceful, and anti-violence movement and and warned followers not to fall for these traps and disinformation.

1630 GMT: Another Declaration for 13 Aban (see 0630 GMT). Daftar-Tahkim-Vahdat, the main reformist Student Alumni Organisation, has announced, “We will participate in the celebration against the internal tyranny and dictatorship.” The organisation declares that students, as sons and daughters of Iran, have always been at the forefront of fight for democracy and against oppression, and 4 November will be another chapter in this historic effort (English summary).

1505 GMT: Rooz Online has further details on our earlier report (see 1025 GMT) that members of the One Million Signatures for Gender Equality campaign have been summoned to the Revolutionary Court.

1500 GMT: Tip of the Iceberg. We've posted a clip from today's protest at Kashan University, south of Tehran.

An EA source tells us, however, that our reports and videos are only a small part of what is occurring. In Isfahan, Shiraz, and Mashaad, university students are demonstrating.

1230 GMT: We've posted the first video footage we've received of today's university protests, coming from Azad University in Tehran.

1210 GMT: Khamenei Says, "Wouldn't You Rather Say Death to America?" The more I read about the Supreme Leader's speech to students today, the less it appears as an intervention in the nuclear talks and the more it feels like a rather clumsy attempt to channel protest against Washington, rather than having those students come out against the Government.

On the surface, Khamenei was acknowledging the "beautiful words" of President Obama to ask if they carried any meaning: “The Islamic Republic of Iran decided from the very beginning not to prejudge and to instead consider the slogan of 'change'. But what we have witnessed in practice during this period of time has been in contradiction with the remarks that have been made."

However, the warning that "Americans talk of negotiations" while "they continue to threaten and say the negotiations must have our desired results or we will take (punitive) measures" seems to carry a significance beyond the recent Vienna discussions and framework agreement: it's no coincidence that tomorrow's "official" 13 Aban rally is in front of the former US Embassy.

1200 GMT: So Much for a Quiet Day. I had thought that, with anticipation of tomorrow's events, all might be in a state of political suspense today.

Fat chance. In addition to the Khamenei speech (see 1030 GMT), which we still have to interpret, President Ahmadinejad has made an extraordinary intervention behind his Government's proposals to reduce subsidies, replacing them with cash handouts for poorest Iranians.

Ahmadinejad showed up at the Parliament, unannounced, to give a five-minute speech defending his proposals. The appearance brought loud protests, with members complained to the Speaker, Ali Larijani, about the "unconstitutional behavior". When Larijani declared the complaints valid, Ahmadinejad threatened to withdraw his economic reforms. This caused further chaos in the chamber.

1125 GMT: Laying Down The Line --- The "Proper" March. Tehran's police force has announced that the "proper" 13 Aban rally, markking the 30th anniversary of the US Embassy takeover, would be held in front of the building. It added that holding any other demonstrations in Tehran is “illegal": "The police will strongly confront people or groups intending to create unrest and unlawful behavior, based on its legal responsibilities."

1030 GMT: Khamenei --- Targeting Nuke Talks or Protesters? Agence France Presse, from Iran state media, reports on the Supreme Leader's speech on the eve of 13 Aban. It focuses on the nuclear talks, quoting Khamenei, "We do not want any negotiation, the result of which is pre-determined by the United States. A dialogue like this is like a sheep and wolf relation, which the late imam (Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini) has said that we 'do not want'."

Now is that a direct challenge to engagement or is a not-so-coded attempt to link internal opposition to the foreign enemy, less than 24 hours before mass rallies? You decide: Khamenei warned he would not allow people with "ill-intentions" towards Iran to "throw out a red carpet for the United States".

1025 GMT: An EA source informs us of a mass summons, by phone and in writing, of women activists to the Security Branch of the Revolutionary Courts. So far five activists --- Maryam Malek, Jelve Javaheri, Kave Mozzafari, Parisa Kakaee, and Khadijeh Moghaddam -- have reported that they have received written summons on 21 October to appear in court within three days. Six other members have reported that they have been contacted by telephone and are awaiting summons.

1015 GMT: The Public Prosecutor's Office in Tehran is calling for public "consciousness" of the significance of 13 Aban --- read a warning to protestors not to show up and an admonition to others to be on guard against trouble-makers --- as a "national day against global arrogance".

0930 GMT: Reuters has picked up on the call of Zahra Rahnavard, the wife of Mir Hossein Mousavi, for the release of women detained during the post-election crisis.

0925 GMT: For the second time in less than 24 hours, I have written about an article in a US newspaper which, in my  opinion, undermines the Green movement in the service of misplaced priorities. This time my concern has been provoked by a piece by Borzou Daragahi in the Los Angeles Times.

0810 GMT: Noticing Politics, Noticing Tomorrow. The international media will be in Afghanistan overload today, but Michael Slackman of The New York Times puts out a useful analysis, "Iran’s Politics Stand in the Way of a Nuclear Deal". Slackman's takeaway, based on interview with his US-based pool of analysts, is, "[Iran's eqivocation] may be as much a product of the nation’s smoldering political crisis as it is a negotiating tactic."

0630 GMT: At this time tomorrow, people will be gathering at various points in Tehran and other Iranian cities for the ceremonies of 13 Aban and for demonstrations. A day which the regime has marked as the anniversary of the takeover of the US Embassy in 1979 by students is likely to take on a very different political symbolism.

Initial news today is of preparations for the gathering. Campaign 88, the youth supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mohammad Khatami, has invited the Green nation of Iran to participate in the rallies. The statement offers a nice transition from past struggles against foreign powers to current internal issues: 13 Azad has been the symbol of fighting against tyranny and oppression in the political history of our countrybut the campaign is now influenced by the movements against tyranny closer to home. The campaign declares that Mousavi will be participating and call on all members to make the tyrants and oppressors hear the cry for freedom of Iranians.

The Mojahedin of Islamic Revolution party, declaring it will be participating in the rallies alongside other Green reformists, said the history of the past 200 years of Iran chows this fact that domestic tyrants who are hopeless and do not have the support of the people inevitably seek backing from foreigners. If the principle in foreign relations is the national interest, a government that has legitimacy and the support of the people will fulfill this responsibility. Reformists will seek “comprehensive execution of the constitution and the institutionalisation of the rights and freedoms mentioned" in that document.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is less than 24 hours to 13 Aban.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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