The Latest from Iran (11 October): The Mousavi-Karroubi Meeting

NEW Iran: English Text of Mousavi-Karroubi Meeting (10 October)
NEW Iran: The Washington-Tehran Deal on Enriched Uranium?
NEW Iran: So Who Controls the Islamic Republic?
The Latest from Iran (10 October): Karroubi is Back

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

1900 GMT: Former President Khatami has followed up his speech in Yazd Province (1445 GMT) with a strong challenge to the regime on his website: “Be sure that people will never back down. Today, we are living in a world in which no dictator could be imposed on people to force them to be absolute obedient to him. An acceptable government is a government born out of people.” An English summary is in the Los Angeles Times.)

1845 GMT: We've posted the full English-language summary of the Mousavi-Karroubi meeting in a separate entry.

1630 GMT: EA's Mr Smith checks in with a snap analysis of the Mousavi-Karroubi meeting (1430 GMT):

General mood appears to be to be firmness on opposition to government, but strictly within the parameters of the nezam (political system)....They both asked for airtime on national television to air their version of the post-election events. All in all, I think they are attempting to settle in for a more long-term strategy of opposition, one that implicitly relies on sporadic street protests, coinciding with the main "mobilisation" events of the regime. They will keep well within the boundaries of the political system to progressively claw away at Ahmadinejad's power.

I personally think they reached this conclusion after running out of other options, and frankly it is not quite clear whether it holds at all as a long-term strategy.

1445 GMT: Former President Mohammad Khatami has spoken with an audience in Yazd Province. Criticising violent and brutal acts against reformists and protestors, he warned the Government that, if they do not let critics express their opinions, then the movement will move toward radicalism. (English summary on Facebook page connected with Zahra Rahnavard)

1430 GMT: Green Talks. Tagheer, the website connected with Mehdi Karroubi, has a lengthy article on a meeting between Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi yesterday.

1420 GMT: An Iranian activist is reporting a fourth post-election detainee has been sentenced to death. Hamed Rouhinejad, like Mohammad Reza Ali Zamani and Arash Pour-Rahmani, is accused of belonging to a monarchist organisation carrying out crimes against the state.

1050 GMT: Fereshteh Ghazi is reporting the sentences handed out to 16 post-election protesters (according to state media, 18 were convicted in September and are now appealing the verdicts): "Alireza Eshraghi 5 years, Mohsen Jafari 4 years, Mehrdad Varshoie 3 years, Yaghoutil Shanoulian 2 years 6 months, Faramarz Abdollah Nezhad 2 years 4 months, Amir Hojjati 2 years 3 months, Mousa Shah Karami 2 years 3 months, Kamran Jahanbani 2 years, Hossein Bastani 2 years, Hossein Ezami 2 years, Mehdi Fatah Bakhsh 1 year 9 months, Majid Moghimi 1 year, Mohammad Farahani 10 months, Mohammad Rasouli 10 months, Meysam Ghorbani 6 months and 74 lashes, Reza Imanpour 6 months".

1030 GMT: Really? Someone needs to show Secretary of State Hillary Clinton our analysis of the story from The Washington Post. As the Obama Administration pursues a private deal with Tehran over uranium enrichment, she is blowing the public smoke of threat, telling reporters in London, the world "will not wait indefinitely" for Iran to meet international obligations.

1025 GMT: We've posted two important items this morning. Jerry Guo of Foreign Affairs, echoing analyses that our readers have discussed for weeks, considers the "control" of the Iranian Government by "the Revolutionary Guard and its allies". Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post, fed the information by Obama Administration officials, reveals the developing US-Iran deal for enrichment of Tehran's uranium.

1020 GMT: Our sharp-eyed, sharp-minded readers have been discussing a number of stories about Iran's difficult economic situation and the impact it might have upon the regime. This item stood out: "1700 employees of Wagon Pars Company in Arak have gone on a hunger strike to protest the company’s failure to pay their wages and pension....This is the ninth protest organized by the employees this year." Wagon Pars, which was recently privatised, is one of Iran's largest manufacturers of railway vehicles.

1000 GMT: The reaction to the Behnoud Shojai execution (see 0630 GMT) continues to dominate Interenet discussion. A reader alerts to a moving statement on the case, and Rosemary Church of CNN has picked up via Twitter on the developments (though there is still no reference on CNN's website).

0630 GMT: Little political movement so far today. Iranian state media is reinforcing the image of Government by highlighting the attendance of President Ahmadinejad at a conference on...Iranian state media. The Islamic Republic News Agency reports that the discussions of media operations included more than 800 experts from 21 Government agencies and units, with the Head of Cultural Commission of Parliament and the Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance also present.

One of those media operations is in Fars News. The newspaper features an Isfahan University professor declaring that the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to recipients such as Iranian human rights lawyer Shirin Ebadi and President Obama is a "green light" for the Green movement of post-election protest.

Meanwhile, after a day of tension and confusion over the death sentences handed down to three post-election detainees, activists have been occupied overnight with the execution of Behnoud Shojai. Shojai, whose case precedes the election, was 17 when convicted in 2005 of murder in a fight; the execution, which had been delayed four times, was carried out despite Shojai's claim of self-defence.

Iran: A Telephone Poll on Politics You Can Absolutely Trust (Trust Us)

The Latest from Iran (8 October): Will There Be a Fight?

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

We avoided the media flutter last month over a poll by World Public Opinion of Iranian attitudes, not because we objected to the purported findings --- the most provocative that "eight in 10 Iranians say they consider [Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] to be the country's legitimate president" --- but because WPO's rationalisation could persuade us that this was a poll carried out under "neutral" conditions. A telephone call from the United States, coming out of the blue, to a household in Iran, made amidst post-election conflict in which there is a presumption that phone conversations may be under surveillance....hmm, didn't strike us as being optimal for getting full-and-frank answers.

We were going to let a wobbly survey fall of its own accord. But then Persian Umpire came along and put everything in perspective for us:

I wanted to mention the report by worldpublicopinion.org when it was first published but didn’t get a chance. Since it was referred to by [Dr Seyed Mohammad] Marandi  – considered by many here to be on the academic front of the mouthpiece industry  – in a CNN discussion on Sunday, it might be a good time to revisit the topic. The report stirred up controversy here, causing us much vexation and digestive upset.

In all honesty, I don’t know anything about polls and statistics, I am even forgetting my basic math, but to accept the results of this poll is tantamount to believing that the post-election chaos, on the streets and in the corridors of politics, must have only been a figment of our imaginations.

I don’t want to hurt their feelings, so let’s give worldpublicopinion.org A+ for effort. As for publishing the results of the effort, maybe they should have considered the health hazards and slept on it. So, they left me with no choice but to correct parts of the poll and repeat it. Unlike the original survey, the refusal rate for this one was a little less than 52%, so you can take this as solid information.

How much confidence do you have in US President Barack Obama to do the right thing regarding world affairs?

I found the answer consistent with the WPO report: 16%. Then last night I asked myself the question and didn’t get a wink of sleep. I got on the internet to find out what “World Affairs” really meant.

Six hours later, I realized I wasn’t any wiser. After perusing the 38,700,000 results and getting familiar with terms such as “socioeconomic”, “geopolitical”, “interdependence”, “trade”, “foreign policy”, “global economy” and many more, I think I have to refine the question and call all those people again. In fact the question may need to be broken into two, because I spent another six hours thinking about “doing the right thing”, which led me to concepts like “ethics”, “political philosophy”, “interests”, “utilitarianism”, and “eye of the beholder”.
In light of this development, I decided to leave the foreign stuff until I can further specify what I am asking these people.

Considering everything that has occurred before, during and after the elections, do you consider Ahmadinejad to be the legitimate president of Iran?

Of the 50% who answered the question, 12.5% said they belonged to either the Basij or the Sepah [Revolutionary Guard], and 87.5% said “considering everything that has occurred before, during and especially after the elections” they are willing to consider Ahmadinejad as higher than President if he wanted them too....

Note: one respondent misunderstood “legitimate” as meaning “bastard”, for which he is in trouble as his phone was wiretapped.

In general, how satisfied are you with the process by which the authorities are elected in this country?

Now this question in the report were very interesting to me, but I though it required further probing. Here, I initially got the same numbers: a very large majority (81%) said they are satisfied with the general process, though only 40% said they were very satisfied. Sixteen percent say they are not satisfied. But when respondents were asked if they were very very satisfied, 20% said they were, and then only 10% said they were very very very satisfied.
My assistants are still on the phone with this question, incrementally adding a “very”....I will publish the results once the question is over.

In Iran how free do you think people are to express controversial political views, without fear of being harassed or punished?

To me this question should have been binary. Free or not free. Combining “how free” with “without fear” was just confusing. Let us look at the response with a 71% rating in the WPO report: “I am somewhat free to express, without fear.” Perhaps it is just me but I don’t understand what this phrase means. I can handle “I am free to express without fear”, or the opposite “I am not free to express without fear.” I can also process “I am somewhat free to express” and its opposite. Let me say it another way: I am either free of fear to say something, or not. I cannot be “somewhat” free of that fear.

Before going insane, I decided to rephrase the question:

Do you agree with Mr. Ahmadinejad that Iranians have “almost complete freedom”?

Lo and behold, 100% said “yes”.

Are you comfortable answering silly political questions over the phone in Iran?

I squeezed in this last but essential question to assess the reliability of my survey. 14% refused to answer because they were offended, 5% said they were comfortable, 50% said they were not comfortable and 31% responded with a single tut. I marked them as "freaked out and afraid even to say so".

Iran: How a Non-Story about a Non-Jew Became Media Non-Sense

The Latest from Iran (7 October): Drama in Parliament?

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

AHMADI: STILL NOT A JEW

UPDATE 1700 GMT: Silliness Upon Silliness. Press TV, probably inadvertently, highlights the idiocy of the Daily Telegraph report by adding...more idiocy. "A senior political analyst specializing in media affairs" says, "These reports are undoubtedly published in line with Israeli interests. In light of the Goldstone report, such reports are obviously designed to divert world attention from Israeli crimes against Palestinians and the use of weapons of mass destruction in the three-week attack on the Gaza Strip." Oh, yes, he adds that the report "was also meant to undermine" the Geneva talks on Iran's nuclear programme.

But out of the ridiculousness: I'm sending a note to CNN's Jim Clancy that "a senior media analyst" might be available for an interview.

You may have noticed that we haven't said much about the "Ahmadinejad is Jewish" allegation. Apart from the e-mail from a reader who found the whole episode a morning laugh, the only biggest significance was the journalistic a) fraud or b) innocent idiocy of The Daily Telegraph, which claimed an "exclusive" of a story that was eight months old (launched on the blog of Mehdi Khazali, the son of the late Ayatollah) and had already been discredited.

The story ran "hot" for 24 hours, with almost no one noticing this was an old non-story (even though The Daily Telegraph coyly said, low in the article, that Khazali had called for an investigation of Mr Ahmadinejad's roots"). First, the media tried to sell papers and boost viewer ratings with "Shock: Iran's President is A Jew". Then it did the same with "Shock: Iran's President is Not a Jew". Meir Javedanfar finally tried to sound the closing bell on the story, writing in The Guardian of London, "Ahmadinejad has no Jewish roots".

You might think that this was the end of our non-story, but never understimate the media's tenacity in spinning new rubbish out of old rubbish. In Foreign Policy magazine, Jamsheed Chosky insisted, "True or not, the rumors matter." Even though there appears to have been little or no attention to the non-story inside Iran, Chosky confidently assured, "On the domestic front in Iran, the whole issue plays into the widening chasm between the mullahs and Ahmadinejad, some of whom have challenged his family's Muslim lineage and piety for years." And then, assuming that folks will not see through this bunch of tosh, Chosky adds the "international dimension": "As his heritage becomes a more public question, it only makes it less likely that he can find accommodation with Israel without compromising himself in Muslim eyes."

Yet the most blatant attempt to find life in the Dead Parrot of All Political Stories came from CNN, courtesy of anchorman Jim Clancy of "Question of the Day" fame. Yesterday afternoon, Clancy brought on Meir Javedanfar, presumably to say that Ahmadinejad Was Still Not Jewish. However, Clancy still insists that this non-Jewish status was still relevant because of "the analysis about why the conservative media in Iran were ALL OVER the story". I didn't get the chance to ask Clancy if he meant Kayhan or Fars News or the Islamic Republic News Agency or Tabnak.

Now CNN does not post transcripts of Clancy's programme and, thank goodness, its website is not featuring the non-story. Perhaps Javedanfar will re-surface to clarify who is ALL OVER what. However, until then, using Clancy-esque capitals....

COVER SOMETHING THAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT OR STOP EATING UP AIRSPACE

Iran: Talks and Legitimacy - Takeyh and Marandi on CNN

The Latest from Iran (6 October): Loud Noises, Quiet Manoeuvres

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 Sunday, CNN's Christiane Amanpour followed up her interview with chief Iranian nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili with a discussion with Dr Seyed Mohammad Marandi of the University of Tehran and Dr Ray Takeyh, formerly of the US State Department and now with the Council on Foreign Relations.

There is little here in the way of new analysis on the nuclear talks: Marandi is now CNN's "go-to" academic for a view supporting the Iranian Government, and Takeyh will be generally supportive of an Obama strategy of engagement.

The key paragraph instead is on Iran's internal situation. Note how Marandi links Iran's sovereignty to the question of Ahmadinejad's legitimacy, citing two very suspect opinion polls to put his central point. Accept the President and life will be a lot easier:

Iran is quite stable, and unlike what one often hears in the western media, I don't think that the country is in any serious problem.

I think that it's important for the American government to recognize that and to deal with the reality on the ground in Iran. If you'll recall, Terror Free Tomorrow, they had a poll before the elections that showed that Mr. Ahmadinejad was well ahead. And then the more recent University of Maryland poll also showed that he won the elections, or he was far more popular than Mr. Mousavi.

This doesn't go down well in the United States, I know. But I think that the United States, in order to be able to move towards rapprochement, and to be able to deal with Iran, they have to finally come to understand that Iran is not going to go away and the Islamic Republic of Iran is not going to collapse. If they do come to that recognition and they do come to respect the country, then I think that rapprochement would become much more easy, and I think that the Iranians are quite willing to move in that direction.

AMANPOUR: The Iranian government has invited hundreds of journalists, as well as six ambassadors from the so-called Non-Aligned Movement. There are no western countries represented here. Nonetheless, the Iranian government is saying that this is a transparency visit designed to show the world what it claims to be its peaceful nuclear program.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: That was early 2007, at another of Iran's nuclear facilities near the city of Esfahan. So, nearly three years later, will the Geneva talks between Iran and the U.S. lead to a new era of dialogue?

We turn to Mohammad Marandi, a professor at Tehran University, and to Ray Takeyh, a former adviser to the Obama administration on Iran.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: Mr. Marandi, if I could go to you first, what is the mood in Iran around these talks? What are people hoping for?

MOHAMMAD MARANDI, PROFESSOR, TEHRAN UNIVERSITY: Well, I think people are mostly hoping that the United States and its allies will change their attitude towards the country. The tone, of course, did change a bit after Obama came to power, but there hasn't been any substantial change in the eyes of the Iranian people with regards to policy towards the country. And this is an appropriate time for the United States to make that change if they're really serious about dialogue, meaningful dialogue with Iran.

AMANPOUR: OK. Stand by for one second.

And Mr. Takeyh, what does the United States expect to get out of this meeting?

RAY TAKEYH, FMR. ADVISER TO OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ON IRAN: More focus on Iran's nuclear program, particularly the second site that has been -- the clandestine site that was revealed this week, having access to it and having it safeguarded by international inspectors; having Iran essentially accept confidence-building measures in this overall nuclear program; getting some of Iran's accumulated low-enriched uranium out of the country for reprocessing; and establishing a mechanism whereby the dialogue between the two countries can be more systematic, as opposed to episodic that it's been in the past.

AMANPOUR: So, therefore, it should be good news after today, because there has at least, according to all sides, been a development on the inspectors, the IAEA inspectors going, they say.

TAKEYH: Right. That's going to be worked out. And to be fair, the inspectors were going to go in there. After Iran itself declared this facility to the IAEA, it did so with a purpose of actually inviting them to inspect the facilities. So, that might have been the easier part. Getting the overall Iranian nuclear program into some degree of regulation and restraint, that might be tougher.

AMANPOUR: Mr. Marandi, in Tehran, do you think and do you believe the government wants broader relations or a different relationship with the United States beyond just these specific talks?

MARANDI: Yes. I think that if the Iranians feel that the Americans are truly serious, then there is indeed a possibility for rapprochement.

Both countries have serious issues in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as in Pakistan, that need to be resolved. And in some ways, they do have similar interests.

The problem is that the Iranians, in the past, on a number of occasions, did step forward for rapprochement, and the Americans gave a very negative response. For example, in the past, during the Clinton years, the Iranians allowed Conoco to come and develop oilfields in Iran, and then sanctions were imposed on Iran. And then, when Iran helped in Afghanistan, it was called a part of the access of evil.

So, this time around, I think the Iranians are going to wait to see what the Americans will be doing. They will probably not take the first step forward themselves.

AMANPOUR: Mr. Takeyh, in terms of what Mr. Marandi just raced, the issue of sanctions, what can the United States or should the United States do, or the international community, in terms of how to go forward? Incentives, would there be? And if they impose sanctions, if they chose to, do you think that would make any bit of difference?

TAKEYH: Well, I think for the next couple of months, everyone is going to wait to see how these negotiations evolve, and if you're going to make some sort of a progress, I think, by January. At that time, I think there are going to be serious discussions about a multilateral sanctions regime that may encompass China and Russia, particularly because at that time, you'd be making an assessment about how these talks work, whether Iran is genuine about coming to terms with the international community, with using these talks to stall and delay. That's when the sanctions issue is going to be revisited.

AMANPOUR: But Iran has said clearly that it hasn't worked in the past, it doesn't bow to those kinds of threats.

Another thing that the president of Iran has said -- he was quoted before these talks -- is that it was a way for them to gauge whether they would be treated with respect at these talks, whether there would be a different atmosphere in terms of interpersonal atmosphere across the table as a way forward.

Do you think that the atmospherics were also important today?

TAKEYH: Atmospherics is always important when you're talking about Iran, because as a country, (INAUDIBLE) international respectability, even though its conduct doesn't always merit it. But these particular sessions seem to have been conducted in a civil, respectful tone by both parties.

There was a sidebar discussion between an American representative and an Iranian representative. I don't know what transpired there, but, essentially, there seemed to have been a better atmosphere than perhaps in the previous talks, and certainly in reference to the rhetoric coming out of both capitals during the past week.

AMANPOUR: Mr. Marandi, given the political dilemma in Iran today and the continued protests, the continued issues there, what is actually going on in terms of various different factions in Iran today?

MARANDI: Well, one interesting thing is that, with regards to the nuclear program, MPs from all the different factions and political parties in parliament, both the different reformists, as well as the different principalists or conservative factions, they all signed a joint statement supporting Iran's position in the negotiations, which is quite significant. But I think it's also important to note that Iran is quite stable, and unlike what one often hears in the western media, I don't think that the country is in any serious problem.

I think that it's important for the American government to recognize that and to deal with the reality on the ground in Iran. If you'll recall, Terror Free Tomorrow, they had a poll before the elections that showed that Mr. Ahmadinejad was well ahead. And then the more recent University of Maryland poll also showed that he won the elections, or he was far more popular than Mr. Mousavi.

This doesn't go down well in the United States, I know. But I think that the United States, in order to be able to move towards rapprochement, and to be able to deal with Iran, they have to finally come to understand that Iran is not going to go away and the Islamic Republic of Iran is not going to collapse. If they do come to that recognition and they do come to respect the country, then I think that rapprochement would become much more easy, and I think that the Iranians are quite willing to move in that direction.

AMANPOUR: Well, let me put that to Mr. Takeyh.

You were in the State Department, you were on the sort of Iran file. You're no longer there.

What is the possibility of rapprochement beyond just this issue?

TAKEYH: Well, it reflects Iran's conduct on a broad ranges of issues -- its entanglements in terrorism, and obviously the nuclear file being probably the most important issue. But it's contingent on Iran's behavior...

(CROSSTALK)

AMANPOUR: When President Obama came in, he came in with a different language towards Iran.

TAKEYH: That's right.

AMANPOUR: Does that still hold? Does he still want to have reset relations?

TAKEYH: I think so. I think that throughout the discussions that have taken place during the past week regarding some of Iran's conduct, the president and others have always insisted that the diplomatic path is still open and Iran has a possibility of walking through the door if it chooses to. But the door is not going to stay open forever.

AMANPOUR: Does the United States agree with several proposals such as that Iran does not ever react well under threat, that Iran wants to be treated as the power of the region, which it is, by all accounts, a major power in the region?

TAKEYH: I think there's a recognition that Iran is a major power in the region and can exercise its influence. But it's important for that influence to be exercised in a constructive manner.

The Latest from Iran (5 October): The Difficulty of Signals

UPDATED Iran: Rafsanjani Makes A Public Move with “Friendship Principles”
Video: Sharif Uni Protest Against Javad Larijani (4 October)
The Latest from Iran (4 October): Waiting for Developments

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

2030 GMT. Harrumph, harrumph. The Financial Times, which is vying with The Times of London to be the at-hand Government channel for "news", uses several hundred words as a backdrop for this fist-shaking from "a senior British government official":

It is important that IAEA inspectors are given access to Qom immediately. We regret that Iran is delaying this until October 25. We see no reason for a delay. What possible reason can there be for it?

Given that the IAEA and even most of the Obama Administration welcomed the agreement, one has to wonder whether this is the same "rogue" British official who gave the FT their recent non-story on "secret Iran nuclear arms plan", whether this is a concerted London effort to play "tough cop" alongside a more conciliatory US, or whether Gordon Brown's Government has decided it really doesn't want meaningful negotiations.

1945 GMT: We're not asleep. It's just a very slow night for news, and we're also suffering from a bit of fatigue after a heavy academic day.

However, I think you can look forward to some new analysis on Hashemi Rafsanjani by the morning. And we're trying valiantly to track down the video of last night's interview on CNN by Christiane Amanpour of Ray Takeyh, formerly of the National Security Council, and Seyed Mohammad Marandi of the University of Tehran.  (Coincidentally, I've worked with both on academic projects.)

1540 GMT: An EA correspondent hauls me up for being too quick (and optimistic) about the Green movement's web presence. Mir Hossein Mousavi's Kalemeh website has only returned (0510 GMT) in the sense that the original site, www.kalemeh.ir, redirects to a backup, www.kaleme.com, which has not updated since Qods Day.

1500 GMT: Tehran's Prosecutor General has denied the news, reported yesterday, that 20 prominent detainees are soon to be released. He asserted that the cases of the deatinees, including former Vice President Mohammad Ali Abtahi, reformist leaders Abdollah Momeni, Shahab Tabatabaei, and Saeed Shariati, and journalist Mohammad Atrianfar, would be handled within "the process of law".

1400 GMT: More Atomic Tourism. A helpful reader adds to our item (0620 GMT) on the Come Visit Us website for Fordo, the home of Iran's second enrichment facility: "You can also visit an observatory built 3 years ago. Location, location , location."

1350 GMT: Another Loosening of the Net? Following the report that Mousavi website Kalemeh could soon be back on-line (0510 GMT), the Etemade Melli newspaper, linked to Mehdi Karroubi, has been acquitted by a majority jury vote of complaints over its stories. This could pave the way for a resumption of the paper's publication, which was halted this summer.

1320 GMT: Mousavi Welcomed Into the Fold? Khabar Online adds to Pedestrian's excellent piece (see 0600 GMT) on the speech of judiciary official Javad Larijani at Sharif University, which called for an end to animosity against Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi and welcomed Mousavi's "move inside the system".

1300 GMT: Academic Pressures. It's hard to put all together, but stories are piling up of punishment of university students and lecturers for political activity and even for challenges over academic matters. Students across Iran have been summoned to disciplinary offices, and Rooz Online writes of five law professors at Allameh Tabatabai University who have been barred from teaching.

1200 GMT: Still slow on the domestic front in Iran, so one more note on the media lemmings rushing after Sunday's New York Times mis-story on the Iran nuclear programme.

Unsurprisingly, The Times of London takes the prize for turning an already flawed report into a seven-alarm exaggeration: "Iran has the know-how to produce a nuclear bomb and may already have tested a detonation system small enough to fit into the warhead of a medium-range missile." The Times not only uses this as the pretext to reduce Sunday's press conference by IAEA head El Baradei to an afterthought but to give him a good kicking: "He will not be missed by foreign policy hawks in the US who accuse him of acquiescing in years of nuclear prevarication by Iran."

0935 GMT: All the Spin That's Fit to Print. This morning's New York Times on Iran did not repeat its Sunday spectacular of misinformation --- Iran Close to Bomb! --- going for the neutral (and factually correct) headline, "Iran Agrees to Allow Inspectors on Oct. 25".

But you can't get keep a good Government outlet down, so David Sanger (yep, him again) and Nazila Fathi, drop this into Paragraphs 5-6:

Some administration officials expressed private skepticism that Iran would ultimately prove willing to allow the kind of widespread inspections that the United States and its Western allies have in mind. They want the inspections to include several facilities that American and European officials suspect could be part of a string of covert facilities built to supply the newly revealed enrichment center near the holy city of Qum.

Sanger and Fathi fail to offer the corrective that no published US intelligence report puts forth evidence or even speculates that Iran has "a string of covert facilities". No leaked US report makes that claim. Not even the ISIS/IAEA report, which Sanger mangled on Sunday into an imminent warning that Iran had the information for The Bomb, alleges this.

I dread to think what's coming out tomorrow. Maybe it will be "Secret Government Installation for Mega-Giant Atomic Robots".

(P.S. No, it doesn't have to be this way. Simon Tisdall of The Guardian gets taken for a ride by the Sanger-Administration line, but The Associated Press, whose report runs in The Washington Post, gives the story a straightforward treatment with the El Baradei press conference and the public comments of President Obama's National Security Advisor, James Jones. They do not embellish --- and thus distort --- the story with the "on-background" spin of unnamed Administration and European officials.)

0800 GMT: Go Wide. Really Wide. Press TV, in its report on Sunday's press briefing by the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, offers an unsubtle signal of the Iran Government' strategy to move negotiations far beyond direct consideration of Tehran's nuclear programme to international and regional issues: "The UN nuclear watchdog Chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, says regional and global stability can only be achieved through total nuclear disarmament."

There is no reference at all in the story to the talks over Iran's uranium enrichment.

0620 GMT: Atomic Tourism. Fancy a different kind of vacation?

The Iranian village of Fordoo, the location of the second enrichment facility, has a website full of information for the wanna-be visitor. It has the latest news --- a reassurance from Press TV that no radioactive material has been moved into the no-longer-secret enrichment plant --- a biography of the village, and an inspirational quote: "The best way to predict the future is making it."

0600 GMT: Yesterday we posted the video of student protests at Sharif University of the speech by high-level Judiciary official Mohammad Javad Larijani. Pedestrian has a fascinating account of the occasion. It includes Larijani's attempts to "bond" with the kids, “I was once a student, I was once a part of your gang. I was part of the same chaos," before dropping the boom on the opposition movement:

I agree with [the] statement [of protesting students that "the coup d'etat government must resign"] very much. But that coup d’état was defeated and the leader of the coup d’état was [Mir Hossein] Mousavi.

There were individuals who were part of the system and participated in the election, but on June 12th, at 11p.m. they turned their backs on the system. Their actions constitute a coup d’état . They took a very harsh tone against the government, accused it of murder, theft, lying, etc. and they used the vocabulary of thugs.

Yet by far the most intriguing passage was Larijani's response to protesting pro-Ahmadinejad students, “We must free our hearts of hate towards Mousavi, [Mehdi] Karroubi.….Because with hate, we can not tell truth from lies.” He added that Mousavi had now "said that he plans to move inside the system and right the wrongs. I think this is a step in the right direction.”

0545 GMT: Another interesting but lower-profile move this weekend. Hossein Taeb, the commander of the Basiji commander, was named a Deputy Director at the Ministry of Intelligence. While some sharper-eyed Iran-watchers noted the development, they did not consider this: given the battle this summer between President Ahmadinejad and other politicians and clerics (including the Supreme Leader?) for control of the Ministry, with the firing of more than 20 high-level officials, who claims a victory with Taeb's appointment?

Meanwhile, Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Naqdi has been appointed as the new commander of the Basiji.

0510 GMT: The most intriguing development inside Iran yesterday was the statement by Hashemi Rafsanjani (see our analysis) setting out guidelines for political activity and also putting specific warnings, such as a "mysterious network" trying to undermine the Islamic Republic and the false or misleading information put out through various outlets.

Decoding Rafsanjani's elaborately framed words, the easy part is that he is telling the Iranian people: in these tense and confusing times, Trust Me. And the Supreme Leader. The one reliable source for the latest on political development are statements from the Expediency Council, which Rafsanjani heads. The one trustworthy politician, by unsubtle implication, is the former President.

But who is Rafsanjani putting off-limits with his reference to a mysterious network? Some might say the reformists, who have gone too far to unsettle the system that Rafsanjani says he will defend through a return to "unity". Others are arguing, persuasively, that the threat comes from elements within the regime, and they have support from the pointed clue about disinformation --- given that the first "National Unity Plan" came out through Fars News Agency, fed to it by person or persons unknown, the former President's most direct challengers probably hold high office somewhere inside the establishment.

Of course, Rafsanjani could be putting both sides on notice with his warnings, even as he elevates himself with his First Amongst Equals relationship with the Supreme Leader. That still leaves the biggest question, as we noted yesterday: what exactly is the plan that he favours?

Meanwhile, the Green movement has been boosted by the return of Kalemeh, the site of Mir Hossein Mousavi's campaign. It had been off-line for several days after the Government's crackdown on the  opposition before Qods Day.