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

NEW Green Tweets: Mapping Iran's Movement via Twitter
NEW Iran: A Telephone Poll on Politics You Can Absolutely Trust (Trust Us)
UPDATED Iran: Rafsanjani Makes A Public Move with “Friendship Principles”
UPDATED Iran: How a Non-Story about a Non-Jew Became Media Non-Sense
The Latest from Iran (7 October): Drama in Parliament?

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

1900 GMT: It appears that the State Department's withdrawal of funding from four Iran-centred human rights organisations including the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center, which we noted yesterday, may get some media attention. Alex Massie of the British magazine The Spectator has written about the "shabby, and actually terrible" Government treatment of the groups, raising the concern of Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic magazine.

1845 GMT: A University student newspaper has been closed by Government order after it implicitly accepted that the Holocaust had occurred.

1545 GMT: We're here, but it is a really slow news day, compounded by breakdowns in communication. Twitter seems to be out of action. Press TV's website is still leading with yesterday's story of the Supreme Leader's speech, and CNN has nothing beyond the disappearance of the Iranian nuclear scientist Shahram Amiri (see 1025 GMT).

1050 GMT: Fereshteh Ghazi ("Iranbaan") has posted another set of updates on the conditions of detainees.

1025 GMT: Kidnappings and Talks. Both in Iranian and non-Iranian media, headlines are devoted to Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki's allegation, "We have found documents that prove US interference in the disappearance of the Iranian pilgrim Shahram Amiri in Saudi Arabia."

The claim elevates an already murky story into the current power politics around Iran's nuclear program. Amiri is one of four Iranians who have "disappeared", whether through defection or kidnapping, since 2007. All four have been connected with Iran's military or nuclear programme. (Note that Press TV coyly refers to Amiri, beyond the "pilgrim" status, as "a researcher".) There have been allegations that the disappearances may be connected with an Israeli covert effort to cripple Iran's nuclear efforts.

Mottaki's statement, however, is connected more with an attempt to get leverage in the post-Geneva negotiations. The article uses comments by University of Tehran academic Seyed Mohammad Marandi to put further pressure on the US, "As long as the United States continues to behave in an unacceptable manner, I think it will be very difficult for Iranians to be convinced that true negotiations can lead to a fruitful conclusion." Marandi also applies that pressure to Iran's regional manoeuvres: "What is even more disturbing is the fact that the Saudi regime has effectively discredited itself and...will be seen by those who know what has gone on in the region as being confined to American demands and effectively abiding by American wishes."

0955 GMT: A Bit of Fun. Thanks to Persian Umpire, we have posted the ultimate telephone poll of Iranians on politics and President Ahmadinejad.

0915 GMT: The Death Sentence is Noticed. Reuters, citing the Green movement website Mowj-e-Sabz, has written about the death penalty imposed on Mohammad Reza Ali Zamani (see 0620 GMT).

0910 GMT: Parleman News offers an overview of yesterday's events in the Iranian Parliament. The focus is on Ali Larijani's success (and thus President Ahmadinejad's defeat) in winning re-election as head of the Principlist majority party, but there is also a bit of light-hearted banter between journalists and MPs over the question, "Where is my vote?"

0635 GMT: Following up our story of the morning (0600 GMT): Ayande News has an interview with Saeed Mortazavi (pictured), most of which is on the events surrounding Kahrizak Prison. Mortazavi minimises his role in the detentions and abuses, claiming that deaths occurred because of "prior injuries" rather than incidents at Kahrizak.

0620 GMT: Beyond the politics, a curious silence this morning on our last report of yesterday, the first death sentence passed on a post-election demonstrator, Mohammad Reza Ali Zamani. Possibly because the news has not been reported inside Iran, I cannot find a sign that the opposition has picked up on the development. If the death penalty is carried out, it could offer the symbolism of a martyr --- as with Neda Agha Soltan or Soltan Arabi --- for high-profile protest.

0600 GMT: The open challenge in Parliament to President Ahmadinejad, or at least to some high-profile officials, did not materialise yesterday, despite the existence of a report into post-election abuses which could be the foundation for that confrontation.

The document remained classified, and no one --- not even the reformist press --- broke out to make claims beyond the identification of two likely culprits, Iran Deputy Prosecutor General Saeed Mortazavi and Tehran police chief Ahmad Reza Radan.

That does not mean that the challenge has evaporated. To the contrary, there are enough signals from conservative/principlist members of Parliament to indicate anger with a Government which both oversaw and covered up the abuses. The symbolic catalyst for this is "Kahrizak", the prison where detainees were beaten, on occasion to death. One of those detainees was Mohsen Rohulamini, the son of a prominent academic and adviser to conservative Presidential candidate Mohsen Rezaei, and it is his case that appears to have propelled the movement that someone has to answer for "crimes".

The question, as we noted yesterday, is how far that anger has translated into talks "across parties" not only to press the President on the report but to turn this into a wider attack on his authority.

We know that Hashemi Rafsanjani met principlist clerics on Tuesday. What we don't know is how much contact he has had with conservative/principlist politicians and officials within the Government. And we do not know what role the "Green movement", or rather its leaders, have in any discussions. It could be that the relative silence of Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi in recent days is because they are now in talks which need time to produce action, or it could be that they are on the outside but waiting to see what occurs.

Throughout the crisis, EA readers have reminded me that Iranian politics is rarely measured in days or even weeks but in far longer periods. That timeframe seems to fit here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Before going insane, I decided to rephrase the question:

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

Lo and behold, 100% said “yes”.

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

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

Iran: Talks and Legitimacy - Takeyh and Marandi on CNN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(END VIDEO CLIP)

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

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

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

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

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

AMANPOUR: OK. Stand by for one second.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you think that the atmospherics were also important today?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the possibility of rapprochement beyond just this issue?

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

(CROSSTALK)

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

TAKEYH: That's right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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