Palestine: Abbas Claims Secret Israeli Talks with Hamas

Palestinian Authority: “No Unilateral Action but Confirmation of Two States”
Israel-Palestine Analysis: Time for a Complete Halt of the West Bank Settlements?
Israel-Palestine Video: Obama “Additional Settlements are Dangerous”

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

In an interview with the Arabic service of the BBC in Arabic, Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas accused Israel of conducting secret talks with Hamas, allegedly on the issue of a Palestinian state with temporary borders. Abbas also repeated that Jerusalem wasn't truly interested in peace and added that "Washington isn't pushing Israel enough to advance the peace process".

Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum's responsded, "The things that Abu Mazen [Abbas] is talking about never happened. We don't negotiate with the enemy." Barhoum accused Abbas of "putting his personal political failure on Hamas."

Meanwhile, Fox News reports that Israeli officials have come close to a deal with Hamas on the swap of captured Israeli soldier Gilad Schalit and Palestinian detainees. While Israeli officials have not responded to 70 new names submitted by Hamas, in addition to the release of 380 prisoners that has already been agreed, sources claim that a settlement is close.

The Latest in Iran (19 November): It's the Nukes Today

NEW Iran: What Happened on Election Night? The Ghalam News Editor’s Account
NEW Iran Nuclear Special: What Tehran’s Latest Offer Means (and Why the West Should Consider It)
NEW Iran’s 16 Azar Video: Greens Fight “The Pirates of the Persian Gulf”
The Latest Iran Video: Demonstration at University in Karaj (17 November)
Iran: Re-Evaluating the Green Movement After 5+ Months
The Iran Cul-de-Sac: 4 Points on Obama’s Embrace of Ahmadinejad (and Rejection of the Green Movement)
The Latest from Iran (18 November): Bubbling and Surfacing

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

2055 GMT: Keeping the Students Down. The Government effort to contain student protest continues. Iran's national student organisation Daftar-Tahkim-Vahdat reports that its political director, Abbas Hakimzadeh, has been arrested.

Kohzad Esmaili, head of the Gilan branch of the alumni organisation Advar-Tahkim-Vahdat (Office of Strengthening Unity), has been re-arrested after being freed on $20,000 bail.

2045 GMT: A Non-Crowd Story? While those pre-occupied with the nuclear issue try to read Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Tabriz speech for signals (see 1425 GMT), the Green movement has other concerns, namely those who did or did not turn out:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad received a very cold welcome from the citizens. Yoldash, the Green news organisation in Tabriz, reported that, despite the fact that the chief of "popular welcoming staff" of Ahmadinejad assured 100,000 people would be present at his speech today, only about 10-15,000 people participated in this event which can be easily recognized in the pictures taken by pro-coup Mehr news agency.

An EA source says that the Government tried to ensure a large turnout by giving university students, school children, and workers time off and transport to the rally. However, possibly because of the rain, possibly for other reasons, seats remained empty.

1805 GMT: Is Rafsanjani Lining Up with the Government's Nuclear Proposal? Former President Hashemi Rafsanjani has told the Swedish Ambassador to Iran that the International Atomic Energy Agency is legally obliged to provide 20 percent nuclear fuel to Tehran.

Sweden currently holds the European Union's rotating presidency.

1800 GMT: Clinton Speaks Out? Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared to journalists in Kabul:

It is a very unfortunate, distressing development to see these sentences handed down in Iran, imposing the death penalty on people who participated in expressing their opposition to the government in demonstrating in the streets.It underscores the approach that the government in Iran takes for their own people.

We will continue to stand up for the rights of the people of Iran to speak for themselves, to have their votes counted, to be given an opportunity to have the measure of freedom and rights that any person deserves to have

1755 GMT: What Happened on Election Night? We've posted the account of Abolfazl Fateh, the editor of Ghalam News, a paper close to Mir Hossein Mousavi.

1550 GMT: Football Politics. In its latest friendly match, Iran's national football team drew 1-1 with Macedonia. The Tehran Times says 1000 people attended; an EA source says the number was closer to 500.

Still, that's better than the 100 who turned up at the match earlier this month with Iceland.

1455 GMT: The Clerics Plot. An EA source brings intriguing information from Qom. On Wednesday, Ayatollah Makarem-Shirazi and Ayatollah Nouri-Hamedani, whom Karroubi wrote last week, discussed next moves in the post-election crisis. Nouri-Hamedani reportedly said,  "I am ready to go to Tehran and talk to both sides" about a plan for national unity, and the two clerics (possibly joined by others) decided to seek a meeting with the Supreme Leader.

1440 GMT: And What is "The West" Doing? "Six world powers will meet in Brussels to discuss what measures could be applied against Tehran for its refusal to halt its nuclear enrichment program, an EU official said Thursday. Friday's meeting will include the U.N. Security Council's permanent members — Britain, China, France, Russia and the U.S. — plus Germany, the official said on condition of anonymity because she was not authorized to disclose details of the gathering."

1435 GMT: Negotiating from Strength, I Tell You. And hundreds of miles away in The Philippines, Foreign Minister Mottaki --- having put the Iranian counter-offer on uranium enrichment --- is serving as Ahmadinejad's wingman, warning against further sanctions on Iran: "“I think they [the world powers] are wise enough not to repeat failed experiences. Of course it's totally up to them."

1425 GMT: Mahmoud's Negotiating from Strength. Back from an academic break to read about President Ahmadinejad's speech in Tabriz today. His twin-track rhetoric is now established: the door is open to agreement with "the West", but Iran is holding that door open out of its principled leadership in the world, not out of weakness:

Iran is a nation supportive of peace and friendship and backs constructive cooperation on the international arena. Tehran is therefore ready to cooperate with the international community in different arenas including the revival of economy and the establishment of stable security across the globe....

....Iran is not after aggression. It only seeks its legal rights ... Those who say they want constructive interaction should know that...if the Iranian nation witnesses a genuine transparent change of their policy…if they respect the rights of the Iranian nation…if they honestly extend their hand of friendship then the people of Iran will accept [such overture]....

But the President added, "They should also know that if they are after deception and corruption in our region,” the Iranian nation would be the same “decisive” answer that it has already given to arrogant powers.

1140 GMT: Worst Media "Analysis" of the Day. In The Wall Street Journal, Mark "Black Hawk Down" Bowden explains, "How Iran's [1979] Revolution Was Hijacked". The historical part of the article is OK, with Bowden --- who has written a book on the US Embassy crisis -- claiming, "Nine months after Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi fled it was still unclear what kind of government Iran was going to have....[Ayatollah Khomeini] was ambivalent about the idea of clerical rule."

It's Bowden's jump to 2009 that turns reflection into farce: "So 30 years after seizing power, the mullahs of Qom find themselves in a difficult spot. To turn back the domestic tide of reform they must employ the very tools employed by the despised shah—mass arrests and trials, torture, execution and censorship."

Which "mullahs of Qom" would these be? Montazeri? Sane'i? Bayat-Zanjani? Dastgheib? Safi Golpaygani? Makarem Shirazi?

1050 GMT: The Preview of the Deal? Press TV, quoting from the Islamic Republic News Agency, has just posted a significant statement from Iran's envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, who says that UN inspectors will visit the second uranium enrichment facility at Fordoo today.

Here is the key line, however, from Soltanieh: "This site will from now on be under the IAEA supervision." That may be an unsubtle olive branch to the international community for the bigger deal: you can oversee our facilities inside Iran, so you can trust that we'll let you oversee uranium stocks as well.

1000 GMT: So What About Those Sanctions? President Obama may be issuing the warning that he's opening up a can of economic pain if Iran does not accept a nuclear deal, but the signals --- which we've noted for weeks --- are that the US is limited in what it can do:

Western powers are gearing up for talks on a fourth round of U.N. sanctions against Tehran over its nuclear program but will not target Iran's energy sector to ensure Russia's and China's support....The scaling back of the West's expectations for new U.N. steps against Iran for defying Security Council demands to stop enriching uranium shows that the Europeans and Americans have accepted that Moscow and Beijing, with their close trade ties to Tehran, will not let Iran's economy be crippled.

Diplomats said the Western powers are eager to ratchet up the pressure on the Islamic Republic. But they also need to keep Moscow and Beijing on board to send a clear signal to Tehran that the world's big powers are united against it.

If there is a move for UN sanctions, they will target "at least another bank, more individuals, more companies -- possibly a shipping company -- a tighter ban on arms, possibly political measures". Meanwhile, Washington will fall back on the notion that it can organise multilateral restrictions outside the United Nations. Steps could include a ban on Euro transactions for Iranian and withholding technology to produce liquefied natural gas.

0855 GMT: Extending our initial update (0650 GMT), Mr Smith brings us the Analysis of the Day, considering the latest Iranian offer in the nuclear talks and advising the "West" how to respond to it.

0815 GMT: Anticipating the protests of 16 Azar (7 December), we have posted a video "advertisement" for the demonstrations which is a pretty good parody: Welcome to "The Pirates of the Persian Gulf".

0800 GMT: Away from the nuclear issue, Michael Slackman of The New York Times has picked up on the case of Ramin Pourandarjan, the 26-year-0ld physician at Kahrizak Prison who died in mysterious circumstances (see our updates throughout this week).

0650 GMT: International media is likely to be dominated this morning by stories on the nuclear negotiations. Most outlets have noted Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki's counter-proposal, replacing the delivery of 50-80% of Iran's uranium stock to Russia with a "swap" inside Iran of 20% enriched uranium for Tehran's 3.5% supply. And almost all are jumping on the soundbite reactions, from French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner to President Obama.

Obama warned again that time was short for a deal and "consequences" would follow if Iran did not accept an agreement. He did the same on Sunday but, on this occasion, he added a tough if vague post-script: "Our expectations are that over the next several weeks we will be developing a package of potential steps that we could take that will indicate our seriousness to Iran." (It's notable that not only international media like Al Jazeera but also Iran's state broadcaster Press TV are carrying the story.)

But do the news agencies really have a handle on what is going on? CNN, for example, headlines, "Iran rejects key part of nuclear deal" and drops in, as one line in a 26-paragraph story, "Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Iran might allow its nuclear material to be reprocessed inside Iran."

In contrast, the Los Angeles Times devotes almost all of its article to Mottaki's statement. Its headline and opening sentence, however, are just as negative: "Iran's foreign minister vowed Wednesday that his nation wouldn't allow any of its enriched uranium supply out of the country." This is "either a dismissal of a U.S.- and United Nations-backed proposal to ease international tensions over Iran's nuclear program by lowering Tehran's supply below the threshold required to make a bomb, or an attempt by Iran to haggle over the deal".

None of the coverage considers that, from the perspective of the Ahmadinejad Government (and possibly others), Mottaki's response is far from a rejection or a dismissal. Instead, it is a counter-offer which keeps the discussions alive --- indeed, I suspect it may have come out of talks with International Atomic Energy head Mohammad El Baradei. It puts the question to the US and its partners: will they accept a bargain in which Iran's uranium supply is swapped for 20% fuel which is for civilian rather than military purposes? Or is the initial export and warehousing of the majority of Tehran's low-enriched supply an unconditional requirement?

Beyond the negotiating table, Mottaki's statement is a pointer to another story, one which I suspect will go unnoticed today. In the context of the Iranian establishment, this is an attempt to bring peace between battling factions. President Ahmadinejad wants an agreement --- not perpetual "haggling" but an agreement --- and Mottaki's suggestion keeps open that prospect. Others (the Larijanis? the Supreme Leader?) have consented to or been forced to accept the opening.

If the Washington-led "5+1" powers reject that proposal, however, what next? What next not only for the nuclear discussions but also for the interna contests in Iran?

Iran: What Happened on Election Night? The Ghalam News Editor's Account

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

Abdofazl Fateh was the editor of Ghalam News, a publication close to Mir Hossein Mousavi before it was shut down by the Iranian Government. His account of what happened on the night of the Presidential election, 12 June, has re-surfaced.

Alongside the account of Mousavi advisor Alireza Beheshti, which we published on 25 August, Fateh's recollection puts forth the story of an opposition that feared manipulation of the results. Indeed, that fear prompted one of the key moves of the crisis, Mousavi's decision to hold a press conference before the votes were announced. The subsequent decision to write a letter to the Supreme Leader about the concerns brought this response from the head of Ayatollah Khamenei's security, Mr Vahid: "From his words I sensed that I must consider the election over. He said that he had sent a reminder to the Interior Ministry about the way they plan to announce the results, but he said that Mr. Ahmadinejad would win by a big margin."

Thanks to Pedestrian for the translation:

Thursday morning [11 June] we had consecutive meetings with Mr. Mousavi. The main topic of discussion was the provisions for election day. Numerous reports had reached people in the campaign which made us really worried about the election process. Supervising the ballot boxes was of serious concern to us.

Mir Hossein Mousavi chose a number of friends to follow up on these issues in parallel. One problem was that the text messaging service had been completely shut down by the ministry.

It was planned that Mousavi would vote in one of the mosques in the south of Tehran. This mosque was called the grand Jameh mosque in Rey [an old city in the south of Tehran]. Around 11 p.m. on Thursday, the time and place of Mousavi’s voting was put up on the Ghalam’s website [Mousavi's main webiste].

When I went to that mosque on Friday morning, a large group of reporters were there. Mr. Mousavi voted alongside Mrs. Rahnavard and went up to the podium of the mosque to give a talk for a very short time. He was saying that we will stay up tonight when the microphone was shut off.

We returned to the campaign headquarters right away. Mousavi was following the news. Reports that came from various election centers one after another indicated that the turnout was outstanding. Most of the reports pointed to a greater turnout for Mousavi.

It was only a few hours into voting day that pro-Government outlets and websites reported that Ahmadinejad had won. But reports indicated that we would be winning by a big margin.

Everyone was filled with an indescribable sense of happiness. A report was read by the Voter Protection Office. Many of the election centers were reporting very, very slow lines, the shortage of ballots, and various obstacles faced by voters. But, the combination of announced results we were getting indicated that Mousavi was well ahead.

Mousavi was continuously calling the heads of Parliament and judiciary, the leader’s office, and the Supreme Administrative Court to tell them about the problems and obstacles voters were facing.

Complaints were increasing minute by minute. In many voting centers, the ballots were finished. But nothing was done about it. We all came to the conclusion that this was a planned move on the part of the organizers of the election. It was apparent that they had no desire to get extra ballots to the centers, or to speed up the process or to extend voting hours. Reports told us that some voting centers had closed as early as 4 p.m. Even though hour by hour voting was to be extended to 10 p.m. many voting centers were closed before then, and even some people who had stood for hours in line did not get to vote.

Around 4 in the afternoon, someone called Mir Hossein Mousavi and told him that some have reached the decision to announced a 19 [million] vs. 14 [million] win for Ahmadinejad. Mousavi called the officials to let them know.

Around 6 p.m. in the afternoon, Mousavi wrote a letter to the Leader asking him to intervene and correct the voting irregularities we were continuously hearing.

Around 10 p.m. we heard some news that some are going to announce the end of the election with a win for Ahmadinejad. This is when counting votes had not started yet across the country.

Mousavi had a press conference and gave a warning regarding the counting process and mentioned some of the irregularities that had been reported.

Around 11 p.m. Mousavi wrote a confidential letter to the Leader, I transferred the letter to the Leader’s home/office myself and gave it to Mr. Vahid. We spoke for a few minutes and from his words I sensed that I must consider the election over. He said that he had sent a reminder to the interior ministry about the way they plan to announce the results, but he said that Mr. Ahmadinejad would win by a big margin. I told him that from all reports, eyewitness accounts, data and all logical assessment, it was just the opposite of what he was claiming.

After handing the letter, I came back to Mousavi. All our friends were there. Mousavi told the story to every single person and sought their advice. Everyone was dumbstruck. Nobody believed this result. And no report of such an outcome was sent to us by the officers overlooking the election centers [across the country]. After talking to everyone, Mousavi said: “the elections are people’s rights. I can’t give up people’s rights. I’m going to see this through and until this lie is cleared up, I will share the accounts of it with the people.”

The newspaper had been ordered not to headline anything that would predict the results. The Green Word [Mousavi's paper] had such a headline ready and was not permitted to run it. But, reports indicated that Iran and Kayhan newspapers were going to run a headline announcing Ahmadinejad’s victory [note, at this point, the final results had not yet been announced]. IRNA and Fars had already declared Ahmadinejad the winner.

Mousavi left the meeting at around 2 in the morning. We were all talking to one another and everybody was trying to come up with a solution but the results announced by the interior ministry were so great that it was obvious they were leaving no room for argument or protest.

Around 4 in the morning I heard that there had been disperse confrontations in the campaign headquarters and tear gas had been thrown [the headquarters were later raided].

Near the early hours of the morning, there were some in the street honking their horns, happy with victory.

I speak to Hamid Rasaee. Fourth months ago he’d said that Ahmadinejad would win 23 million votes and that he would surpass the 22 million votes for President Khatami in 1997. He’d said that Mousavi would have around 10 million votes. I wasn’t as smart as he was, I congratulated him on his prediction.

In the morning, we met up again and spoke among ourselves. Then we went to see Mousavi. He was sitting there, calm and collected as always. He read his statement for us.

The phone is constantly ringing. Everybody is startled, some are crying, some are screaming. Some are depressed, others worried. When I look at Mousavi, I too am ashamed and I can’t help but cry. I seek refuge in the presence of the lord and hope that he will watch over you. Alas! The diary had to end this way …

Turkey's Erdogan to Israel: "Syria Will Never Come to Table without Me!"

Israel-Syria-Palestine: Sarkozy the Mediator?

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

On Wednesday, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan stated that, although Israel no longer trusts Turkey to mediate talks with Syria, Damascus would not accept France as an alternative: "On this issue (of mediation), Israel's stance is that it doesn't trust us. Former Israeli prime minister Olmert trusted Turkey, but [Prime Minister Binyamin] Netanyahu doesn't trust us. That's his choice.

"Now France is trying to take up the role we had. I'm not sure what kind of stance [Syrian President] Bashar Assad will take, but from what I've heard from him, they're not going to accept something like this."

Iran Nuclear Special: What Tehran's Latest Offer Means (and Why the West Should Consider It)

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

Enduring America's Mr Smith carries out a close reading of the latest Iran move in the nuclear negotiations and how to respond to it:

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki's remarks on Thursday, reviewing the the nuclear dispute between Iran and the West, are a clear departure from the proposal floated in October by the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohammad El-Baradei. Indeed, that proposal now appears dead in the water. Iran is progressively coming out with a spirited defiance against the idea of having its low-enriched uranium (LEU) processed abroad and returned in the form of 20% enriched nuclear fuel, suitable for its Tehran medical reactor.

The reasons behind this position are not irrational. Russia has once again delayed the operational start of the Bushehr nuclear reactor, cold-shouldering Iran as it has frequently done on the issue in the past decade. Historically, France has manipulated provision of nuclear fuel from the Eurodiff consortium, in which Iran is a dormant stakeholder. So, in the eyes of Tehran, both parties to the El-Baradei deal have a poor track record and therefore cannot be trusted to deliver nuclear fuel on time.

Iran's counter-position is not entirely unreasonable, either. Mottaki's statement was not technical and contained a degree of vagueness, but the offer amounted to a simultaneous exchange of some parts of the Iranian low-enriched uranium stock for the 20% nuclear fuel, which would now be processed abroad and delivered, ready for use, inside Iran. This arrangement would allay Iranian fears that its uranium supply might be held indefinitely by some foreign party, including Russia.

What is uncertain is the fate of Iran's uranium stockpile. Mottaki's statement is not clear this would be stored permanently inside Iran, as most news services reported today or whether it could eventually be transported abroad. It is clear, however, that the Iranian Foreign Minister is talking about an uranium "exchange" to be agreed a new technical meeting in Vienna.

The West has to approach this Iranian counter-proposal carefully, avoiding gut reactions like that of French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner. The end-goal of the West is to ensure that Iran is unable to use its stock for weaponisation, so it has to push for the neutralisation of the low-enriched uranium, a task that can take place even inside Iran if the IAEA is able to coordinate it. It should be noted that Iran is now willing to relinquish total control of its uranium, a concession that was unthinkable a few months ago.

Mottaki's opening is therefore worth consideration by the Obama Administration and the Europeans, even as they face increased pressure from the Israeli Government and US neo-conservatives in Washington that Mottaki's statement is further proof of the military goals of Iran's programme. The ideal course of action is to corner the Iranians into giving up control of their stock, wrestling as many concessions as them as possible to get leeway on the issue of shipping uranium out of Iran.

In the end? It's far better to have as much low-enriched fuel locked up securely inside Iran, rather than slapping on further sanctions while Tehran keeps its hands firmly on its uranium.