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.

Iran: Green Message to Obama "Back Us Instead of Dealing With Ahmadinejad"

The Iran Cul-de-Sac: 4 Points on Obama’s Embrace of Ahmadinejad (and Rejection of the Green Movement)
The Latest from Iran (20 November): Manoeuvres in Washington

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

UPDATED 1335 GMT: The Washington Times also has a report on the speech. The headline points are the same as those in the Wall Street Journal as is the description of Makhmalbaf, who "has become a spokesman outside Iran for the so-called Green Movement since the country's disputed June 12 presidential
election".

UPDATED 1045 GMT: EA's Mr Smith has done some checking on the important question, raised by our readers, "To what extent does Makhmalbaf represent the Green Movement and Mir Hossein Mousavi?" The response, from those well-connected and well-versed in Iranian politics, is that "Makhmalbaf is not really connected with Mousavi. Nevertheless, Makhmalbaf acts at the least as a roving public ambassador for him."

Earlier this month, we learned of attempts from inside and outside the Green movement to persuade the Obama Administration to back away from an agreement with Tehran on uranium enrichment and the nuclear programme. That effort is in the open this morning.

The Wall Street Journal reveals the Washington mission by Mohsen Makhmalbaf, the filmmaker, "Presidential campaign spokesman for Mir Hossein Mousavi", and "international spokesman for Iran's main opposition movement". Speaking at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, he 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".

As for the nuclear discussions, Makhmalbaf said "that Iranian opposition leaders supported U.S. efforts to use diplomacy to contain the nuclear ambitions of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government". He warned, however, that the current talks would not produce an agreement and should be suspended:

If they agree not to pursue a nuclear bomb and start negotiations, they will lose their supporters. Definitely dialogue is better than war. ... But can you continue your dialogue without any results?

Makhmalbaf suggested an agenda beyond the talks, with the targeted economic measures against the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps: "We need certain sanctions that put pressure on the government but not the people. But they must be done quickly, or they won't have an impact."

Most importantly, Makhmalbaf tried to replace the current nuclear-first priority of the Obama Administration with a democracy-first approach:

We definitely want Obama to say he supports democracy...If he doesn't say that, he will lose his support in Iran.

Don't only focus on the nuclear issue and allow the Iranian government to crack down on the people. You need to focus on human rights.

And, although it is not noted by the Journal, I suspect Makhmalbaf's visit had another essential aim. With the speech at the high-profile Carnegie Endowment, he is trying to repair the damage caused by last month's talk by Ataollah Mohajerani, a former Khatami Government minister and associate of Mehdi Karroubi, at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Mohajerani's speech, interpreted (wrongly, we think) by some Washington insiders as a Green manifesto, alienated US support because of its "hard-line" statements on nuclear weapons and Iran's position on Israel.

Makhmalbaf avoided those potential pitfalls on Thursday. Doing so, he is reaching out to officials in the State Department, the National Security Council, and Obama's White House (even if the CIA remains hostile to a Green ascendancy). We are not dead. You can work with us.

And now the follow-up: will he get a response?

Iran: 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

I had not intended to touch this story when I saw it being pushed by the polemical magazine The Weekly Standard --- why devote attention to an American political squabble, even if it had an "Iran" label, when there were matters concerning Iran that have far more significance than the point-scoring and agendas in Washington? Unfortunately, one cannot let barking dogs lie.

On Friday Eli Lake of The Washington Times paraded an alleged exposé, "Iran advocacy group said to skirt lobby rules", of the status and activities of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC). The article is lengthy, offering the appearance of background and context to frame its accusing "questions about whether the organization is using that influence to lobby for policies favorable to Iran in violation of federal law" and its warning to "prominent Washington figures" that they "could come to regret their ties to the group".

Neither length nor the article's placement in the news rather than opinion-editorial section should disguise, however, its intent. This is not journalism but a political attack.

Lake's piece follows weeks of allegations by The Weekly Standard, that NIAC is beyond political acceptability. (Far from coincidentally, the magazine has been pursuing the same line with J Street, the Jewish activist group that often criticises Israeli policy.) The articles claims to rest on thousands of NIAC documents filed in a lawsuit that NIAC's Trita Parsi has brought against Hassan Daioleslam for defamation. Daioleslam, who provided the documents to The Standard and then to Lake, charged in 2007 that NIAC was lobbying for Iran.

Lake cites a total of two of those thousands of documents, both e-mails from Patrick Disney, NIAC's acting policy director. One looks for a campaign to challenge the Obama Administration's appointment of Dennis Ross to shape policy on Iran, and the other queries if NIAC might be acting as a lobby although it has not registered under the Lobby Disclosure Act. (It should be noted that Disney claims that he wrote the e-mail when he had just joined NIAC and from a position of little legal expertise and that Lake carries the rebuttal.)

And that's it, really. Instead of offering any further evidence, or indeed referring to the court's deliberations on the documents Lake asked "two former federal law-enforcement officials" --- former FBI associate deputy director Oliver "Buck" Revell and former FBI special agent in counterintelligence and counterterrorism Kenneth Piernick --- "to review documents from the case showing that Mr. Parsi had helped arrange meetings between members of Congress and [Iran Ambassador to the United States] Zarif". They offer Lake's dramatic flourish:

Arranging meetings between members of Congress and Iran's ambassador to the United Nations would in my opinion require that person or entity to register as an agent of a foreign power; in this case it would be Iran....It appears that this may be lobbying on behalf of Iranian government interests. Were I running the counterintelligence program at the bureau now, I would have cause to look into this further.

Now, Mr Lake might want to correct me on this, but he has just asked for a legal opinion from two people who are not lawyers but federal police officers. He might want to expand on why he put their reactions above the line which he then sneaks in: "Two lawyers who read some of the same documents said they did not provide enough evidence to conclude that Mr. Parsi was acting as a foreign agent." Instead of letting this sink in for the reader --- the only legal experts cited have just said that the charge is without foundation --- Lake simply runs to a new possibility: Parsi is using his NIAC position for financial benefit, for himself and/or Iranian associates such as Siamak Namazi and Bijan Khajehpour, who just spent four months in detention in Iran.

For this is an article resting on the bedrock of insinuation. Parsi, who claims to represents Iranian-Americans, is not an American but "a green card holder". NIAC lies when it claims to represent many Iranian-American, for it "had fewer than 500 responses to a membership survey conducted last summer". Parsi, who has brought a lawsuit against someone for claiming he is an agent of Iran, still might be a foreign agent --- "Mohsen Makhmalbaf, an acclaimed Iranian filmmaker and unofficial spokesman for Iran's opposition Green Movement, told The Times, 'I think Trita Parsi does not belong to the Green Movement. I feel his lobbying has secretly been more for the Islamic Republic.'"

Let me be clear: I am not here to offer any judgement on the specifics of whether NIAC is a lobby --- if there is doubt, that is a matter for US federal authorities to determine. (It should be noted, however, that the salient issue is whether NIAC is a lobby, not whether it is a lobby acting on behalf of the Iranian Government --- that is another conflation in Lake's article.) I offer no judgement on the charges of improper financial and political behaviour by Trita Parsi; that is a matter for the court handling the defamation lawsuit --- NIAC's response to Lake emphasizes that the case is ongoing, as "the judge [has] denied [Daioleslam’s[ motion to dismiss the case on 18 out of 19 counts".

Instead, I ask: why now this campaign against NIAC by The Weekly Standard, now abetted by Mr Lake --- unsurprisingly, within hours of the article's appearance, the magazine was hailing the "blockbuster exposé"? What is it that is so threatening about its activities that it must be put out of action through allegations about its credibility and a "hands-off" notice to any politician, diplomat, or businessman who might choose to engage with it? (Lake serves his notice on two Washington insiders: "Among NIAC's advisory board members are former Undersecretary of State Thomas Pickering, and John Limbert, a former U.S. hostage in Iran, was a board member until his recent appointment as deputy assistant secretary of state for Iran.")

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....