Tuesday
Oct272009
The Latest from Iran (27 October): Domestic and Foreign Collide
Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 12:53
NEW Latest Iran Video: University Protests (27 October)
NEW Iran: More on Kian Tajbakhsh and Tehran’s “Velvet Revolution”
Latest Iran Video/Translation: Karroubi on Events in the Iran Media Fair
Iran’s Political Confusion: Khamenei, Ahmadinejad, and the Nuclear Agreement
Latest from Iran (26 October): After the Fair
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
2015 GMT: 13 Aban Does Not Exist. Homy Lafayette offers more detail on the Government's order to state media to "refrain from disseminating any news, photo, or topic which can lead to tension in the society or breach public order" during the demonstrations on 13 Aban (4 November).
The article includes an English translation of the document, issued by Deputy Culture and Islamic Guidance Minister Alireza Malekian.
1810 GMT: Iran's Nuclear Manoeuvre. If this story from Press TV is accurate, then Tehran is haggling over the details of third-party enrichment, rather than walking away from the deal.
The article re-quotes the source who spoke to Al Alam TV (see 1015 GMT), "Iran will announce its response to the proposal put forward by [International Atomic Energy Agency] Director-General [Mohamed] ElBaradei on Friday, October 30." The official added that Iran did not want to send 80 percent of its uranium stock in a single shipment to Russia, as set out in the deal from the Vienna talks: "Iran as a uranium buyer knows best how much uranium, enriched to a level of 19.75 percent, it needs [for its medical research reactor]; based on this argument, it will raise certain issues with this proposal."
In other words, Tehran will insist on a lower amount of uranium --- currently, the deal is for 1.2 million out of 1.5 million tonnes --- being sent to Russia in the first shipment. More would be delivered for enrichment as the medical reactor required new supplies.
The report is seconded by the head of Parliament's Foreign Policy and National Security Commission, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, "Iran can send the scheduled amount in separate shipments so that its fuel supply [provided by foreigners] is guaranteed....Iran can send only a part of its stockpile … and then as it receives its 20 percent enriched fuel it will send the next portion."
A word of caution on this interpretation: Boroujerdi is close to President Ahmadinejad and is putting the pro-deal view. It is unclear whether the dissenting voices such as Ali Larijani (and possibly, behind Larijani, the Supreme Leader) have come around to this position.
1750 GMT: Back from a teaching break to find that Rooz Online, following up a story prominent on the Internet this morning, has published details of an alleged Government order to censor and possibly shut out any news of mass demonstrations on 13 Aban (4 November).
1230 GMT: As reports continue to come in, with claims of 1500 students protesting at Azad University in Tehran, we've posted the first video footage.
1020 GMT: Reports that students gathered to demonstrate at Tehran University but are being forced to move by security forces.
1015 GMT: Reuters is reporting, from Iran's Al-Alam television, that Iran will accept the uranium enrichment agreement but will demand changes. The source is an "unnamed official" who indicates Iran's reply will be made within 48 hours.
0810 GMT: Detentions, Concerns, and Hunger Strikes. Human Rights Activists in Iran has posted a summary of latest developments regarding post-election detainees. Included is the information that journalist Henganeh Shahidi and student Payman Aref have started hunger strikes.
0800 GMT: Myth, Imprisonment, and "Velvet Revolution". We've just posted more on the jailed Iranian-American scholar Kian Tajbakhsh and the regime's accusations and tactics with the claim of foreign-directed regime change in
0715 GMT: A reader has pointed us to a report posted by CNN on a prison riot in Karaj, west of Tehran, on Sunday. Interestingly, the story comes from the National Council of Resistance in Iran, the opposition movement headed by Maryam Rajavi and linked to Mujahedin-e-Khalq.
0635 GMT: Meanwhile CNN International (broadcast, not website) is focusing on a peripheral story. Pakistan detained and has now released 11 Iranians who crossed the border yesterday. The original line was that the detainees were Revolutionary Guard members, possibly pursuing or looking for leads on those linked to last week's bombings. Pakistan, probably after discreet talks with Tehran, is now calling the wanderers "security guards"; Press TV portrays them as "border police" pursuing smugglers.
0630 GMT: Now The Washington Post has picked up on the effect of the internal debate on the enrichment agreement (and vice-versa) with an overview by Thomas Erdbrink, "Iran officials appear split on nuclear plan".
0600 GMT: One of the standing rules for analysis, when students and I consider US foreign policy, is that what happens overseas cannot be separated from what happens at home.
So it is proving --- and may prove in a significant way in the next 72 hours --- in Iran.
Tensions over the decision on the uranium enrichment deal are now beyond simmering and openly bubbling. Even this weekend, all the signals from the Iranian Government were that it would work out any issues and sign the proposal, with a significant portion of Iran's uranium stock going to Russia for enrichment, by Wednesday or Thursday. Now, all bets are off.
Readers took yesterday's analysis of the possible conflict between the Supreme Leader and President Ahmadinejad to a new level with their comments, but this morning I still find myself with questions rather than answers. The straightforward explanation would be that the Supreme Leader, working through the statements of Parliamentary leaders like Ali Larijani and Mohammad Reza Bahonar, is now blocking agreement. But, if so, why did he apparently endorse "engagement" to the point where the deal was almost struck? What could be the calculation in approaching the International Atomic Energy Agency, and thus Washington, in the summer and now walking out on the deal at the 11th hour?
Other theories from our readers include an Iranian "good cop, bad cop" act which would allow Ahmadinejad to portray himself as the guy who wanted to work with Obama but had to give way to Ayatollah Khamenei and the Iranians walking out of the arrangement because their ploy --- getting uranium for the medical reactor enriched for free while retaining enough of their stock to pursue other programmes --- hasn't yielded enough of a result.
Fortunately for my confusion, if not the general situation, there should be some clarification by Friday. Iran can't spin out the post-Vienna deliberations beyond the weekend, given that the US has already let last Friday's deadline slide in expectation of a Tehran decision within a few days. So it's accept, reject, or try to bring the "5+1" powers back to the table for talks.
And that declaration from Iran will in turn give the US Government, as well as the European powers, Russia, and China, a somewhat paradoxical choice. If Tehran does not sign the enrichment agreement, does the Obama Administration continue engagement, possibly strengthening the Iranian President against his own Supreme Leader? Or does it walk away (or is forced away by Congressional and public hostility to any more talks), now watching an internal Iranian situation in which Washington is no more than a bystander?
NEW Iran: More on Kian Tajbakhsh and Tehran’s “Velvet Revolution”
Latest Iran Video/Translation: Karroubi on Events in the Iran Media Fair
Iran’s Political Confusion: Khamenei, Ahmadinejad, and the Nuclear Agreement
Latest from Iran (26 October): After the Fair
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
2015 GMT: 13 Aban Does Not Exist. Homy Lafayette offers more detail on the Government's order to state media to "refrain from disseminating any news, photo, or topic which can lead to tension in the society or breach public order" during the demonstrations on 13 Aban (4 November).The article includes an English translation of the document, issued by Deputy Culture and Islamic Guidance Minister Alireza Malekian.
1810 GMT: Iran's Nuclear Manoeuvre. If this story from Press TV is accurate, then Tehran is haggling over the details of third-party enrichment, rather than walking away from the deal.
The article re-quotes the source who spoke to Al Alam TV (see 1015 GMT), "Iran will announce its response to the proposal put forward by [International Atomic Energy Agency] Director-General [Mohamed] ElBaradei on Friday, October 30." The official added that Iran did not want to send 80 percent of its uranium stock in a single shipment to Russia, as set out in the deal from the Vienna talks: "Iran as a uranium buyer knows best how much uranium, enriched to a level of 19.75 percent, it needs [for its medical research reactor]; based on this argument, it will raise certain issues with this proposal."
In other words, Tehran will insist on a lower amount of uranium --- currently, the deal is for 1.2 million out of 1.5 million tonnes --- being sent to Russia in the first shipment. More would be delivered for enrichment as the medical reactor required new supplies.
The report is seconded by the head of Parliament's Foreign Policy and National Security Commission, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, "Iran can send the scheduled amount in separate shipments so that its fuel supply [provided by foreigners] is guaranteed....Iran can send only a part of its stockpile … and then as it receives its 20 percent enriched fuel it will send the next portion."
A word of caution on this interpretation: Boroujerdi is close to President Ahmadinejad and is putting the pro-deal view. It is unclear whether the dissenting voices such as Ali Larijani (and possibly, behind Larijani, the Supreme Leader) have come around to this position.
1750 GMT: Back from a teaching break to find that Rooz Online, following up a story prominent on the Internet this morning, has published details of an alleged Government order to censor and possibly shut out any news of mass demonstrations on 13 Aban (4 November).
1230 GMT: As reports continue to come in, with claims of 1500 students protesting at Azad University in Tehran, we've posted the first video footage.
1020 GMT: Reports that students gathered to demonstrate at Tehran University but are being forced to move by security forces.
1015 GMT: Reuters is reporting, from Iran's Al-Alam television, that Iran will accept the uranium enrichment agreement but will demand changes. The source is an "unnamed official" who indicates Iran's reply will be made within 48 hours.
0810 GMT: Detentions, Concerns, and Hunger Strikes. Human Rights Activists in Iran has posted a summary of latest developments regarding post-election detainees. Included is the information that journalist Henganeh Shahidi and student Payman Aref have started hunger strikes.
0800 GMT: Myth, Imprisonment, and "Velvet Revolution". We've just posted more on the jailed Iranian-American scholar Kian Tajbakhsh and the regime's accusations and tactics with the claim of foreign-directed regime change in
0715 GMT: A reader has pointed us to a report posted by CNN on a prison riot in Karaj, west of Tehran, on Sunday. Interestingly, the story comes from the National Council of Resistance in Iran, the opposition movement headed by Maryam Rajavi and linked to Mujahedin-e-Khalq.
0635 GMT: Meanwhile CNN International (broadcast, not website) is focusing on a peripheral story. Pakistan detained and has now released 11 Iranians who crossed the border yesterday. The original line was that the detainees were Revolutionary Guard members, possibly pursuing or looking for leads on those linked to last week's bombings. Pakistan, probably after discreet talks with Tehran, is now calling the wanderers "security guards"; Press TV portrays them as "border police" pursuing smugglers.
0630 GMT: Now The Washington Post has picked up on the effect of the internal debate on the enrichment agreement (and vice-versa) with an overview by Thomas Erdbrink, "Iran officials appear split on nuclear plan".
0600 GMT: One of the standing rules for analysis, when students and I consider US foreign policy, is that what happens overseas cannot be separated from what happens at home.
So it is proving --- and may prove in a significant way in the next 72 hours --- in Iran.
Tensions over the decision on the uranium enrichment deal are now beyond simmering and openly bubbling. Even this weekend, all the signals from the Iranian Government were that it would work out any issues and sign the proposal, with a significant portion of Iran's uranium stock going to Russia for enrichment, by Wednesday or Thursday. Now, all bets are off.
Readers took yesterday's analysis of the possible conflict between the Supreme Leader and President Ahmadinejad to a new level with their comments, but this morning I still find myself with questions rather than answers. The straightforward explanation would be that the Supreme Leader, working through the statements of Parliamentary leaders like Ali Larijani and Mohammad Reza Bahonar, is now blocking agreement. But, if so, why did he apparently endorse "engagement" to the point where the deal was almost struck? What could be the calculation in approaching the International Atomic Energy Agency, and thus Washington, in the summer and now walking out on the deal at the 11th hour?
Other theories from our readers include an Iranian "good cop, bad cop" act which would allow Ahmadinejad to portray himself as the guy who wanted to work with Obama but had to give way to Ayatollah Khamenei and the Iranians walking out of the arrangement because their ploy --- getting uranium for the medical reactor enriched for free while retaining enough of their stock to pursue other programmes --- hasn't yielded enough of a result.
Fortunately for my confusion, if not the general situation, there should be some clarification by Friday. Iran can't spin out the post-Vienna deliberations beyond the weekend, given that the US has already let last Friday's deadline slide in expectation of a Tehran decision within a few days. So it's accept, reject, or try to bring the "5+1" powers back to the table for talks.
And that declaration from Iran will in turn give the US Government, as well as the European powers, Russia, and China, a somewhat paradoxical choice. If Tehran does not sign the enrichment agreement, does the Obama Administration continue engagement, possibly strengthening the Iranian President against his own Supreme Leader? Or does it walk away (or is forced away by Congressional and public hostility to any more talks), now watching an internal Iranian situation in which Washington is no more than a bystander?
tagged Al-Alam, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, Alireza Malekian, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Henganeh Shahidi, Homy Lafayette, Human Rights Activists in Iran, International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran, Iran Elections 2009, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Maryam Rajavi, Mohammad el Baradei, Mujahedin-e-Khalq, National Council of Resistance of Iran, Payman Aref, Press TV, Thomas Erdbrink, Washington Post in Middle East & Iran
Al-Alam, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, Alireza Malekian, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Henganeh Shahidi, Homy Lafayette, Human Rights Activists in Iran, International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran, Iran Elections 2009, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Maryam Rajavi, Mohammad el Baradei, Mujahedin-e-Khalq, National Council of Resistance of Iran, Payman Aref, Press TV, Thomas Erdbrink, Washington Post in Middle East & Iran
Reader Comments (15)
0635 GMT, in reference to capture of 11 Iranian nationals in Pakistan
Gholaam Reza Hossienbor, political leader of Baluchestan Resistance Group (a group not associated with Jundullah), was interviewed by epersainradio this evening (October 26). According to him people who were arrested by authorities in Pakistan were not IRG nor were they security guards. Hossienbor said they were Baluchies who often cross over for job. He said due to lack of investment by Islamic Republic and despite high walls at the border Baluchies cross the border for job, or for selling their goods and buying food. I guess like seasonal workers crossing the border from Mexico into U.S. in search of work.
Hosseinbor said Abdolmelak Rigi is not in Pakistan he is in the mountainous area of Baluchestan in Iran and Islamic Republic knows that very well. He said a few days after June election IRG launched a massive military campaign for capture of Rigi in the mountains of Baluchestan. After suffering heavy losses and inability to find Rigi, IRG ceased its military campaign.
Hosseinbor said the mission of Baluchestan Resistance Group was to defend against Islamic Republic that has murdered many of their people in the last thirty years. He said Baluchies are all Sunni Muslims.
[...] more from the original source: The Latest from Iran (27 October): Domestic and Foreign Collide … Share and [...]
Scott,
I'm not sure why we should doubt that this student demonstration is from today, and it certainly looks pretty well attended, but from a journalistic perpective I don't see any credible way of reporting it, since there is no way to prove that it's from today. Any ideas? I suppose it's too much to ask of these courageous individuals to stick a newspaper up with today's date?
Edward
This demostration is from today ; you could also see the news on the website of green wave; Mr moussavi has lived in Tehran and he couldn't put a fake news on his website; it's too easy to check it !! and otherwise he won't have any credibility ; don't rack needleesly your brains.
the link of iranian's gathering in front of iran embassy in London ( 4 th november) ; well done !
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1070287536351&ref=mf
Megan,
A belated thank you for the item on the Hossienbor interview.
S.
Edward,
Our sources indicate that this, first reported via Twitter, is authentic. RFE/Radio Liberty are running story at http://bit.ly/4kl2Ap
S.
All indications from both the hard line and the reform press and sources is that the major issue with the proposed deal is in the numbers.
The current 80% of the 4.5% enriched uranium Iran possesses, translates to a supply of 110 years roughly for the research reactor, when enriched to 20% while the life span of the research reactor is only another 15 years.
It seems to be that the western powers are proposing to allow Iran's 4.5% enriched uranium to be shipped for too little returning... Iran is counter proposing based on a schedule that will also presumably be tied to negotiations for a second research reactor or other fuel for its current Bushehr or future Civilian reactors. As it stands the deal is not at all to Iran's advantage. It will give up 80% of its supply of 4.5% enriched uranium to get what? 5 years worth of fuel for a research reactor? It seems the western powers and western media have to realize that this is not as Iran and Obama pointed out mutual respect
Latest interview with cleric Mohsen Kadivar, entitled "The Islamic Republic has come to an end", in which he cites fifteen fundamental mistakes of this system:
http://www.aftabkaran.com/akhbar.php?id=2403
I love green pepper!
Two interesting entries from the FB associated with Mousavi:
http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=166754606821&id=45061919453" rel="nofollow">Abdoullah Nouri's remarks.
http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=165647977242&id=45061919453" rel="nofollow">More on Kadivar.
The Kadivar entry is astounding to me. I think it's the first time I've seen a DIRECT challenge to Khamenei posted on the FB. And from a scholar now in the US!
Maybe it means nothing. but still.
How did this generation of young Iranians come to be? In a region that is overcome by ignorance and hate, and with the Iranian regime being the worst propogator of both, how can the youth of Iran be the most enlightened and brave I have seen?
WIMV,
This is invaluable. I had not realised that the life span of the reactor was so short --- I wonder, however, why the 80% figure went all the way to Vienna. Surely the Iranian side could have put forward the lower percentage well before last week? Or did they do so and no one in non-Iranian media reported it?
S.
Kevina,
I do not like kadivar. Kadivar is a hypocrite. He may be challenging Khamenei but he is longing for Khomeini era and his brand of justice and democracy.
Khomeini in my book is a mass murderer. He ordered murder of thousands and buried them in mass graves. Khomeini gave Iranians Islamic Republic of Torture, Rape, and Murder (IRTRM). There is not a single day in the past 30 years of IRTRM that any man or woman should dare to brag about. Kadivar not only brags about Khomeini era he wants to return to it, an era in which women were redefined as baby making objects, milking machines, and cleaning and cooking robots. Legacy of Khomeini is the right of a man to wed more than one woman and have full custody of children in case of divorce even if he is a convicted murder in which case his family is granted custody. I can go on and mentioned Khomeini brand of justice and equality for religious and ethnic minorities but I am sure you get the picture of what Kadivar is longing for.
It is my hope that Iranians have snapped out of their delirium for Khomeini brand of Islam or the mess of a Republic he and his disciples cooked up. I hope Iranians realize another mullah is the other side of the same worthless coin. I hope Iranians realize following these charlatan mullahs buy them and their children nothing but a space in Evin prison. Khomeini and his mullah clans (that includes all mullahs in Iran) are shame of Iran and not something any sane person should yearn for.
Scott,
Good point on how misleading the rhetoric for action against Iran is from Western diplomats who caution that Iran would need “18 months” to produce a nuclear bomb.: http://news.antiwar.com/2009/10/27/diplomats-detail-worst-case-scenario-for-iran/
The 80% of Irans current supply of 4.5% enriched uranium was proposed and insited by western powers, (they have backward calculated that this is the quantity needed to make a bomb) This quantity they claim, if enriched to 90 plus %, and if packed and built into a nuclear bomb and attach to the Fajr rocket. Essentially the western powers are still insisting that Iran has a nuclear capability, and the objectives of the negotiations is to rape it of this capability. This off course is insane and one sided. It is essentially France, Britain and USA doing Israels dirty work for it in these negotiations. Essentially the proposal was going to achieve all objectives in one sweep and be done. Iran is countering that this proposal is chapter one of a multi phase deal to be negotiated.
Iran never proposed 80%.... Westerners did, and France insisted. The message out of all sides is that this will not work, and that the counter proposal is going to tie further shipments to a schedule of technological back draft to Iran. In other words, as western powers give more nuclear and other technology to Iran, it will ship second and third batches of nuclear fuel....
All this is arbitrary, also, cause Iran has voluntarily not put into mass production / deployment its PIII centrifuge design which essentially will make it capable of producing far more 4.5% enriched uranium than west can imagine....