The Latest from Iran (29 October): Ahmadinejad Tries to Claim Legitimacy

NEW Iran: The Mousavi-Karroubi Meeting
Iran: The Supreme Leader’s Threat — Strength or Weakness?
Video: The Announcements for the 13 Aban Marches
Iran: Towards 13 Aban — The University Protests
Latest Iran Video: Families of Detainees Protest (28 October)
Iran: Are There Billions of Dollars Missing?
The Latest from Iran (28 October): The Supreme Leader Jumps In

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

1940 GMT: Mondo Bizarro Analogy of the Day. A superficial Daily Telegraph report, "Iran accused of playing games on nuclear deal", is redeemed by this quote from "one diplomati close to the talks": "It's like playing chess with a monkey. You get them to checkmate, and then they swallow the king."

1920 GMT: Throughout yesterday and today (1210 GMT) we have been noting the significance of a meeting between Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi. We have posted an English translation, courtesy of Khordaad 88, of the account of the discussion from Mousavi's Kalemeh.

1645 GMT: Defiance of the Day. Mowj-e-Sabz features the story of a mathematics student at Sharif University who challenged the Supreme Leader on Wednesday with a series of points about politics, media, and the Iranian leadership.

1505 GMT: Iran has formally submitted its response to the International Atomic Energy. As expected, Tehran has accepted the "framework" of third-party enrichment but wants further discussions on details, such as the timing and amount of uranum stock to be sent to Russia for enrichment.

The IAEA press release says merely, "The Director General is engaged in consultations with the government of Iran as well as all relevant parties, with the hope that agreement on his proposal can be reached soon."



1210 GMT: Now to Make Your Head Spin. In the current context of Ahmadinejad's move, this quote from Mir Hossein Mousavi in his latest talk with Mehdi Karroubi takes on significance: "The discussions in Geneva were really surprising and if the promises given (to the West) are realised, then the hard work of thousands of scientists would be ruined. And if we cannot keep our promises then it would prepare the ground for harder sanctions against the country."

Got it? Mousavi is against the third-party enrichment deal, trying to outbid Ahmadinejad as the defender of Iran's interests and sovereignty.

1200 GMT: Spinning Ahmadinejad Out of Control. The "Western" misunderstanding of the President's manoeuvre, not seeing the internal dimension in Ahmadinejad's quest for legitimacy through the nuclear talks, is escalating. CNN reproduces some of the quotes we have highlighted but reduces them to a "rare conciliatory note" struck by Ahmadinejad.

1110 GMT: Another note on the Ahmadinejad Nuclear Play (0850 and 1040 GMT). It is also significant that the Iranian President emphasised responsibility for past contracts in his talk today, calling on other countries to "fulfill their previous obligations"

We have nuclear contracts. It has been 30 years. We have paid for them…such agreements must be fulfilled … for technical activities, for reactors and power plants. If we intend to cooperate, such contracts must be addressed and the previous commitments must be fulfilled.

As an EA reader shrewdly noted during the Vienna talks, when Iran tried to sideline France from any agreement, Tehran is determined to get either finanical or political advantage out of pre-1979 payments to Western countries for nuclear reactors that were never completed.

1105 GMT: An EA source claims that Iran's judiciary officials are refusing to allow the lawyer of Iranian-American scholar Kian Tajbakhsh to file an appeal against his 15-year prison sentence.

1040 GMT: Western media are buzzing about President Ahmadinejad's statement on the nuclear talks (see 0850 GMT), to the point of mis-reading it.

The Los Angeles Times has a lengthy snap analysis which declares, "Iran's president appears to back nuclear proposal". That's not quite right. Ahmadinejad did not refer to the specific deal on third-party enrichment which Iran is still considering (its reply is supposed to be presented by its Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency today). Instead he declared:

In the past ["the West"] said that we had to halt our nuclear activities. But today they say, 'Come consult about finding solutions for world problems,' and they want to cooperate for the exchange of fuel and development of nuclear technology and establishing a nuclear plant.

That is not an endorsement of a specific agreement but of the general process, and it is an endorsement based on the political advantage for the President rather than any benefit to Iran's nuclear position.

In other words, as we predicted and then debated in early October, Ahmadinejad is trying to use the Geneva and Vienna talks to establish an internal legitimacy that has been in question since 12 June. Whether that effort, which is largely going unnoticed by "Western" media succeeds, will be highlighted by the events up to and including the 13 Aban demonstrations.

0925 GMT: Human Rights Activists in Iran has issued its latest update on the status of post-election detainees, including the hunger strikes of Fariba Pajooh and Hengameh Shahidi.

0850 GMT: Ahmadinejad's Nuclear Play. The Iranian President has asserted, in a televised speech from Mashaad, that Iran will not retreat "one iota" on its nuclear rights, but it is ready to cooperate on uranium enrichment and nuclear technology. The proposed deal for third-party enrichment for Tehran's medical research reactor is Iran's opportunity to evaluate the "honesty" of world powers and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The President's trip to Mashaad, which is to be the first in a series of visits around Iran, and Iranian press --- as opposed to colleagues in the "West" --- are noting his general references to various issues in housing, industry, agriculture, water and natural resources, and urban planning. However, I'll repeat: Ahmadinejad is clearly using the nuclear figure to strike the pose of confident leader defending Iran. However, focusing on the international front is risky, given the bubbling internal situation leading up to 13 Aban (4 November).

0830 GMT: Ayatollah Khamenei is not the only political figure making a headline statement. The reformist politician and cleric Abdollah Nouri, in an interview with Advar News (summary via Pedestrian), declared that the post-election detentions were a signs of the regime's "hopelessness":

Each of these prisoners is connected to a bigger network. And their family, their friends, the country, we all feel close to them. The establishment has kept them in prison, to keep this protest against the establishment alive? What kind of strategy is that? I am guessing that certain analysis are offered to the lord of the establishment, which predicts that if the prisoners are freed, the establishment’s problems will grow. This is an analysis made out of hopelessness and must not be the basis for decision making.

But Nouri's attack went much farther:

They consider the parts of the constitution which stresses the rights of the people to be worthless trash and other parts as a holy book. When people act on their legal rights, they consider it an act against national security and a step towards overthrowing the system. So who is not acting according to the constitution, the protesters or the establishment?

0815 GMT: The Supreme Leader also made a public statement in his meeting with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Wednesday, focusing in this case on Iran's regional position: "The Western prescription for solving problems in the [Middle East] is not justice-based and efficient and cannot solve the region's issues, including the issues of Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan."

Khamenei praised Erdogan's policies, declaring, "Your stance in supporting the Palestinian people was rational and a right move in line with Islam. Adopting such stances will strengthen Turkey's position in the Muslim world."

0720 GMT: We begin today with an analysis of the Supreme Leader's threat to the opposition, handed down in a statement on Wednesday, which may surprise some readers.

Far from seeing it as a move of strength to break up the movement before 13 Aban (4 November), I am reading it as a speech coming out of regime uncertainty and worry over recent signs of protest, both from leaders and from the general public.

Meanwhile, the Government has flexed its muscles, albeit against another "foreign agent" with no connection to the Green movement. Hossein Rassam, an Iranian employee of the British employee, has been sentenced to four years in prison. Rassam was arrested soon after the 12 June election and paraded in the Tehran trials --- like Kian Tajbakhsh, the Iranian-American scholar recently given a 15-year jail term --- as a prime example of the "velvet revolution".

On the international front, a International Atomic Energy Agency team has returned from its three-day inspection of the second uranium enrichment plant at Fordoo near Qom. The head of the team called it a "good trip". Data from the plant will now be analysed and summarised in a report for the IAEA's Governing Board.

Latest from Iran (26 October): After the Fair

NEW Latest Iran Video/Translation: Karroubi on Events in the Iran Media Fair
NEW Iran’s Political Confusion: Khamenei, Ahmadinejad, and the Nuclear Agreement
NEW Iran: Turning Bombings into an Alliance with Pakistan
NEW Video: The Media Fair Demonstrations (25 October)

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

2105 GMT: Mehdi Karroubi's website Tagheer is back on-line (see 1438 GMT).

1945 GMT: We cannot corroborate but it is being reported that flyers of Karroubi's webcast statement (see separate entry) are being put up across Tehran.

1935 GMT: Families of political prisoners have announced that they will demonstrate on Wednesday, protesting the continued imprisonment of their relatives. If the authorities do not heed the protest, the families will continue demonstrations and begin a mass hunger strike.

1925 GMT: Kalemeh, the website associated with Mir Hossein Mousavi, has published its account of the appearance of Mousavi advisor Alireza Beheshti at the Tehran Media Fair yesterday. Beheshti was with his wife and daughter, as well as supporters, when they were surrounded by 50 to 60 people who began yelling loudly against Beheshti. Kalemeh invokes the memory of Beheshti's father, the assassinated Ayatollah, claiming that many were reminded of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq's chant of “Down with Beheshti”. (English summary on Mousavi Facebook page)

1515 GMT: Radio Farda is reporting that 50 striking workers at Ahvaz Pipe Mills were arrested today. Employees have not paid for 10-14 months.

1445 GMT: Mediawatch. Credit to the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, and Time magazine for picking up on the internal dynamics affecting Iran's decision on the enrichment deal, with varying degrees of success.

Borzou Daragahi in the LA Times is the most effective, noting Ali Larijani's criticism of the proposal. He conflates this, however, with a statement from another high-ranking member of Parliament "close to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad", Alaeddin Boroujerdi --- Boroujerdi's shot fits more with moves by the Iranian Government to get better terms, while Larijani's is a direct attack against the negotiations.

David Sanger in The New York Times opens with a reference to Larijani but gets distracted by the Western perspective --- "even some of President Obama’s aides are wary that Iran is setting a trap". Andrew Lee Butters in Time asks the key question, "Why the delay?", but struggles to understand the internal situation.

1438 GMT: Coincidence? While Karroubi seizes the political initiative, his on-line newssite, Tagheer, is down.

1435 GMT: We've posted the video of Mehdi Karroubi, with English translation, drawing lessons from the events at the Iran Media Fair: "We will not retreat."

1355 GMT: A Signal? State television is quoting the Supreme Leader's blame upon foreign agents, seeking Shiite-Sunni conflict, for recent violence: "The bloody actions being committed in some Islamic countries, including Iraq, Pakistan and in some parts of the country (Iran), are aimed at creating division between the Shiites and Sunnis.....Those who carry out these terrorist actions are directly or indirectly foreign agents."

This is a far from surprising statement for Ayatollah Khamenei, but the timing, given our current thoughts about a move to cut off engagement with the West, may be significant.

1345 GMT: Playing for Time. Amidst what could be an extraordinary political story in Iran over the enrichment deal (see analysis in separate entry), Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki offered a very ordinary, non-commital statement today, "Iran's decision on the provision of necessary fuel for the Tehran reactor will be announced in the next few days. There are two options on the table ... either to buy it or to give part of our fuel for further processing abroad."

0930 GMT: We've posted an analysis from Iran, courtesy of Iran Review, pointing to Tehran's move for closer relations with Pakistan in the aftermath of the Sistan-Baluchestan bombings.

0735 GMT: The Story to Watch Today. If we're right, Iran may be on the verge of one of the most important political decisions --- with effects inside and outside the country --- since 12 June. Weekend statements by Speaker of the Parliament Ali Larijani and Mohammad Reza Bahonar point to the Supreme Leader's intervention to block the Vienna nuclear agreement and engagement with the US. If this happens, the even bigger effect could be on the legimitacy of President Ahmadinejad. We've got the story in a separate entry.

0720 GMT: National Unity Latest. No words for days since the National Unity Plan supposedly went to the Supreme Leader for his consideration. Mizan Press has a useful summary of the political situation, without offering any new details.

0710 GMT: Nuclear Hype. While Iranian state media plays up Washington's alleged backed of "terrorist" organisations, "Western" media --- with the considerable assistance of unnamed Government officials and diplomats --- plays up Iran's imminent Bomb.

In this case, the drum-thumper is Reuters and "imminent" is 18 months. There's no evidence in the article, only the bland assertion of one of the officials, "It's not a formal assessment or formal agreement but a rough agreement that we can all work with more or less."

Actually, "imminent" is not so imminent in this case, perhaps indicating a bit of breathing space for Obama-led engagement as Tehran considers an enrichment deal --- previous media spin has been of an Iranian bomb within a year. Still, we offer this naive question:

Given that Iran cannot even enrich uranium to 20 percent for a medical research reactor --- the technical reality behind Tehran's consideration of third-party enrichment --- wouldn't this indicate obstacles to enrichment of uranium to the 90 percent needed for a weapon?

0650 GMT: More Finger-Pointing at US over Jundallah. Last week La Stampa and Enduring America featured the comments of the retired head of Pakistan's intelligence service, Lieutenant Hamid Gul, linking the Baluch insurgent group Jundallah and last week's deadly suicide bombing to American intelligence services.

Now Iranian state media are headlining the assertion of the former chief of staff of the Pakistani army, General Mirza Aslam Beg: "Helping the Rigi terrorist group launch terrorist attacks against Iranian civilians and military personnel in the border regions is one of the main strategies pursued by the US to confront Iran."

The Islamic Republic News Agency is featuring the interview, which also includes Beg's praise for "the positive steps Iran has taken in Afghanistan and its all-out cooperation with Pakistan", and Press TV is also pushing it.

0630 GMT: The excitement and uncertainty stirred up by Mehdi Karroubi's appearance on Friday at the Tehran Media Fair continued on Sunday, as rumors swirled around possible Green demonstrations and Government reactions. The most prominent story in the end, given that Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mohammad Khatami did not follow up Karroubi's attendance, concerned Mousavi advisor Alireza Beheshti at the Fair. The cycle of Friday --- arrival, chants of Green support, a response from those backing the Government, Behesti's departure, and opposition celebration of another symbolic victory --- was repeated.

The events of the last 72 hours are now getting some attention outside Iran. Ramin Mostaghim and Borzou Daragahi, writing in The Los Angeles Times, pick up on the Karroubi episode and also note earlier stories such as the political back-and-forth over the "Kayhan guestbook" (see our updates throughout last week).

A Brilliant Neo-Con Idea: Crippling Iran to Save It

The Latest from Iran (16 October): Rumours and Drama, Khamenei and Karroubi

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

Yesterday I noticed an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times by John Hannah, a former assistant to Vice President Dick Cheney. Hannah --- notable in the Bush years for being Cheney's fixer, running over other Government agencies to ensure the Vice President's will was done on issues from "enhanced interrogation" to rendition to Iraq --- is now declaring his concern for the Iranian people, who will accept "additional hardships" to remove their regime. Fortunately, whereas his boss Cheney pressed in 2007 for the "additional hardship" of bombing Iran, Hannah is now merely talking about a range of damaging economic sanctions.

Once my temperature cooled, I could not bring myself to acknowledging Hannah's piece by responding to it. Fortunately, Maryam from Keeping the Change can, in this effective decimation of the rhetoric and reality of Hannah's proposal. Hannah's original words follow her comment:

John Hannah Want to "Cripple Iran to Save It"

We have to admit: John Hannah's op-ed in the Los Angeles Times (below) takes a clever approach to the old-line heard from most U.S. neo-conservatives on the need to confront Iran with "harsh sanctions" and/or "military action". Citing to an anonymous group of Iranian activists with which he purportedly met while in Europe, Hannah argues in his article that the Iranian Opposition movement wants, but cannot openly call for, "crippling sanctions" against Iran. A provocative point --- should we believe him?

For several reasons, all signs point to no.

Leaving aside the fact that he was formerly a close advisor to Dick Cheney, one of the most vocal proponents of military action against Iran, Hannah is currently affiliated with the right-wing Washington Institute for Near-East Policy, a think tank founded by members of the American-Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) in the mid-1980s. AIPAC is a powerful pro-Israel lobby and one of the most influential lobbying groups in the United States. Appreciating that AIPAC's partisan reputation limited its abilities to push the U.S. government on certain policy and legislative proposals, its founders established the Institute in the hopes of having a credible, "objective" vehicle through which to push AIPAC's agenda. In the nearly 25 years since its creation, the Institute has, by and large, taken policy positions that support a more right-wing approach to the Middle East, which are generally in-line with AIPAC's political goals and have included advocating military confrontation with and other harsh measures against Iran.

Now, Hannah's op-ed seems cleverly designed to make challenging his position difficult. According to Hannah, while members of the Opposition Movement, such as former Presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, have publicly opposed sanctions they have little choice but to take this position. While it is surprisingly hard to confront such a claim, no matter how contradictory it may seem, a quick canvassing of comments made by high-profile members of the "Movement in Exile" suggests the deception of Hannah's argument. To whit, his claims are directly at odds with public statements made by prominent Opposition figures currently based outside Iran, such as the human rights activist Shirin Ebadi and the U.S.-based dissident cleric Mohsen Kadivar, both of whom have opposed wide-raging economic sanctions of the sort suggested by Hannah. Now maybe Hannah could convince us that even these individuals are too fearful of government reprisals to speak out in favor of sanctions -- but, then, one wonders, why this fear has not stopped them from coming out in support of the Opposition Movement over the last four months. Moreover, Hannah's selective quotation of Iran analyst and Obama advisor Karim Sajjadpour also appears to be misleading. His attempt to equate Sajjadpour's purported suggestion that "punitive measures" imposed by the United States may be to the liking of Opposition leader, with Hannah's call for "crippling sanctions" is a tenuous argument at best.

We do not doubt that Hannah did in fact speak to Iranian activists while in Europe. But, based upon the statements he attributes to these individuals, he most likely met with members of the exiled Iranian dissident group Mojahedin-e-Khalq, an organization which is in no way affiliated with the Green Movement. For the last thirty years, the Mojahedin has been the most organized Iranian exile group, actively working to bring down the regime. With an army base in Iraq, along the Iran-Iraq border, and a political headquarters in Paris, the group's primary support comes from members of the Iranian diaspora (particularly in Europe), rather than from amongst people inside Iran. During the Bush Presidency, the Mojahedin was widely known to have allied itself closely with the Administration's neo-conservative hawks and to have consistently pushed for military attack against Iran. Since the organization's activities inside the United States were significantly curtailed after September 11th (the group was officially designated by the State Department as a terrorist organization in 1997, in response to pressure from Iran and in the hopes of achieving a detente with the Reformist Government of then-President Mohammad Khatami), any meeting with high-profile group members would likely have required Hannah to travel to Europe.

In short, John Hannah's claims that Opposition figures support sanctions against Iran is nothing but smoke and mirrors. Those who want to "Cripple Iran to Save It" remain the same individuals who pushed to attack Iran during the Bush years, namely, a coterie of neo-conservative hardliners and exiled Iranian political groups out of touch with the realities of the country.

"Cripple Iran to Save It" by John Hannah

"If current negotiations falter, international efforts to curtail Iran's nuclear program may escalate to the imposition of "crippling sanctions" or even the use of military force. A crucial question that policymakers must consider is whether such punitive measures would help or hinder the popular uprising against the Iranian regime that emerged after the country's fraudulent June 12 presidential elections.

The so-called green movement -- the color has been adopted by the opposition -- poses the most serious challenge to the survivability of the Islamic Republic in its 30-year history. Few analysts doubt that if it succeeded in toppling Iran's hard-line regime, the crisis over the Iranian nuclear program would become far more susceptible to diplomatic resolution.

Before June 12, conventional wisdom suggested that both harsh sanctions and military action would likely strengthen the Islamic Republic by triggering a "rally around the regime" effect. Iran's rulers, so the argument went, would exploit outside pressure to stoke Persian nationalism, deflecting popular anger away from the regime's own cruelty onto the perceived foreign threat -- in effect, short-circuiting the country's incipient democratic revolution.

But the conventional wisdom has taken something of a beating post-June 12. Before the elections, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sought to blame all of Iran's travails -- a deteriorating economy, international isolation, the mounting threat of war -- on the United States and Israel. But the Iranian people were buying none of it. On the contrary, by the millions they have gone to considerable lengths over the last four months to make one thing clear: When affixing responsibility for the misery, shame and danger being visited on their once-great nation, they focus overwhelmingly on the ruling regime itself -- on its economic incompetence, its tyrannical nature, its international belligerence.

There's good reason to doubt they would react differently now were the United States and its partners to impose painful sanctions. If anything, the bloody crackdown the Iranian people have endured since the election has only fueled their hatred of the current ruling clique and their determination to be rid of it as soon as possible. Popular loathing of the regime has reached such levels that almost any negative development is likely to be seized on as ammunition to attack its gross misrule. Almost any outside action that further squeezes Iran's tyrants and calls into question their legitimacy in the eyes of the world will be welcomed, even at the risk of imposing additional hardships on the Iranian people. The last thing on their minds is defending an indefensible regime in the face of tough international sanctions.

That was certainly the message I heard at a recent gathering of Iranian activists in Europe, including figures closely linked to the green movement's leadership. Sanctions must be imposed, and in strong doses, the group urged. A weak dose, or gradual approach, only allows the regime to adjust, they said. To be effective, sanctions must act like a shock, not a vaccine.

Similarly, prominent Iran expert Karim Sadjadpour told a Washington conference last month: "Whereas in the past [the leaders of Iran's opposition] were ... unequivocally opposed to any type of punitive measures by the United States ... that's not the case anymore."

While it remains too risky for the opposition's leadership to call publicly for sanctions, Sadjadpour claimed that privately they are eager to discuss what measures would be most effective and to synchronize their activities with U.S. actions against the regime.

What about military action? This is a much harder call. Iran experts are split. The majority still maintain that Iranians would quickly unite to confront any foreign attacker. While opposition representatives I heard in Europe think that's unlikely, they are deeply worried that if the regime is not crippled in any military attack, it will move ruthlessly to crush their movement for good.

But a few Iranians -- especially in private -- see other possibilities. They suggest that a bombing campaign that spared civilians while destroying Iran's nuclear installations as well as targets associated with the regime's most repressive elements -- the Revolutionary Guard and Basij militia -- might well accelerate the theocracy's final unraveling at the hands of an already boiling population.

Accurately assessing how these different scenarios will play out is crucial for U.S. interests. The stakes could not be higher, and the answers are far from certain. But it does seem likely that the international community's room for maneuvering may be far more extensive than many believed before this summer's uprising. Just how extensive should be the subject of urgent review by the United States and its allies as they seek to ensure that the Islamic Republic's unprecedented domestic vulnerability is fully exploited to stop its dangerous march toward nuclear weapons.

UPDATED Iran: The Washington-Tehran Deal on Enriched Uranium?

The Latest from Iran (11 October): “Media Operations”

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

UPDATE 13 October 1900 GMT: For the love of Ed Murrow, is there a journalist out there who is not being led by the nose on the US-Russia Sanctions on Iran story?

Both The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times prefer to take the bait of Oh No, Russia Will Not Support US Sanctions, quoting Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, “Threats, sanctions, and threats of pressure in the current situation, we are convinced, would be counterproductive.” This apparently "throw[s] cold water on the Obama administration’s hopes that Russia had bxeen persuaded to cooperate with its effort to intensify the global pressure on Tehran".

Reuters prefers to be the mouthpiece for Oh Yes, Russia Will Support US Sanctions, relying on a US State Department spokesman who assures everyone that Russian President Dmitri Medvedev is "quite clear that, while pleased with the Geneva results, he expects Iran to implement them and if they don't there should be sanctions."

None of these journalists takes the time to ponder that they are being taken for a public ride. The proposal on the table for Secretary of State Clinton and her hosts is not sanctions but the Russian enrichment of 80 percent of Iran's uranium. All else at this point is a diversion.


UPDATE 1510 GMT: From Deception, Enlightenment. Want to see the clues to the possible US-Iran-Russia deal on enrichment? All you have to do is find the right angle on the mainstream media's simple reporting.

For example, Paul Harris in The Observer of London recites the finger-wagging party line of "American officials", "Clinton woos Russia over Iran sanctions", when she is in Moscow on Tuesday. Actually, in light of this story, expect the Secretary of State to be discussing --- privately, not publicly --- the details of third-party enrichment.

The Los Angeles Times has an even bigger tip-off. Modifying earlier media reports of a defiant position by the spokesman for Iran's nuclear energy organisation, it quotes from a later interview with Ali Shirzadian:

We’re looking at three options. We hand over 3.5% enriched and receive in return 20% enriched, or we buy 20% enriched on the market, or we will be allowed to enrich ourselves. I stress that no matter what option we take it will be monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency....Any of these options will work for both sides.

There have been been few "scoops" for the mainstream media during the post-election crisis in Iran, but Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post can claim one this morning:

"Iran four months ago discreetly contacted the United Nations-affiliated agency for nuclear energy to outline a worrisome situation: A research reactor in Tehran that produces medical isotopes that detect and treat the diseases of about 10,000 patients a week will run out of fuel by the end of 2010. Iran also had a request: Can you help us find a country that will sell us new fuel?"

The outcome? "An unusual deal, brokered largely by the United States, that aims to buy time for a diplomatic solution to the impasse over Iran's nuclear ambitions. If it works, Iran will end up with fuel necessary to treat desperately ill patients -- and greatly reduce its stock of low-enriched uranium."

This is the deal at the heart of the headline discussion of "third-party enrichment", probably by Russia, of Iran's uranium. Kessler explains that the source for the medical programme, 50 pounds enriched to almost 20 percent by Argentina, is running low. The Iranians have been asking for use of their stock of 3300 pounds, currently at about 3-4 percent enrichment, but that, of course, is tangled up in the debate over whether Tehran is looking for a pretext to produce weapons-grade uranium.

Under the Obama Administration's plan, "Iran...would have to give up about 80 percent of its stockpile to get back the same amount of uranium supplied by Argentina in 1993". Kessler, obviously using Administration sources, says that "White House official Gary Samore broached the idea to Sergei Kiriyenko, head of Russia's atomic energy agency, and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov. A senior U.S. official said, 'Both of them immediately said this is a great idea.'"

France is also involved, shaping the enriched fuel into uranium-aluminum
metal plates. And the International Atomic Energy Agency has helped broker the plan in talks with Tehran, including Mohammad El-Baradei's recent visit.

In the slow-moving world of international diplomacy, these are dramatic developments. However, there are two important points that Kessler --- in part because he feels obligated to sprinkle his article with superficial nay-saying ("critics question why the United States would be assisting a nuclear pariah"; "it will be too easy for Iran to extract the more highly enriched uranium for weapons") --- does not address.

First, this is the clearest possible sign that Washington --- come the hell or high water of its domestic opponents --- will be pursuing engagement. This is high-profile public relations: "senior Administration officials" have gone out of their way to place this story with the Post, knowing that it will get maximum attention over Sunday breakfasts through the capital. Every one of the boilerplate criticisms in Kessler's article is knocked back with an assurance such as "Iran has no known technical expertise at extracting uranium from a metal alloy".

Talk of deadlines and sanctions are now just window-dressing to distract the sceptics. While the Iranian regime will undoubtedly draw out negotiations, ensuring that the deal is not seen as a sign of its weakness, it sees value in the proposal: as Kessler notes, "[US officials] were relieved when, on the eve of the Geneva talks, he was quoted as saying that Iran would ship its low-enriched uranium to a third country for processing."

But here's the second point that does not even dawn on Kessler. "Four months ago", when Iran contacted the IAEA, was also "four months ago" when Iran was holding its Presidential election. Kessler does not identify when the US was informed of Tehran's approach, but one can assume it was soon afterwards.

So the Obama Administration took the decision that any position on Iran's internal turmoil was secondary to striking a nuclear deal. If the cost of that bargain was a granting of "legitimacy" to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it was a price worth paying.

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.