The Latest from Iran (4 October): Waiting for Developments

NEW Iran: Rafsanjani Makes A Public Move with “Friendship Principles”
NEW Video: Sharif Uni Protest Against Javad Larijani (4 October)
You Make the Call: Leaked IAEA Report on Iran Nuclear Programme
The Latest from Iran (3 October): Debating Mousavi’s Strategy

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



1705 GMT: Establishment Battles Resume? Parleman News is claiming that supporters of President Ahmadinejad have tried --- and failed --- to unseat Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani as the head of the Principlist majority group. If true, this could be a sign that the temporary reconciliation of conservative and principlist factions, prominent at the start of September with the approval of the Ahmadinejad Cabinet, may be breaking down.

And that in turn raises the question: is this split being fostered by the imminence of a National Unity Plan which may seek to marginalise Ahmadinejad?

1640 GMT: We think Hashemi Rafsanjani's statement, which we noted here earlier, is important enough to warrant a separate entry.

1625 GMT: The Unity Gesture? EA's Mr Smith predicted that this step would occur in the Supreme Leader's speech at the end of Ramadan on 20 September. Looks like he was only two weeks off: "Iran is to release on bail around 20 people accused of post-election violence, including top reformists and an Iranian-American scholar."

According to the Islamic Republic News Agency, citing a source inside Iran's judiciary, those who may be freed include former Vice President Mohammed Ali Abtahi, journalist Mohammad Atrianfar, reformist leaders Shahab Tabatabaei, Saeed Shariati and Abdollah Momeni, and Iranian-American academic Kian Tajbakhsh.

1430 GMT: Pointless Analysis of Day. A Jeffrey Kuhner, the declared President of the "Edmund Burke Institute", is allowed to take up space in The Washington Times with this: "War with Iran is now inevitable. The only question is: Will it happen sooner or later?"

1240 GMT: Good Cop, Bad Cop. Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani has provided the critical counterpoint to the positive signals from this morning's briefing by IAEA head Mohammad El-Baradei (0905-0920 GMT):

The [IAEA] is an international authority which should supervise all nuclear activities of states, but the agency's records indicate that it was not successful in this regard for political reasons. The agency acted successfully with regard to nuclear activities in certain places like Japan, but it bowed [to pressure] where it faced political barriers and proved unsuccessful.

The head of Iran's nuclear programme, Ali Akhbar Salehi, sounded a different tune after his press conference with El Baradei. Confirming the late October inspection date for the second enrichment plant and discusions on "third-party enrichment", he said, “As far as safeguards are concerned, Iran's nuclear issue has been fully resolved."

1200 GMT: Report that two members of the reformist student group Daftar-Tahkim-Vahdat (Unity Consolidation Bureau) are still in Evin Prison, with 16 released yesterday. Original reports were that there were 15 detainees, and all were freed.

0920 GMT: El Baradei calls for Iran to rejoin the Subsidiary Protocol (Code 3.1) of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which provides a stricter framework for inspection and monitoring. Iran left the Protocol in 2007 after a dispute with the IAEA over access to information on military programmes as well as the nuclear facilities.

0915 GMT: El Baradei says, "All in all, a positive development," but he reiterates, "I have been saying for a number of years we need transparency on the part of Iran and cooperation on the part of the international community." This is "the critical moment...shifting gears from confrontation into transparency and co-operation".

0910 GMT: El Baradei praises Iran "very positive" response on both the question of access to the second enrichment facility and "third-party enrichment" of low-grade uranium for radiomedicine use.

The date for inspections of the facility near Qom is 25 October.

0905 GMT: IAEA head El Baradei and the head of Iran's nuclear programme, Ali Akhbar Salehi, are now briefing the press on their discussions in Tehran.

0620 GMT: There is little information on the biggest story in Iran because talks on the draft National Unity Plan have gone very private. For example, little has been heard from Mehdi Karroubi, for a week, possibly because discretion is needed in this critical period of negotiations.

There is also little so far on the visit of International Atomic Energy Agency head Mohammad El Baradei to Tehran beyond the Iranian insistence that this has nothing to do with the Geneva talks and is instead aimed at the "continuation of cooperation to supply fuel for Tehran research reactor which produces radiomedicine".

We are left instead with overheated "revelations" on Iran's nuclear programme. Once again, it's David Sanger and William Sanger of The New York Times who are leading the rush with the headline, "Report Says Iran Has Data to Make a Nuclear Bomb", soon picked up by everyone from Reuters to Fox News. The report in question, a study by IAEA experts, says that "sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable implosion nuclear device based upon HEU [highly-enriched uranium] as the fission fuel".

Now note that this does not mean that Iran has embarked on the process of putting highly-enriched uranium into a warhead. It does not indicate that Iran has embarked on the process of converted low-yield uranium into highly-enriched uranium. It does not establish that Iran has enough low-yield uranium to produce the HEU for a Bomb. It does not even say that Iran has a design for a nuclear weapon. It only says Iran has "sufficient information".

This, however, is enough for Broad and Sanger to pretend that this is a dramatic revelation of a super-secret plot, as the information "go[es] well beyond the public positions taken by several governments, including the United States". And it is the platform for them to take a swipe at El Baradei for refusing to make the study public.

Heck, the extracts from the study are not even "new". They were revealed in an Associated Press article by George Jahn on 17 September. What is significant is the timing of the Broad-Sanger piece, published less than 72 hours after the Geneva talks. If they really wanted to give us some meaningful information, they would reveal whether their Page 1 quest started with a reading of the Jahn piece, notice of a 2 October report by the Institute for Science and International Security (which mentioned Jahn's article and published extracts of the IAEA report, but which is only mentioned deep in The New York Times piece --- we've posted full text in a separate entry), or  a helpful pointer from an Administration source.

It's perfect fodder for bang-the-war-drum headcases like Elliott Abrams, the former Deputy National Security Advisor under George W. Bush and convicted criminal in the Iran-Contra scandal. Here's Abrams explaining that "most Iranians" would accept a military attack on their country:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLYujym5wNU&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

The Latest from Iran (1 October): From Geneva to "Unity"?

Iran: Mousavi Meeting with Reformists (30 September)
Iran: Karroubi Letter to Rafsanjani (27 September)
Iran Top-Secret: The President’s Gmail Account
Iran’s Nuclear Programme: Obama Backs Himself into a Corner
UPDATED Iran: So What’s This “National Unity Plan”?
The Latest from Iran (30 September): Confusion

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

1955 GMT: How to Claim Victory. The Times of London slaps the headline, "Iran bows to sanctions pressure to allow inspectors", on its summary of the Geneva talks. Hmm.... There's nothing in the article to suggest an Iranian concession to a meaningful sanctions threat, and having been up-close-and-personal with Press TV tonight, trust me, the Iranians aren't bowing. Posturing, even swaggering a bit, but not bowing.

1945 GMT: And Now Obama. The President has given his seal of approval to the US line: a "constructive start" but if Iran does not live up to its obligations, US will move to "increase pressure". He signalled that Mohammed El Baradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, will soon visit Iran. "Hard work lies ahead."

1935 GMT: The Deal? Meanwhile, the Western media continues to miss the announcement, enthusiastically proclaimed by Press TV, that officials from Iran and the "5+1" powers will have technical talks on 18 September on "third-party enrichment".

A further signal why this is important: "Russia is ready to further enrich Iran’s uranium stocks for use as fuel in a civilian research reactor, depending on approval from the United Nations, a person familiar with the matter said today."

1920 GMT: Hold the Line. As the US Government prepares to consider its position after today's talks, no doubt in a domestic environment with critics screeching "appeasement", Hillary Clinton amplified the American statement (see 1753 GMT):

It was a productive day, but the proof of that has not yet come to fruition, so we’ll wait and continue to press our point of view and see what Iran decides to do....We want to see concrete actions and positive results. And I think that today’s meeting opened the door, but let’s see what happens.

1830 GMT: Another twist in the line of Foreign Minister Mottaki over the revelation of the second enrichment plant. Having put forward the case of four Iranian officials and scientists who have "disappeared" since 2007 (see 1350 GMT), Mottaki told the Council for Foreign Relations, "We think in Pittsburgh President Obama was misled based on wrong information and wrong analysis. The wrong analysis was provided by the British. Wrong information by certain terrorist groups."

It appears that, even though this issue has been overtaken by today's talks, Mottaki's statement points to a wider strategy: blame the British for being "hard-line" while praising the US as "flexible" and willing to negotiate if they are not misled by their partners (see 1710 GMT).

1723 GMT: In contrast to the forceful moves by the Iranians, the US post-talk statement is, well, weak: "[Undersecretary Burns] addressed the need for Iran to take concrete and practical steps that are consistent with its international obligations and that will build international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of it program."

1715 GMT: This is already a Huge-Win Day for the Iranian Government, and they're looking to make it bigger. European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana has said that Iran has promised to invite the International Atomic Energy Agency to visit the second enrichment facility near Qom, possibly "in the next couple of weeks". And chief Iranian negotiator Saeed Jalili gets a prime-time platform on CNN with Christiane Amanpour this evening.

1710 GMT: Press TV is positively gushing over today's talks with "progress to some extent". They are noting that there will be not only the renewed high-level talks at the end of the month but a meeting on 18 October to consider "third-party enrichment" of uranium for an Irnaian facility. Interestingly, their correspondent says Britain and France seemed to have a hard line in the talks, but the US was "much more flexible".

1640 GMT: We'll have a full analysis tomorrow on the talks in Geneva but here's a teaser: Crunch Time for Obama?

The Iranians have achieved their primary objective, which is to avoid an immediate condemnation and the threat of sanctions from a "breakdown" of today's discussions. That's why they were so eager to let it be known that another round of talks is planned for the end of October.

But, as we've noted, President Obama will now have to face his domestic critics who will wonder, after his tough talk last week on the "secret nuclear plants", why he is even agreeing to another get-together. The response to that may have been laid out by the lead US official at today's talks, Undersecretary of State William Burns, who told National Public Radio yesterday, “If the talks fail, which I assume they will, because of the Iranians, then I think President Obama will be in a stronger position internationally to argue for stronger sanctions,” and predicted the collapse would occur within a month.

Fair enough. What happens, however, if the Iranians continue to give just enough for the prospect of an agreement but not necessarily a grand resolution by 1 November? Will the US Government collapse the talks just to get the showdown that is being pressed upon Obama?

As I told La Stampa earlier this week, the President is caught between two wings in his Administration. He cannot maintain his balance between them forever.

1610 GMT: Confirmation. Well, the Iranians didn't wait long. The delegation was hardly out the door of the Geneva talks when it informed the Islamic Republic News Agency, "The next round of talks will be held at the end of October."

1515 GMT: And Here's The Spin for The Continuing Talks. A US official is telling journalists in Geneva that the tone has been "civil" but Iran's delegation lacks the "cohesion and confidence" to make a deal.

1510 GMT: Score One for Us Good Guys. We projected that the best result coming out of today's meeting in Geneva would be an agreement to have another meeting. This just in from The Los Angeles Times:

Undersecretary of State William Burns met Saeed Jalili, Iran's chief negotiator, "on the margins" of the nuclear talks this morning, said State Department spokesman Robert A. Wood. The meeting lasted about 30 minutes.

The bilateral session came after Iran and representatives of six great powers convened this morning in a secluded villa on the outskirts of Geneva to try to relieve growing international pressure over Tehran's nuclear program. Burns and Jalil went off as the others ate a seafood buffet lunch, then all of diplomats reconvened in a plenary session and were expected to talk for several more hours this afternoon.

U.S. officials said they expected the session to perhaps lead to another meeting.

1505 GMT: Iranian businessman Bijan Khajehpour was released on bail Wednesday, days after US National Public Radio raised his case in an interview with President Ahmadinejad.

1450 GMT: So Which Congressmen Did Iran's Foreign Minister Meet? Washington TV, drawing from the Islamic Republic News Agency, says that Manouchehr Mottaki was not just seeing the sights in Washington. He met two members of the "Foreign Relations Committee" (presumably in the US Senate). They "asked Mottaki whether Iran would allow access to the [[second enrichment] site, to which he replied that Iran has always cooperated with the International Atomic Energy Agency and was ready to allow inspectors to visit the site". Mottaki added that Iran would “not give up its rights” under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT], but added that Tehran “has no plans to quit the NPT.”

1350 GMT: Espionage Story of the Day. The Arabic newspaper Asharq al-Awsat reports that Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, spekaing with United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, has complained about the disappearance of four Iranian officials and scientists, including former Deputy Minister of Defence Alireza Asgari. The newspaper speculates that one of the "kidnapped" quartet may be the source of revelations about Iran's second enrichment facility near Qom.

The story of the missing Iranians has provoked controversy since 2007. Asgari was reported by some sources to have "defected", but Tehran has maintained that he was abducted. Subsequent stories have pointed to an Israeli programme to disrupt Iran's nuclear plans through kidnappings.

1230 GMT: Clerical Movement. Grand Ayatollahs Nasser Makarem-Shirazi and Lotfallah Safi-Golpaygani have met at the latter's house for discussion. It is the first reported meeting of senior clerics after the emergence of a purported "National Unity Plan" and comes a day after Makarem-Shirazi's public call for unity.

1155 GMT: Fars News has posted an article on the morning talks in Geneva, considering subjects and "operational strategies" for the discussions. Saeed Jalili, the Secretary of Iran's National Security Council, led Tehran's delegation in the talks with the "5+1" countries and representatives from the European Union. Under Secretary of State William Burns headed the US team.

1120 GMT: A slow period as we've tended to academic duties. The non-Iranian media is wall-to-wall on the Geneva talks but with precious little to say before a statement is issued after the discussions. Joe Klein of Time takes the Gold Medal for media foolishness with a hot-air "profile", "Ahmadinejad: Iran's Man of Mystery". Its one merit is the irony of Klein's assertion, "The real headline [of meeting Ahmadinejad] was his apparent cluelessness," given that the article is clueless about Iran's nuclear programme, internal politics, and the character of the Iranian President.

The Silver Medal goes to William Broad and David Sanger of The New York Times who, not content with having presented the Administration's portrayal of the "secret nuclear plant" as Qom as Nuclear Bomb Gospel, decide they will write a piece that Iran might have Lots and Lots of such plants. Their evidence? The cryptic words "and others" in a statement from Iran's top nuclear official and, well, that's it really.

0820 GMT: Most Surprising Story of Day (So Far). In contrast to Press TV's "All is Well" story about the reaction to Iran's nuclear programme (0600 GMT), the Iranian Labour News Agency considers the comments of Mohammad El Baradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and headlines, "IAEA chief: Iran should take US offer".

0815 GMT: Telling Half the Story. The New York Times features an article by Michael Slackman on the regional perspective around the talks on Iran's nuclear programme. The piece begins:

As the West raises the pressure on Iran over its nuclear program, Arab governments, especially the small, oil-rich nations in the Persian Gulf, are growing increasingly anxious. But they are concerned not only with the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran but also with the more immediate threat that Iran will destabilize the region if the West presses too hard, according to diplomats, regional analysts and former government officials.

That seems a balanced assessment of the position of Middle Eastern states. So how does the headline portray this balance?

"Possibility of a Nuclear-Armed Iran Alarms Arabs"

0725 GMT: Reading the Clues for Geneva. CNN is the morning mouthpiece for the White House, repeating without considering the assertions of "three senior U.S. administration officials": "The United States wants a United Nations nuclear watchdog to have unfettered access to Iran’s recently revealed uranium enrichment site." And, if Iran doesn't make the correct response, "then isolation and sanctions are other options": “If it’s not going to succeed then there has to be consequences. They will respond. If not they will pay the price.”

Fox's Major Garrett, bizarrely, converts the same briefing into this lead paragraph: "The United States will not push for sanctions against Iran in Thursday's multilateral talks on its nuclear program in Geneva and is prepared to talk one-on-one with Iranian negotiations if such engagement appears 'useful'."

Those who want to do better than CNN or Fox News can read through the transcript of the State Department's "background briefing". Meanwhile, Reza Aslan cuts through the Administration line and the poor reporting to make the key point, "In short, without a real military option and with no guarantee that sanctions will have any effect, all we are left with—like it or not—is these negotiations"

0620 GMT: What the media is missing, as it is distracted by the Geneva talks, is the significant but still far-from-clear change in Iran's political landscape in the last 48 hours.

All indications are that a plan for political reconciliation --- whether it is in draft or final version --- has been circulating. Yesterday there was the dispute over whether Ayatollah Haeri-Sharazi had branded the plan "a lie", the supporting calls for unity from figures like Ayatollah Makarem-Shirazi, and, most importantly, the meeting of Mir Hossein Mousavi with the reformist Parliamentary minority, the Imam Khomeini Line.

Mousavi is clearly working with the notion of a "National Unity Plan", but we're divided here at Enduring America over whether that means Mousavi is reinforcing the Green Wave's challenge to the system or giving up political opposition for a more conciliatory, even accommodating concept of "social movement". Personally, what has disturbed me, putting all the reports together, is the exclusion of Mehdi Karroubi from the process. This feels like a compromise between Mousavi and elements within the regime (to be blunt, Mousavi and Rafsanjani). If true, what that means for the future of President Ahmadinejad is uncertain --- could there even be a vision of a new Government in which Mousavi would have a role? The Supreme Leader, on the other hand, would be in a far stronger position.

We should know more today after Rafsajani and former President Mohammad Khatami meet the Imam Khomeini Line.

0600 GMT: For the world's media, "Iran" will mean little more today than the talks on Tehran's nuclear programme in Geneva. While there are some useful scraps of informaton, most of the coverage relies on generalisations ahead of any meaningful news from Switzerland. Thus, CNN's "IAEA: Iran broke law with nuclear facility" squares off with Press TV's "Exclusive: IAEA letter thanks Iran over notification".

More importantly, almost none of the news outlets are able to read behind the superficial spin from the participating countries. Thus, the emerging picture --- that Washington's high-profile pressure tactics over the "secret nuclear plant" have put the Administration in a corner, as the possibility of significant sanctions recedes --- is missed. So, if Iran does not offer a meaningful concession to US demands today, Obama faces a bigger challenger than Tehran's non-Bomb: the domestic groups who will insist on a punishment that cannot be meted out.