More Time, Please: Ahmadinejad's Legitimacy and Iran's Nuclear Talks

Iran: Text of Ahmadinejad Speech in Mashaad (29 October)
Latest from Iran (30 October): Now to the Real Contest
The Latest from Iran (29 October): Opposition Momentum?

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

Here is what President Ahmadinejad said in a nationally-televised speech from Mashaad on Thursday.

Iran is strong. I am strong. Iran is strong because I am strong.

While the President covered a range of domestic and international issues, the passage on the talks on Iran's nuclear programme will receive the most attention today. As The Daily Telegraph of London declares, "Iran claims victory in nuclear battle with the West".

Unfortunately most coverage in the West will miss the significance of the speech. The New York Times, relying on usual on unnamed "diplomats in Europe and unnamed officials", is already proclaiming, "Iran Rejects Deal to Ship Out Uranium, Officials Report", a journalistic approach echoed by the Los Angeles Times.

That is untrue, at least according to both the Iranian Government and the International Atomic Energy Agency: Tehran's reply accepts the "framework" but raises issues over timing and amount of uranium stock to be delivered to Russia for reprocessing. More importantly, it shoves aside Ahmadinejad's presentation:

I don’t want to repeat history for you but can you remember where we were a few years ago? Back then, they shouted at us, issued resolutions against us, waged psychological warfare against us and issued sanctions against us. They told us that we should completely give up our nuclear program. Where are we today? Today, they pursue nuclear cooperation with the Iranian nation.

There were days when they said that we should not have the technology at all, but today they say: let us cooperate. Iran’s position in nuclear industry is well-established. Today, Iran’s nuclear activities are considered to be a normal and obvious procedure and an absolute right of the Iranian nation.

That is not a rejection of discussions with the "West"; it is an embrace of them. But it is an embrace based on the premise that the US and other countries have knocked at Tehran's door, gone down on bended knee, and asked forgiveness. Iran is no longer an international outsider; it is an accepted nuclear power.

Iranian state media is running quickly with this line. Press TV, for example, is featuring, "Israel worried by IAEA draft accord on Iran", noting, "Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak says a draft accord presented by the IAEA would lead to recognition of Iran's nuclear enrichment program."

This is only part of the story, however. Let's get personal: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is fighting for his authority, not only against the Green opposition but against those within the establishment who object to his high-profile assertion of power. Remember how, only a few days ago, the stories were of Parliamentary leaders like Ali Larijani trashing the nuclear deal and of indications that the Supreme Leader was stepping in both to cast a veto and to put Ahmadinejad in his place?

No sign of those nay-sayers yesterday. Instead this was Iran as the President and the President as Iran.

That's not to say that, for the sake of Ahmadinejad's legitimacy and Iran's international position, Tehran will soon accept the US-led plan for third-party enrichment. To the contrary, the Iranians have serious objections to the details. The most straightforward is that the 80 percent of uranium stock to be shipped to Russia is far more than is necessary to keep Iran's medical research reactor --- the catalyst for this proposal in June --- operating for the rest of its lifespan. So, in Tehran's eyes, the current document is intended as much to keep most of its uranium "hostage" as it is to provide a stable supply for Iran's civilian needs.

And, given Ahmadinejad's position, the political advantages of spinning out the talks are there to be grasped. If there are alterations in the plan to reduce the amount shipped below 80 percent and to send it out in stages rather than in one delivery, these will be concession to Iran's and the President's strength. If the "West" walks away from the table, this will be an indication of their continuing deceptions and mistakes --- despite their apparent request for forgiveness from Tehran --- and Iran will be in the right as it maintains nuclear sovereignty.

Of course, there will be pressure in the US Congress for sanctions (the House of Representatives, despite the ongoing talks, has already passed a measure for tougher economic restrictions). Those, however, are President Obama's worry, as Russia and China are unlikely to give any support for multilateral steps.

So give Ahmadinejad credit for a political victory in Mashaad yesterday. But think of that victory as only a preliminary skirmish on an outside battlefield.

For the next time Ahmadinejad is due in Mashaad is on 13 Aban (4 November).

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

The Latest from Iran (3 October): Debating Mousavi's Strategy

NEW Iran’s Nuclear Programme: Obama’s Balance Wobbles
Iran Video: Football & “Ya Hossein! Mir Hossein!”
Iran’s Nuclear Programme: Big Win for Tehran at Geneva Talks
The Latest from Iran (2 October): Back to the Homefront

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



2100 GMT: Just Back Away Slowly. Now this from the Iranian Government:

Atomic Energy Organization of Iran spokesman Ali Shirzadian said on Saturday that International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei’s two-day trip to Iran had previously been planned and is not linked to last Thursday’s talks between Iran and the 5+1 group.

2000 GMT: Rumour of the Day. No, it's not the one about Ahmadinejad being part-Jewish: the Daily Telegraph's "astonishing secret" is eight months old. Mehdi Khazali, the son of the late Ayatollah Khazali, posted the allegation eight months ago.

No, the more important loud whisper is that Major-General Hassan Firouzabadi, the head of Iran's armed forces, is being removed from his post. We held off reporting this, as there was no supporting evidence, but now his office has felt the story was serious enough to issue a denial.

1945 GMT: Mehdi Mirdamadi, the son of Mohsen Mirdamadi, the Secretary-General of the Islamic Iran Participation Front, has been released after 17 days in detention.

1635 GMT: Amidst all the confusion over the claimed drafts of National Unity Plans (see 1040 GMT), Pedestrian offers a thoughtful and pointed analysis. There are two drafts, one which would have be inclusive of opposition figures such as Mousavi and Karroubi and one put about by hard-liners who want to steal the limelight and quash an inclusive arrangement:

Now, the other side doesn’t want to be left behind and is trying to release a plan of their own. They don’t want the Mousavi camp to be the group to come up with “the” national unity plan. Which is just funny, since Mousavi and Rafsanjani after him were the ones who have been talking about a plan for months. RajaNews and FarsNews sound like a kid who suddenly decides to steal his classmate’s homework.

Sure, they could have waited for Mousavi’s and ignored it, but they know that it will be read by a whole lot of people, “national unity” is of utmost importance right now, and as much as they can yell and holler that nothing has happened, they know the cords it will strike and they want theirs to be front page news.

1616 GMT: Spinning Out the Game. First, it was the denial by Saeed Jalili's spokesman that Iran had agreed to "third-party enrichment". Now a member of the Iranian delegation from the Geneva talks says not only that no agreement was made on delivery of uranium to a country such as Russia but also that there was no deal on inspection of the second enrichment plant near Qom in the next two weeks: "In the Thursday talks, Iran elaborated on its package of proposals and how to implement them… and it was agreed that negotiations should continue on Iran’s package of proposals and the common points in this package and the package drawn up by the other side, and there was no other agreement.”

1610 GMT: International Atomic Energy Agency Mohammad El Baradei has arrived in Tehran to discuss arrangements for the inspection of Iran's second uranium enrichment facility.

1435 GMT: MediaCheck (EA v. CNN, Round 78) . Enduring America ($0/story), 2 October, 0700 GMT: "Big Win for Tehran at Geneva Talks".

CNN ($199/story), 3 October, 1320 GMT: "Iran is Winner in Nuclear Talks, At Least for Now"

1420 GMT: The reformist leader Saeed Hajjarian, detained for 100 days until he was bailed this week, has told the youth section of the Islamic Iran Participation Front of his stay in prison. He was totally cut off from the outside world and was unaware of events. He was held in solitary confinement in Evin Prison for a month and, after his transfer to another location, was only in contact with interrogators.

Hajjarian claimed that interrogators told him of many people killed in fighting and a big gap has been created between the authorities and the Iranian people, all due to his theories of reform. He added that he could hear people chanting “God is Great” outside Evin Prison, boosting his spirits.

1410 GMT: All 15 members of the Daftar-Tahkim-Vahdat (Unity Consolidation Bureau) reformist student group who were arrested on Friday morning have been released. One of the members told Deutsche Welle that these blind arrests are signs that the authorities are confused on how to deal with the protests.

1400 GMT: Press TV is now headlining the denial of the spokesman for Iran's National Security Council that Tehran "reached a deal with world powers to ship its enriched uranium abroad for further processing". The Secretary of the NSC, Saeed Jalili, is Iran's lead negotiator on the nuclear issue.

1200 GMT: Sir, It Was Not Me. Saeed Jalili, Iran's lead negotiator at the Geneva talks, has denied the widespread report that he and his US counterpart, William Burns, had a 30-minute 1-on-1 discussion during lunch. They "might have exchanged a few words during the lunch break with other delegations present". (See also our separate analysis.)

1050 GMT: Reports that some of the 15 or more student activists of Daftar-Takhim-Vadat, detained yesterday, have been released.

1040 GMT: The Plan (and A Breakthrough)? After 48 hours of quiet, some movement on the purported National Unity Plan.

Parleman News reports that the "Iran Conciliation Plan" is close to a final draft. Provisions include a release of post-election detainees, a change in the "attitude" of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, allowing both sides 2 voice their views, and an end to the "security atmosphere".

Mediators for the plan are named as Hassan Khomeini (Imam Khomeini's grandson), Hashemi Rafsanjani, Ayatollah Mahdavi Kani, Ayatollah Javadi-Amoli, and a few other prominent senior clerics.

Mediators have approached Mir Hossein Mousavi in the past weeks. He has indicated that he approves the grand design and is discussing minor changes. And here's the big shift: for the first time since drafts of a plan surfaced, it is reported that Mehdi Karroubi is also being asked to approve the initiative.

"Informed sources" have said that prisoner release and a change in Government could occur within days, as well as the arrest and prosecution of some "rogue" officials and demotion of others.

Now for a caution: this is the second "draft" to have appeared; the first, published in Fars News, provoked much comment and criticism that it was not the "real" plan. So, while this latest news is imporant, we await other signs that this indeed is the working scheme for reconciliation.

0805 GMT: Wow. The editorial staff at The New York Times must have been taking multi-strength vitamins (or getting words in their ears from those in the Obama Administration who aren't thrilled about the talks with Iran):

This is no time for complacency or wishful thinking. The United States and its partners must push Iran to open all of its declared nuclear facilities and allow inspectors to interview any Iranian scientist they choose to — the only way to figure out what else Iran may be hiding. The leading powers must also be ready to impose tough sanctions if Iran resists or if negotiations go nowhere.

0750 GMT: Chief Iranian nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili has repeated: "Within the framework of the IAEA and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the nuclear watchdog will be allowed to inspect the [second] nuclear site as it has been the case with the Natanz nuclear facility."

0730 GMT: Leading Principlist MP Hamid-Reza Katouzian has raised questions about the Parliamentary commission that is supposedly investigating post-election abuses. He notes that its composition is not "diverse", "its legal status is unclear", and it has not yet met.

0725 GMT: The commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps, General Mohammad Ali Jafari, has launched a pre-emptive strike against any plan for national unity, arguing that it is unnecessary given the legitimacy of the Presidential election and the strength of the Iranian system.

0700 GMT: Gary Sick, whose analysis on US-Iranian relations is always to be valued, yesterday put the "surprisingly productive" tag on the Geneva talks on Iran's nuclear programme. Juan Cole also held this view, adding, "Obama pwns Bush-Cheney on Iran", and this was soon picked up by other commentators such as Andrew Sulivan.

I share the hope that this is a breakthrough but, at the same, my concern (and that of EA colleagues) was that Geneva was being overplayed as a US victory "wringing concessions" out of the Iranians. The portrayal also obscured, even ignored, the tensions that continue within the Obama Administration.

So this morning "significant progress" has turned into "significant doubts" with the Obama Administration falling into confusion and squabbles over whether to welcome the engagement with Iran or to wag a finger of warning. We've got a separate analysis, "Iran’s Nuclear Programme: Obama’s Balance Wobbles".

0555 GMT: We're back after taking Friday night off to recharge.

Many thanks to our readers for a discussion which I think offers some of the best analysis of the internal politics, possibilities, and challenges. Where else on the Internet can you find a thorough discussion of Tehran Mayor Qalibaf, who may become a key figure in a plan for political resolution?

One of the questions which continues to occupy us is the strategy of Mir Hossein Mousavi. I have been sceptical of Mousavi's move "into the tent", setting aside a front of political opposition for a social network and apparent negotiation within the system, through a role on a committee for 2national unity. (My concern is not as much about Mousavi's decision as it is about the exclusion of Mehdi Karroubi from the process.) Our readers, however, have been considering the idea that Mousavi is fulfilling the long-term approach of the Green Wave; recognising that head-on confrontation will only lead to the crushing of the movement, he is seeking reform through some co-operation with the establishment's inquiries and re-evaluations. Still others don't trust Mousavi at all because of his past record, particularly as Prime Minister in the 1980s.

Very little movement on the internal front so far this morning, however, from Mousavi or anyone else.