The Latest from Iran (13 November): Accusations

NEW Iran Text: Khatami on Legitimate Protest and Illegitimate Government (13 November)
Iran: Is This an “Unravelling” Protest Beyond Mousavi and Karroubi?
Iran: Why is Washington Belittling the Green Movement?
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

1805 GMT: Another Move for the Nuke Deal. Looks like the Ahmadinejad-military axis has put down another marker with the statement of the head of Iran’s armed forces, Major-General Hassan Firouzabadi, supporting the uranium enrichment agreement: “We will not suffer a loss from the exchange of fuel. Rather, in obtaining fuel enriched to 20 percent as needed by the reactors, nearly one million of our people would take advantage of its medical possibilities annually....The quantity of 3.5 percent enriched uranium [to be shipped out] is not so large as to cause damage to Iran’s supply."

1605 GMT: What's Happening at the Revolutionary Guard? Radio Fardi summarises the changes in higher commander at the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps, including the head of the Tehran command. I'll have to leave it to others to assess whether these are "normal" changes in the organisation or whether there is a political story behind them.

1515 GMT: Confidence or Concern? Reuters has now picked up the statement of Mojtaba Zolnour, a representative of the Supreme Leader in the Revolutionary Guard, that the Assembly of Experts cannot remove him from office.

Zolnour told a gathering of Khamenei's representatives in Iranian universities, "The members of the assembly...do not appoint the Supreme Leader, rather they discover him and it is not that they would be able to remove him any time they wish so."

Now is Zolnour saying this because he is feeling good that the Supreme Leader is secure in his seat of power or is his warning prompted by fears that members of the Assembly, who raised the possibility of removal in August/September, may not be pacified?



1500 GMT: Football Story of Day. Or maybe, thanks to the Green movement, a non-story because there was a non-crowd. Persian2English writes about a disappointing turnout for the Iran v. Iceland match in Azadi stadium on Tuesday, citing state media: “In spite of efforts...to have spectators show up in the stadium, only 100 attended to watch the match between the two countries' national teams." (Goal.com say "only a few hundred" turned up to watch a "low-key friendly".)

1400 GMT: We've posted a long statement, adapted from the website linked to Mir Hossein Mousavi, made by former President Mohammad Khatami to academics. Khatami appears to be going to great lengths to set out "legitimate" protest (as opposed to "radical" activity) criticising the failure of the Government to serve the Iranian people and uphold the Constitution.

1315 GMT: Tehran Prosecutor General Abbas Jafari Doulatabadi has announced that Shapour Kazemi, the brother of Mir Hossein Mousavi's wife Zahra Rahnavard, will be tried in Revolutionary Court.

1200 GMT: Your Tehran Friday Prayer Report.

Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, the former head of the Guardian Council, used his speech to put 13 Aban in the "right" context. The presence of students has demonstrated the Revolution's resolve against the "enemy flag" of the United States. Washington also gave Jannati the opportunity to attack the Iranian opposition --- despite the fact that he did not see them on 13 Aban --- "$55 million" authorised by the US for subversive activities.

1100 GMT: Persian2English reports on the Revolutionary Court's sentencing of Hassan Salamat, a master’s student at Tehran University, to four years in prison. Salamat was arrested in post-election protests on charges of "propagating aganist the regime and conspiracy to disrupt national security". He spent two months in Evin Prison before being released on $200,000 bail.

1010 GMT: An intriguing interview with Tehran Chief Prosecutor Abbas Jafari Doulatabadi on the Islamic Republic News Agency website. It's intriguing in part because Doulatabadi is clearly on the defensive about allegations of abuses by the regime. He admits that the Constitution in principle puts forth open trials but gives a convoluted explanation as to why this is not possible. He also expresses the hope that some trials can be completed in the next month.

Even more interesting, however, is the politics in the interview. Pointing to the regime's ongoing manoeuvres against former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, Doulatabadi says Rafsanjani's son Mehdi Hashemi --- accused in the first Tehran trial of corruption and intrigue in the Preisdential election --- should return from Britain to Iran if he believes the charges are false.

0825 GMT: Just catching up with news this morning.

Both The New York Times and Press TV share an interest in the seizure by US Federal prosecutors of properties, including the land where four mosques sit, of the Alavi Foundation. The prosecutors claim that the Foundation, whose 36-story office tower is also being taken, is illegally providing money and other services to Iran.

The Los Angeles Times goes instead for The Bomb, with a survey considering the reactions of Arab states and people to Iran's nuclear programme.

As for us, we're starting the day with two features outlining our concern over "Western" images of the Green Wave, which may point to a US Government policy shifting against the Iranian opposition: "Why is Washington Belittling the Green Movement?" and "Is This an 'Unravelling' Protest Beyond Mousavi and Karroubi?"

Iran Text: Khatami on Legitimate Protest and Illegitimate Government (13 November)

Iran: Is This an “Unravelling” Protest Beyond Mousavi and Karroubi?
Iran: Why is Washington Belittling the Green Movement?
The Latest from Iran (13 November): Accusations

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



Adapted from the report on the Facebook site associated with Mir Hossein Mousavi:

Former President Mohammad Khatami, in a meeting with a group of faculty members of Iran University of Science and Technology, has strongly criticised the continuation of the militarised environment and the security measures enforced on Iranian society. He added that one of the problems of the society is the lack of understanding and not taking advantage of the role of academia: “In the current situation, unfortunately the [academic] environment is getting more restricted, and regretfully the losses that the country will suffer because of these limitations are unrecoverable.”

The former reformist president, emphasising the necessity of independence of the universities, said:

In our reformist administration, the concern of the government was for the universities to be independent and respected, and we tried so that the 'outside forces' would not get the authorisation to intervene and enforce their views by any means.

An intellectual is someone who recognises the expectations of his/her time....Our time is the time that no one accepts tyranny and dictatorship and rejects it in all forms....Today the dictators of our time are claiming to be from the people; these are the problems of our time and are not related to East or West. Today criticising Government and freedom of expression should be accepted as rights.

The main factors in weakening the system are people’s dissatisfaction and use of violence by the Government] in any form....The violence by the government will cause radicalism and distrust, and if there is increasing dissatisfaction and distrust in a society, Islam and an establishment that carries the Islamic title will receive the first blow. If God forbid...violence, intimidationm and threats are recognised means of the establishment, and the enemies take advantage of this fact as well, more than anything, it would be the establishment that is harmed by this.”

Today the question is whether the satisfaction of the society, especially of the intellectuals, has been increased, particularly during the events after the election? If not, one should find out what the problem is and those who created this situation and caused the increase of the dissatisfaction in the society are those who are weakening the establishment.

This society belongs to us, but why is it that environment has been restricted so much? Why is it that the valuable figures who have a [different] view or an objection, not only are being eliminated [from political scene] but are suffering all kinds of insults and have been put under pressure?

Students, professors, scholars, artists, and intellectuals who have a great background and even served the country during the Iran-Iraq war...are saying that they recognise the Constitution but have some criticisms as well. They are being insulted and falsely accused. So unfortunately some [radical] slogans of which none of us approve are being heard in the country. The establishment is weakened, and Iran suffers domestic and international damage.

These [problems] have been created because people are not being respected. Objection and criticism are being considered as efforts to topple the establishment, the [national] media have insulted and falsely accused those who people are looking up to, and all of this is harming the system.

We should all return to the Constitution and act according to the Constitution and teachings of Islam. It should be accepted that it is not possible to run the society and the universities with military force and this kind of management is harmful for the interests of the country including its wealth, moral values and dignity.

The expectation was that the military and security measures would be eased, not that criticism and objection would be so costly for the society. It should be remembered that those who are criticising are not trying to topple the establishment but rather are care about the revolution and the society.....

Isn’t it that those who are criticising [the government] are being accused of all kinds of allegations that are true for the worst enemies of the country and the nation? If the answers to these questions are positive; these are the signs of the diversions that should be modified and corrected.

The basis [of the nation] is the Constitution; we want to have a glorious Iran. We want the people to consider the government as part of them and for the government to see people as part of itself. We want the government to welcome the criticisms against it as a blessing.

Afghanistan Follow-Up: Civil War in the Obama Administration

Afghanistan Special: The Obama Administration Breaks Apart Over Military Escalation
Afghanistan Video: Obama Rejects “All Military Options”?

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 1525 GMT: Spencer Ackerman has now retracted his original story that the anti-Eikenberry statement --- "he has a beef with McChrystal" --- came from a National Security Council staffer who was at the NSC meeting on Wednesday, although "my original source for the post stands by the account provided". Pity that Ackerman doesn't then ask the follow-up question: "How bad are relations within the White House over Afghanistan that officials are slinging mud by passing on 'information' from others who were in the high-level discussions?"

Yesterday we reported on the sudden emergence of the rift within the US Government over military escalation in Afghanistan. This was symbolised by the leaking of the call by the US Ambassador,  Karl Eikenberry, for no troop increase because of the instability of the Afghan Government and, more importantly, established by President Obama's reported "rejection" of all four proposals --- ranging from an escalation of 15,000 troops to a fulfilment of US commander Stanley McChrystal's request for 40,000 --- on the table.

24 hours later and the dispute rages on. The immediate reaction was an effort by pro-escalation forces to trash Eikenberry by claiming “he leaked his own cables” because “he has a beef with McChrystal" and alleging that the mess in Afghanistan occurred during Eikenberry's tenure as military commander between 2005 and 2007. Meanwhile, those inside the White House (note, not inside the US Embassy but inside the White House) are maintaining the pressure against an acceptance of any significant troop increase by criticising both sides of the Af-Pak strategy: "Do we have any assurances of what Pakistan will do? At least in Iraq, you had some functioning government there at the time of the surge. In Afghanistan, there is no government there."

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is trying to hold the Administration together with the insistence that a National Security meeting yesterday focused on progress rather than retribution: “I would say it was more, how can we combine some of the best features of several of the options to maximum good effect? So there is a little more work to do, but I think we’re getting toward the end of the process.” Yet Gates also hinted at the growing doubts about the Kabul Government that have first delayed and now jeopardised an acceptance of the McChrystal recommendations, “How do we signal resolve, and at the same time signal to the Afghans, as well as the American people, that this is not an open-ended commitment?”

In the coverage today, however, no one is coming back to the question: who leaked the Eikenberry objections? And no one is picking up on the significance of that leak and the disputes of this week.

The tensions between the White House, other agencies, and the US military have been present since Obama took office in January. Here's the difference now: those tensions may now have become the primary issue, overtaking any specific decision on troop levels in Afghanistan. If the President finally authorises the 40,000, he will be seen as caving in to the pressure of the military, disregarding not only advisors such as Eikenberry but sceptics within his White House. If he refuses escalation or offers only a token increase, he will incur the wrath of commanders who are willing to "spin" against him and their allies in the media ("Obama the ditherer"; "Obama the appeaser"). If he tries to split the difference, he will get the worst of both worlds --- loyalists like Gates will try to prop him up, but Obama will be facing objections (mainly through more leaks) from within the White House and within other departments.

That is why the most significant part of Gates's statement to the press yesterday was not his "Don't Worry, All is On Course for A Decision", but his warning to those out of line in the the Administration: “I have been appalled by the amount of leaking that has been going on in this process....A lot of different places are leaking...[and I am] confident that the Department of Defense is one of them....And frankly if I found out with high confidence anybody who was leaking in the Department of Defense, who that was, that would probably be a career ender.”

Which, in "normal" times, might be enough to put everyone and everything back in line. But Afghanistan --- in symbolism and in political reality --- is beyond normal, and this civil war is now beyond even an Enforcer like Gates.

Israel-Palestine & France: Sarkozy Calls Abbas after Meeting Netanyahu

Palestine: Abbas Bluffs & Wins — January Election Postponed
Netanyahu in Paris: Is France Mediating Israel-Syria Talks?
Inside Line on Hamas & Hezbollah: Their Thoughts on Obama, Unity Governments, & Oprah

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

Following the visit of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Paris, French President Nicholas Sarkozy phoned the leader of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas. According to Sarkozy's office, the French Presdient stated the conditions that would allow a quick return to Israel-Palestine talks, but the statement did not reveal the conditions.

After the conversation, an Abbas aide told Agence France Presse, "President Sarkozy had very important suggestions on how to move the peace process forward," without elaborating further. Another Palestinian senior official told AFP that both leaders talked about the idea of organizing a Middle East peace conference in Moscow, an idea Russia has been pushing for months.

Palestine: Abbas Bluffs & Wins --- January Election Postponed

Israel-Palestine & France: Sarkozy Calls Abbas after Meeting Netanyahu
Inside Line on Hamas & Hezbollah: Their Thoughts on Obama, Unity Governments, & Oprah
Mahmoud Abbas: “Israel Does Not Want Peace but We Do”

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

On Thursday, the chairman of the Palestinian election commission, Hanna Nasser, said that the 24 January election would be postponed indefinitely due to a lack of cooperation from Hamas, "We planned to go to Gaza to figure out how we can conduct elections there. In the meantime, we received an answer from Hamas that we are not welcome in Gaza. It is clear now that we cannot hold an election in Gaza."

Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas's spokesman, Nabil Abu Rudeina, confirmed, "President Abbas will make the appropriate decision after he returns [from Jordan]. Hamas' decision to ban the election commission from working in Gaza proves that Hamas is not eager to reach national unity and reconciliation."

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri stated that opposition to the election was because it had been unilaterally declared, "Without reconciliation, there will be no election."

And so Mahmoud Abbas' bluff plays out successfully. When he announced that he would not stand again for President, bringing appeals from various quarters --- the West Bank leadership, Israel, the US --- that he stay, Abbas knew the pretext of Hamas' position could be used to postpone the democratic process. And now he remains as the leader of Palestine (West Bank) without the inconvenience that he might not have won a Presidential contest in January.