Iran's Nukes: Text of IAEA Head El Baradei Statement (21 October)

UPDATED Iran’s Nukes: The Real Story on Vienna Talks and the Deal for Uranium Enrichment
The Latest from Iran (21 October): Room for a Challenge?

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 Wednesday afternoon Mohammad El Baradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, issued the following statement to the press on the Vienna talks between Iran and the "5+1" powers (US, UK, France, Russia, China, and Germany):

We just concluded our meeting of 2 1/2 days on "how-to" modalities, and how to ensure that Iran will have the fuel required for its research reactor.

As you know that research reactor is used for producing medical isotopes for diagnosis and treatment of cancer, so it is a purely humanitarian mission, objective.

However, everybody is aware that that transaction using Iran´s low enriched uranium to be manufactured into fuel is a very important confidence building measure that can diffuse a crisis that has been going on for a number of years and open space for negotiation.

I must say that, everybody who participated at the meeting was trying to help, trying to look to the future and not to the past, trying to heal the wounds that existed for many, many years.

I have circulated a draft agreement that reflects, in my judgement, a balanced approach on how to move forward.

The deadline for the parties to give, I hope, affirmative action, is Friday, two days from now. And if we do get an affirmative action, then I hope that we will have an agreement we can send to the BoG.

There has been talks on technical issues, legal issues, policy issues, issues of confidence and trust and that is why it has taken us some time and that is why we need to send the agreement to the capitals for final approval.

I very much hope that people see the big picture, see that this agreement could open the way for a complete normalization of relations between Iran and the international community.

It´s a very unique technical meeting, because it is a technical meeting although, that has been followed by heads of States, in fact with the actual engagement in the process. I would cross my fingers that by Friday we should have an okay, an approval, by all parties concerned.

Q: Can you tell us details?

Everybody should, including of course Iran, should sign up on this by Friday.

Q: France will also be included?

My proposal has France included.

Q: Do you think by the end of your term, this agreement could be endorsed?

I hope so, if we get an affirmative response by all parties by Friday then we have an agreement, then we just go to the Board for formal ratification. I will have to wait until Friday, I am optimistic and as I said, the spirit here was very constructive and forward-looking.

The Latest from Iran (21 October): Room for a Challenge?

NEW Iran Newsflash: Lawyer Shadi Sadr Wins Dutch Human Rights Award
NEW Iran: Taking Apart the Jundallah-US Narrative
Video (19-20 October): More University Demonstrations (Tehran & Karaj)
UPDATED Iran’s Nukes: The Real Story on Vienna Talks and the Deal for Uranium Enrichment
The Latest from Iran (20 October): Green Waves or Green Mirage?

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

1850 GMT: Spoiler Alert. And while Tehran is being encouraging about the draft enrichment agreement, the "Western" campaign to undercut it has already begun.

David Sanger of The New York Times, who seems to hang around in a hallway until a Government official tells him how to interpret a story, has fired the warning shot. After headlining, "Iran Agrees to Draft of Deal on Exporting Nuclear Fuel", Sanger swings a journalistic hammer at the apparent success. Making clear that "Western suspicions that Iran is secretly developing a nuclear weapon despite its repeated denials", rather than say, Iran's approach to the IAEA over its medical research reactor, "are at the heart of the negotiations", he "reports":

If the 2,600 pounds of fuel leave Iran in batches...experts warn, Iran would be able to replace it almost as quickly as it leaves the country....The estimate that Iran has about 3,500 pounds of low-enriched uranium “assumes that Iran has accurately declared how much fuel it possesses, and does not have a secret supply,” as one senior European diplomat [French? See 1835 GMT] put it....[President Obama] has not made the cessation of enrichment a prerequisite to talks, and the work is still under way, in violation of three United Nations Security Council resolutions.

Perhaps needless to say, Sanger doesn't name any of his "experts". Because this is not an analysis, it's a scare story. [Remember, it was Sanger who only on Monday was saying that Iran was threatening to walk out of the talks.] You Just Can't Trust the Big, Bad Iranians.

Well, perhaps not. But I'm not sure You Can Trust the Objective New York Times either.

1835 GMT: Iran Presses Its Nuclear Advantage. Ali Aghbar Soltanieh has offered a revealing summary of the Vienna talks to the Iranian Student News Agency. First, he made clear that Tehran would be holding Moscow close as the talks progressed:

We have announced that we are willing to cooperate with Russia within the framework of an agreement. Although certain other countries, including the U.S. and France, have been mentioned in the draft agreement, the main party in the agreement will be Russia.

Then Iranian diplomats celebrated an apparent victory over France. Not only had Paris been a vehement critic of Iran's nuclear programme in the run-up to the talks, but Iran --- as our readers noticed --- has a long-standing grievance against Paris over money paid for pre-1979 nuclear projects that were never completed. According to ISNA, "The French delegation apologized to Iran on Wednesday for their country’s past conduct toward Iran and asked IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei to make an effort to put France back in the draft agreement with Tehran."

1635 GMT: Not So Quiet Anymore. This may be the most significant piece of news that will go unnoticed this week.

This morning we wrote, "Watch Qom....The Grand Ayatollahs and Ayatollahs --- Dastgheib, Bayat-Zanjani, Sane'i, Safi Golpaygani --- are pressing for reforms to meet the post-election challenge, and he adds that none of those clerics are fans of Ahmadinejad. Just as significant, they do not operate in a vacuum but interact with secular' players in the political game."

Mehr News now reports:

Majlis Cleric Committee members are going to visit Ayatollah Mohammad Reza Mahdavi Kanni, MP Mohammad Taqi Rahbar said on Wednesday. The committee members, during their meeting, will discuss the incidents that followed up the June 12 presidential election and the proposal for the establishment of a national election committee, Rahbar, who also heads the committee, added.

The National Election Committee, put forward by 2009 Presidential candidate Mohsen Rezaei, may not be as prominent in discussions as the National Unity Plan, but it has still provoked heated opposition, both from those who think President Ahmadinejad's legitimacy is being questioned and those who believe it would curb the powers of the Supreme Leader. Conversely, it is galvanising senior clerics who are looking to press their challenge against the post-election abuses of the regime.

1445 GMT: A relatively quiet afternoon. There are rumours and uncertainty over whether or not President Ahmadinejad went to Tehran University today (see 1050 GMT). In the Parliament, there are twists over the complaint that pro-Ahmadinejad MPs were going to file about post-election behaviour by their opponents; the latest story is that Mir Hossein Mousavi is not named.

Meanwhile Press TV is featuring the story that the IAEA has passed the draft plan for uranium enrichment to national delegations for confirmation. It adds no details to reports from Western journalists.

1135 GMT: With many thanks to an EA reader, we've posted the news of a Dutch human rights awards for lawyer Shadi Sadr.

1055 GMT: Breakthrough? According to reporters in Vienna, International Atomic Energy Agency head Mohammad El Baradei has declared that a draft agreement on Iran's uranium enrichment has been reached. Deadline for confirmation by states is Friday.

1050 GMT: We're chasing the report that President Ahmadinejad has made a surprise visit to Tehran University and has been greeted by student protests.

1045 GMT: We've updated our page on the Supreme Leader's health after his appearance with female scholars yesterday.

0900 GMT: Following up our analysis of the effect of Sunday's bombing on Iranian politics and its relations with countries such as the US, we've posted an analysis by Josh Mull posing questions over the alleged link between the Baluch insurgent group Jundallah and the US Government.

0750 GMT: As the death toll from Sunday's bombing rose to 57, the UN Security Council "underlined the need to bring perpetrators, organisers, financiers and sponsors of this reprehensible act of terrorism to justice and urged all states ... to co-operate actively with the Iranian authorities in this regard".

0735 GMT: And just to add one more not-so-weak signal of both opposition potential and Government uncertainty from the last 48 hours. The videos from the University protests are striking: a Government representative shows up at a discussion to face loud protests and even a thrown shoe; 1000s gather despite the threat of academic punishment if not detention.

0645 GMT: Never underestimate the importance of timing. For all the plans and resources that a Government might have, the convergence of events can put a question mark over its efforts. For all the challenges that an opposition faces, developments far removed from their immediate concerns can provide opportunities.

And so, 96 hours after the Supreme Leader's reappeared, 72 hours after the bombings in southeastern Iran, 48 hours after the opening of the technical talks on Iran's nuclear programme, the Ahmadinejad Government --- which had been reasserting its position after the 18 September demonstrations --- seems to be drifting in the political arena. And, to add to its concerns, those who might take advantage are not just the Green Wave; "conservatives" and "principlists" who back the National Unity Plan that has gone to the Supreme Leader know that its first effects will be upon the authority of the President.

Ironically, the present show of strength for Ahmadinejad and Co. is in Vienna rather than Tehran. Iran's diva-ish manoeuvres yesterday, apparently refusing to show up for talks and then pursuing bilateral talks with the US to limit or exclude France in any plan, put the message that any "third-party enrichment" will not be imposed on Tehran but will be framed to meet its concerns. Whether this is because Iran wants a direct return of processed uranium from Russia or --- as a reader helpfully evaluates --- because it is punishing France for holding Iranian payments for pre-1979 nuclear contracts that were never fulfilled, the Iranian Government is dividing the "5+1" countries while maintaining engagement with Washington.

The regime's response to Jundallah's Sunday attacks is not so secure. Politically, the line set out by Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki yesterday was quite clever, looking to turn the bombing into co-operation with the Pakistani Government. The Revolutionary Guard appears to be spiralling into threats of vengeance, not only against Jundallah but against any foreign Government that comes to mind. The Guard's latest demand, that Pakistan allow Iranian troops to enter the country and hunt down insurgents, seems to be pointless bluster, as Islamabad will turn down the request quickly, if not sharply. This follows statements by Guard commander General Jafari, with the promise to retaliate against the US and Britain, that could have put the Government's political strategy --- based on engagement despite Sunday's events --- into disarray.

Possibly Ahmadinejad and the Guard are pursuing a good cop/bad cop strategy. Even so, the eyes of the Iranian military seem to have been diverted from the internal political situation. And with the Government occupied with other matters, there has been a curious silence --- both with respect to the Green movement and with respect to the National Unity Plan --- since last week.

This does not mean that the Government's power to assert its authority has been diminished. To the contrary, yesterday's announcement that the Iranian-American scholar Kian Tajbakhsh would spend 12 to 15 years in jail (a sentence passed several days ago) was meant to show that the fist was still clenched against supposed opponents at home and abroad.

Still, the space for political manouevre --- the space the regime hoped to close down with its threats, surveillances, and disruptions of communication --- has reopened. We still await the responses and unfoldings around Mir Hossein Mousavi's Sunday statement. Meanwhile, a well-placed EA source gives us another, equally important dimension.

This source advises, "Watch Qom". His interpretation is that the Grand Ayatollahs and Ayatollahs --- Dastgheib, Bayat-Zanjani, Sane'i, Safi Golpaygani --- are pressing for reforms to meet the post-election challenge, and he adds that none of those clerics are fans of Ahmadinejad. Just as significant, they do not operate in a vacuum but interact with "secular" players in the political game. So the vehement attack of the "conservative" member of Parliament Ali Motahari on the legitimacy of the President is not just because of Motahari's personal animosity and his connection with the Larijani brothers; it is also because Motahari, the son of an Ayatollah, is working with and reaction to another wave, this one from the Qom seminary.

It is 14 days to 13 Aban (4 November).

UPDATED Iran's Nukes: The Real Story on Vienna Talks and the Deal for Uranium Enrichment

Iran-US-Russia Deal on Enrichment, The Sequel
The Latest from Iran (20 October): Green Waves or Green Mirage?

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 1930 GMT: Talks have ended for the day, to be resumed tomorrow. IAEA head El-Baradei said that negotiations were moving forward though more slowly than he had expected.

Julian Borger of The Guardian has a useful summary.

UPDATE 1825 GMT: Yep, that's where the not-so-silly games are heading. Iran, wanting France out of the loop, is talking directly to the US delegation, according to Lara Setrakian of ABC News.

Press TV gives more details: An Iranian source confirms the "positive and constructive" bilateral discussions, adding, "It was agreed that more studies should be held on...renewing the secondary, control and electronic facilities" of the medical research reactor, the source added.

UPDATE 1810 GMT: Oh my, the Iranians are playing silly games now. Having wound up the media with their pre-talk threats, Tehran's delegation decided today to give France a poke in the eye by never showing up at discussions. Other diplomats are insisting that this is not a walkout, and the French Foreign Ministry maintains, "It is a meeting of experts, in which we are participating." However, Iranian officials via Press TV are declaring, "The elimination of France from the deal's draft is certain."

There is a likely explanation for this rather comic manoeuvring. Under the "third-party enrichment" proposal backed by the US, Iranian uranium is to be enriched by Russia and then sent to France to be shaped into metal plates. Tehran may be insisting that Paris is cut out of the process, with Russia sending the uranium, raised to 19.75 percent, directly back to Iran.

Some of the media coverage of yesterday's opening of the Vienna technical talks on Iran's uranium enrichment was beyond hopeless.



It was unsettling to see international broadcasters suddenly and excitedly discovering that there were talks and then, when those talks did not produce an outcome within hours, suddenly and not-so-excitedly proclaiming disappointment. At least, however, that produced comic moments such as CNN's Matthew Chance, like a boy discovering there was no candy in the shop, sinking from "lot of anticipation" to "jeez...all day silence...now the talks have broken up".

Far worse this morning is the spectacle of reporters, despite having some time to collect information and consider, repeating distracting and irrelevant spin as "analysis". The Wall Street Journal goes off on a tangent into nuclear Never-Never Land, "Iran Drops Deal to Buy Uranium in France". Swallowing Iran's eve-of-talks posturing rather than understanding it, The New York Times and David Sanger declare, "Iran Threatens to Back Out of Fuel Deal" with Tehran's "veiled public threats".

Really? Then how does Sanger explain the comment of the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohammad El Baradei, "We're off to a good start" in the second paragraph of his story? Maybe he could reflect a bit more on the quote handed to him by "a participant" (fourth paragraph):

This was opening-day posturing. The Iranians are experienced at this, and you have to expect that their opening position isn’t going to be the one you want to hear.

The real story, which EA has reported since Glenn Kessler's breakthrough story in The Washington Post last month, is that the deal to ship 80 percent of Iran's low-enriched uranium for processing in Russia and to use that uranium in a medical research facility (rather than for bombs) is on the table. Yesterday's public chest-puffing by Tehran does not change that agenda.

Indeed, both Time magazine and Sanger add details to that deal (although Time, in particular, does not have the professional decency to acknowledge Kessler's original article). Approaching the IAEA, Iran revived the idea --- broached by other countries months earlier --- of third-party enrichment of its uranium stock for the medical facility, and the Obama Administration ran with it during the President's trip to Moscow in early July. The top US official for nonproliferation, Gary Samore, put the proposal to the Russians.

Discreet talks between Iran, the IAEA, Russia, France (which would shape the enriched uranium as metal plates before it was returned to Tehran), and the U.S. followed. On three occasions, twice with El Baradei and once with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, President Obama stepped in to confirm and advance the initative. The deal was considered at the first direct talks between Iran, the US, and the other "5+1" countries at Geneva on 1 October, producing the agreement for further technical discussions in Vienna.

The very fact that the Administration would be is leaking so much information to well-placed reporters should indicate that the real story here is that the US, irrespective of Iran's public posturing, is going to persist with this proposal. That trumps any misleading headlines from journalists who yearn for drama to break "all day silence" and are prone, beyond the details in their own articles, to the image of a talk-stalling, deal-breaking Iran.

The Latest from Iran (19 October): Beyond Bombings, The Pressure on the Government

NEW Iran Snap Analysis: Mousavi’s Webcast Takes “National Unity” Beyond Politics
NEW Iran Discussion: The Bombings, Jundallah, and the US
NEW Video: Mousavi’s First Post-Election Webcast (18 October)
NEW Video: Larijani on The Bombings, Jundallah & The US (18 October)
Iran Newsflash: National Unity Plan Submitted to Supreme Leader

Iran: The Great Supreme Leader Health Mystery
Video: Blame on Sunni Group Jundallah, US For Bombing
The Latest from Iran (18 October): Today’s Bombings

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 Analysis8

1910 GMT: In case you're wondering why, after the initial media distractions (0825 and 1355 GMT), there were no updates on today's talks between Iran and the "5+1" powers over uranium enrichment....

Well, there was precious little to report, as all delegations stayed tight-lipped. The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohammad El Baradei, offered some general encouragement, praising "a good meeting....We are off to a good start," but saying only that talks would resume Tuesday morning.

This was always the most likely outcome, since details of uranium enrichment and the logistics of transport and processing can be surprisingly complex. However, it appears that some of the international media were expecting the drama of either an agreement or a breakdown within hours, if not minutes. That foiled expectation produced the day's alternative high point, the tragi-comedy of CNN's Matthew Chance sinking from excitement into chilly whimpering:

1. just did first live shot....talks not even started yet, but lot of anticipation
2. ok talks finally begun
3. gonna do live right now
4. freezing out here...
5. jeez..all day silence... now the talks have broken up....

1840 GMT: Clerical Hope. Grand Ayatollah Sane'i, meeting members of the Qom branch of the “Green Path of Hope”, has said different views should not lead to division and should be resolved through dialogue and negotiation. He asked, however, how one can speak to a Government that calls people agents of traitors and foreigners and that insults the families of martyred heroes. (English summary on Mousavi Facebook site)

1815 GMT: Khamenei Speaks (or At Least His Official Site Does). Back from an academic break to find the official statement from the Supreme Leader on the Sunday bombings: "The Islamic system shall not withhold any energy to defend the region and the people" against the terrorists and enemies "backed by arrogant governments".

1555 GMT: Supreme Leader Speaks? Reuters reports, from Press TV, that Ayatollah Khamenei has said that Iran will "punish" those responsible for Sunday's bombings and that enemies "can't harm the unity" amongst Iranians. It is unclear, however, whether the Supreme Leader's statement was in a message on his website or in a public appearance.

1545 GMT: Political Terms. We have been referring to Jundallah in the last 48 hours as a "Sunni group", but my impression is that a more accurate description would be "Baluch insurgent group", reflecting the regional emphasis of its objectives. Any comments most welcome.

1505 GMT: We have moved our snap analysis of Mir Hossein Mousavi's webcast on "National Unity" to a separate entry.

1435 GMT: Here They (the Revolutionary Guard and the "Western" Media) Go Again. A predictable if ridiculous escalation in the Iran v. US narrative. The commander of the Revolutionary Guard, General Jafari, makes his comments to Iranian journalists denouncing the US, Israel, and Pakistan in Sunday's bombings by Jundallah and promises to "retaliate" (see 0850 GMT). Reuters turns Jafari not only into the Ahmadinejad Government but all of Iran, as in its headline, "Iran Threatens Britain and US After Guard Bombing".  The Guardian gives a token nod to Islamabad but does no other reporting beyond Reuters' declaration with its  "Iran blames Pakistan and west for deadly suicide bombing: Iran vows revenge".

None of the "Western" journalists, to our knowledge, take any notice of last night's Cabinet meeting, which distanced itself from criticism of the US. Indeed, no one seems to bother to ask, "If Iran really blames the US for this act, why is it negotiating with Washington at the Vienna talks today?"

1355 GMT: A Non-Threat. Let's hope the Western press don't swallow this (frankly ridiculous) media bait on today's enrichment talks. Press TV is featuring the declaration, from "a source close to the meetings", "Iran Rejects 'Direct Talks' with France in Vienna".

Since Iran is not speaking directly to France but to the "5+1" powers, this is the reddest of red herrings having no significance whatsoever.

1345 GMT: Montazeri E-Mails the BBC. Grand Ayatollah Montazeri has responded to a series of questions from the BBC on the Iranian Government and the Islamic Regime. After a rather fatuous start, "What is your view of claims that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is in contact with the Hidden Imam and that his government is working for the return of the Mahdi?", the interview produces Montazeri's declaration, "Due to the short-sightedness, ineptitude and lack of wisdom, as well as arrogance and neglect of the demands of the majority of the people by a small inefficient minority, many of the initial ideals of the revolution have not been fulfilled." And he repeats his warning to the Supreme Leader:

As, in my view, the government will not achieve legitimacy without the support of the people, and as the necessary and obligatory condition for the legitimacy of the ruler is his popularity and the people's satisfaction with him; therefore, the present dissatisfaction - which is unfortunately increasing - will have a direct bearing on the legitimacy of the ruling establishment, unless the wiser figures in the nation can think of a solution by changing the current policies, and can remove the causes of the dissatisfaction of the majority of the people, and deal with the people with kindness, mercy, compassion and humility.

1315 GMT: Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi have each issued statements condemning Sunday's bombings.

1230 GMT: Another Post-Election Prison Sentence. Hedayat Aghaei, a senior member of the Kargozaran Party, has been sentenced to five years in prison for "disrupting the public order by provoking people to riot, propagating against the Islamic republic...and acting against national security”.

The twist in the tale is that Kargozaran has been seen more as a party linked to Hashemi Rafsanjani, raising the question of how much this is a symbolic move against the former President.

1045 GMT: Where is Khamenei? At the risk of re-igniting rumours and speculation, a question: is it unusual for no statement or appearance from the Supreme Leader given the death toll from yesterday's bombings in Sistan-Baluchestan?

1040 GMT: Hammihan News reports that journalist Masoud Bastani, detained in early July, has been sentenced to six years in prison.

0850 GMT: The Government's Disarray Continues. President Ahmadinejad may want to get a hold of his Revolutionary Guards commander, General Mohammad Ali Jafari. Jafari has upset the Cabinet's attempts to damp down talk of US-first responsibility for the Sunday bombings, telling journalists that Washington and Israel are behind the attack and claiming links of Jundallah head Abdolmalek Rigi with US and Pakistani intelligence services.

0840 GMT: The Pakistani Government has denied any link to Sunday's bombing in southeastern Iran. "Pakistan is not involved in terrorist activities ... we are striving to eradicate this menace," Foreign Ministry Spokesman Abdul Basit told the Daily Times newspaper .

Pakistani President Asif Zardari has called Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to offer his condolences and reaffirm Pakistan’s commitment to fighting extremists.

0825 GMT: As the technical discussions between Iran and the "5+1" powers (US, UK, France, Russia, China, and Germany) open in Vienna, Tehran is throwing up a lot of chaff to divert the media. Following yesterday's assertion that Iran was not looking for third-party enrichment but would seek to buy high-enriched uranium from the US and other countries, a spokesman for Iran's nuclear energy authority declared this morning, "If the talks do not bring about Iran's desired result ... we will start to further enrich uranium ourselves."

Don't be distracted. The main proposal on the table is still the US-developed plan, after Iranian signals in June, for 80 percent of Iran's low-enriched uranium to be processed to 19.75 percent in Russia. (Here's our reminder of the details of the plan and negotiations.) That is the message between the lines of this report from Press TV, under the cover of "local enrichment", "The United States is considering ways to officially announce that it has agreed to Iran's demand to locally enrich uranium, sources say. The US has held private meetings with its European allies in order to inform them about the decision."

0815 GMT: EA's Mr  Smith and Chris Emery met up last night for a chat about the Sunday bombing, Jundallah, and the allegations of US involvement. The outcome is in a separate entry.

0725 GMT: The effects of yesterday's bombings in southeastern Iran still resonate, with people inside and outside the Government trying to assess the political as well as "security" effects. The immediate impression is that the regime is in a bit of disarray, both from the shock of losing six senior Revolutionary Guard commanders and from the symbolic significance of a suicide attack inside Iran.

The immediate reaction of the Revolutionary Guard and, more interestingly, Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani (see separate video) was to blame "foreign elements" such as the US Government for the attacks, but this only caused further political complications. With an Iranian delegation meeting American counterparts and representative of the other "5+1" countries today for technical talks on uranium enrichment, the aggressive line risked a breakdown of engagement and, thus, the threat of harsher economic sanctions on Iran.

So the Ahmadinejad Cabinet, reviewing the situation last night, re-focused Tehran's strategy. blaming Pakistan and pressuring it to co-operate in the pursuit of Jundallah, the insurgent group blamed for the bombings. Given the complexity of Pakistani politics and its own tangled internal situation, that pressure is unlikely to lead to a resolution in the near-future.

But this is the only start of the bombings' political effects.

No doubt the Government will gather itself to put the attacks within the context of post-election "disturbances" by the opposition, but this is not the easiest of propositions. Jundullah is a political light-year away from the nature and content of the Green movement, and of course no one in the opposition is going to offer any public sympathy for violence against Iranian officials or the military, even the Revolutionary Guard.

So, while Ahmadinejad and advisors try to re-align the security situation, internal politics, and their international manoeuvres, there is a space for others to take advantage. And, indeed, yesterday's "other" events may prove more significant than the Baluchestan bombing. The revelation that the National Unity Plan has now gone to the Supreme Leader for consideration (see separate entry) establishes that, despite all the pressure from Ahmadinejad supporters to contain and even sabotage the Plan, a cross-section of groups --- and, yes, former President Hashemi Rafsanjani --- have persisted. We are still in the dark about the details of the Plan, but it has long been clear that its proposals for system reform, first and foremost in the short-term, will put limits and possibly pressure on Ahmadinejad.

So it is far more than notable that Mir Hossein Mousavi made his own intervention yesterday, for the first time using an Internet interview (see separate video) to set out his political vision and call on the Iranian people to persist in their efforts for change. Most importantly for now, he opened by aligning himself with the National Unity Plan while, at the same time, encouraging the Green movement to use "virtual media" to ensure its voice was heard.

UPDATED Iran-US-Russia Deal on Enrichment, The Sequel

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

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 15 October 0835 GMT: Finally! An unnamed journalist picks up on the third-party enrichment story at yesterday's State Department briefing by Philip Crowley:

QUESTION: The meeting coming up, the technical talks in Vienna about the low-enriched uranium – who is the U.S. sending, and how far do you expect to get in those meetings? What’s the sort of agenda and hopes for an outcome?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, it’s – we haven’t decided. Those arrangements are still being worked as to what the representation will be....These are technical talks, really, to work through the practical issues of how to ship the fuel out of Iran, and then provide the fuel that – for this research reactor....

QUESTION: But your understanding is that the Iranians are going forward with this, you know, a hundred percent. [Are the talks] actually just about implementing it right now, or is [the meeting] about in theory how it would work?

MR. CROWLEY: ...This is a confidence-building measure. There is the research reactor. It’s running out of fuel. And we think there’s a mechanism that can be put in place so that we can see that the shipment out of some of the existing Iranian stocks and then fuel for this particular reactor provided. I mean, it really is about working through the technical aspects of this. And...we believe that the meeting will go forward on October 19, and we’re working through the appropriate representation.


UPDATE 15 October 0730 GMT: The Hole in the Middle. Michael Slackman of The New York Times has a good but ultimately curious article this morning. In "Some See Iran as Ready for Nuclear Deal", he quotes analysts such as Trita Parsi, Flynt Leverett, and Juan Cole, as well as past statements from top Iran officials, to build his case.

The curiosity? Slackman never mentions the "third-party enrichment" proposal that proves his point.


UPDATE 1855 GMT: If you're clued up on the real story, then this statement by Vladimir Putin, former President and now Prime Minister of Russia, makes sense: "There is no need to frighten the Iranians. There is a need to reach agreements; there is a need to search for compromises." Stay the course on the ongoing, quieter discussions on third-party enrichment and Iran's second enrichment facility near Qom.

If you're not clued, then you're the ideal receptive audience for Press TV's spin on Putin's statement --- The Russians Are With Us Against the "West" --- "Putin Warns against Intimidation".

The story so far: last weekend we picked up on a scoop by Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post that, for four months, the US had been developing a plan for "third-party enrichment" by Russia of 80 percent of Iran's stock of low-enriched uranium. The processed uranium, now at 20% enrichment, would be used in Iran's medical research facilities. The proposal was presented to Iran before the Geneva talks at the start of October, and Tehran has accepted it as a basis for discussions.

We noted that, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in Moscow this week, the proposal was likely to be at the forefront of US-Russian talks on Iran. After all, the technical talks on enrichment between Iran and the 5+1 powers (US, UK, France, Russia, China, Germany) are next Monday. At the same time we wondered if the media, dazzled by the surface issue of sanctions, would take any notice.

Well, Clinton has had her meetings with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, and no one --- as far as we know --- figured out the real diplomatic game, as opposed to the diversionary one.

During the midst of Clinton's talks yesterday, news services were so at sea that they were blaring, almost at the same time,"Yes, the Russians Will Support Sanctions; No, the Russians Won't Support Sanctions", without giving a passing thought to enrichment.

Today is no better. The New York Times, still stuck on Lavrov's public posture that sanctions would be "counterproductive", headlines, "Russia Resists U.S. Position on Sanctions for Iran". The Guardian of London swallows the opposite PR line, "Clinton hails US-Russian co-operation on Iran", and the BBC, thrilled to get an interview with Clinton, nods its head as she declares, "Clinton: Russia Sees Iran Threat".

But the top prize for media dizziness goes to Mary Beth Sheridan of The Washington Post, who clearly doesn't read the stories published in her story (or at least those by Glenn Kessler). She expends more than 500 words shouting, "Russia Not Budging On Iran Sanctions". Buried well within them is the single line, "Under heavy international pressure, the Islamic republic agreed to admit inspectors and send much of its uranium to Russia for enrichment," which --- to say the least --- is a hydrogen bomb's distance from the account Kessler gave of the US-Iran talks.

And it is not as if Clinton didn't offer a clue to the real story to anyone sharp enough to listen: "Iran has several obligations that it said it would fulfill. We believe it is important to pursue the diplomatic track and to do everything we can to make it successful."

What are those obligations? "[Iran will] fulfill its obligation on inspections, in fact, open up its entire system so that there can be no doubt about what they're doing, and comply with the agreement in principle to transfer out the low-enriched uranium."

At which point a journalist on his/her game would have said, "Secretary Clinton, can you confirm that the agreement in principle concerns the plan developed since June for Iran to transfer uranium to Russia, enriching it from 3.5 to 20 percent?"

Unfortunately, the journalist who was called on to ask the final question ignored that possibility in favour of the "Oh Yes, The Russians Will. Oh No, The Russians Won't" script:"It sounds like you did not get the commitment from the Russian side in terms of sanctions or other forms of pressure that could be brought to bear on Iran. Could you comment on that?"

And who was that journalist? Take a bow, Mary Beth Sheridan of The Washington Post.