The Latest from Iran (27 October): Domestic and Foreign Collide

NEW Latest Iran Video: University Protests (27 October)
NEW Iran: More on Kian Tajbakhsh and Tehran’s “Velvet Revolution”
Latest Iran Video/Translation: Karroubi on Events in the Iran Media Fair
Iran’s Political Confusion: Khamenei, Ahmadinejad, and the Nuclear Agreement
Latest from Iran (26 October): After the Fair

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

2015 GMT: 13 Aban Does Not Exist. Homy Lafayette offers more detail on the Government's order to state media to "refrain from disseminating any news, photo, or topic which can lead to tension in the society or breach public order" during the demonstrations on 13 Aban (4 November).

The article includes an English translation of the document, issued by Deputy Culture and Islamic Guidance Minister Alireza Malekian.

1810 GMT: Iran's Nuclear Manoeuvre. If this story from Press TV is accurate, then Tehran is haggling over the details of third-party enrichment, rather than walking away from the deal.

The article re-quotes the source who spoke to Al Alam TV (see 1015 GMT), "Iran will announce its response to the proposal put forward by [International Atomic Energy Agency] Director-General [Mohamed] ElBaradei on Friday, October 30." The official added that Iran did not want to send 80 percent of its uranium stock in a single shipment to Russia, as set out in the deal from the Vienna talks: "Iran as a uranium buyer knows best how much uranium, enriched to a level of 19.75 percent, it needs [for its medical research reactor]; based on this argument, it will raise certain issues with this proposal."

In other words, Tehran will insist on a lower amount of uranium --- currently, the deal is for 1.2 million out of 1.5 million tonnes --- being sent to Russia in the first shipment. More would be delivered for enrichment as the medical reactor required new supplies.

The report is seconded by the head of Parliament's Foreign Policy and National Security Commission, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, "Iran can send the scheduled amount in separate shipments so that its fuel supply [provided by foreigners] is guaranteed....Iran can send only a part of its stockpile … and then as it receives its 20 percent enriched fuel it will send the next portion."

A word of caution on this interpretation: Boroujerdi is close to President Ahmadinejad and is putting the pro-deal view. It is unclear whether the dissenting voices such as Ali Larijani (and possibly, behind Larijani, the Supreme Leader) have come around to this position.

1750 GMT: Back from a teaching break to find that Rooz Online, following up a story prominent on the Internet this morning, has published details of an alleged Government order to censor and possibly shut out any news of mass demonstrations on 13 Aban (4 November).

1230 GMT: As reports continue to come in, with claims of 1500 students protesting at Azad University in Tehran, we've posted the first video footage.

1020 GMT: Reports that students gathered to demonstrate at Tehran University but are being forced to move by security forces.

1015 GMT: Reuters is reporting, from Iran's Al-Alam television, that Iran will accept the uranium enrichment agreement but will demand changes. The source is an "unnamed official" who indicates Iran's reply will be made within 48 hours.

0810 GMT: Detentions, Concerns, and Hunger Strikes. Human Rights Activists in Iran has posted a summary of latest developments regarding post-election detainees. Included is the information that journalist Henganeh Shahidi and student Payman Aref have started hunger strikes.

0800 GMT: Myth, Imprisonment, and "Velvet Revolution". We've just posted more on the jailed Iranian-American scholar Kian Tajbakhsh and the regime's accusations and tactics with the claim of foreign-directed regime change in

0715 GMT: A reader has pointed us to a report posted by CNN on a prison riot in Karaj, west of Tehran, on Sunday. Interestingly, the story comes from the National Council of Resistance in Iran, the opposition movement headed by Maryam Rajavi and linked to Mujahedin-e-Khalq.

0635 GMT: Meanwhile CNN International (broadcast, not website) is focusing on a peripheral story. Pakistan detained and has now released 11 Iranians who crossed the border yesterday. The original line was that the detainees were Revolutionary Guard members, possibly pursuing or looking for leads on those linked to last week's bombings. Pakistan, probably after discreet talks with Tehran, is now calling the wanderers "security guards"; Press TV portrays them as "border police" pursuing smugglers.

0630 GMT: Now The Washington Post has picked up on the effect of the internal debate on the enrichment agreement (and vice-versa) with an overview by Thomas Erdbrink, "Iran officials appear split on nuclear plan".

0600 GMT: One of the standing rules for analysis, when students and I consider US foreign policy, is that what happens overseas cannot be separated from what happens at home.

So it is proving --- and may prove in a significant way in the next 72 hours --- in Iran.

Tensions over the decision on the uranium enrichment deal are now beyond simmering and openly bubbling. Even this weekend, all the signals from the Iranian Government were that it would work out any issues and sign the proposal, with a significant portion of Iran's uranium stock going to Russia for enrichment, by Wednesday or Thursday. Now, all bets are off.

Readers took yesterday's analysis of the possible conflict between the Supreme Leader and President Ahmadinejad to a new level with their comments, but this morning I still find myself with questions rather than answers. The straightforward explanation would be that the Supreme Leader, working through the statements of Parliamentary leaders like Ali Larijani and Mohammad Reza Bahonar, is now blocking agreement. But, if so, why did he apparently endorse "engagement" to the point where the deal was almost struck? What could be the calculation in approaching the International Atomic Energy Agency, and thus Washington, in the summer and now walking out on the deal at the 11th hour?

Other theories from our readers include an Iranian "good cop, bad cop" act which would allow Ahmadinejad to portray himself as the guy who wanted to work with Obama but had to give way to Ayatollah Khamenei and the Iranians walking out of the arrangement because their ploy --- getting uranium for the medical reactor enriched for free while retaining enough of their stock to pursue other programmes --- hasn't yielded enough of a result.

Fortunately for my confusion, if not the general situation, there should be some clarification by Friday. Iran can't spin out the post-Vienna deliberations beyond the weekend, given that the US has already let last Friday's deadline slide in expectation of a Tehran decision within a few days. So it's accept, reject, or try to bring the "5+1" powers back to the table for talks.

And that declaration from Iran will in turn give the US Government, as well as the European powers, Russia, and China, a somewhat paradoxical choice. If Tehran does not sign the enrichment agreement, does the Obama Administration continue engagement, possibly strengthening the Iranian President against his own Supreme Leader? Or does it walk away (or is forced away by Congressional and public hostility to any more talks), now watching an internal Iranian situation in which Washington is no more than a bystander?

Afghanistan: Resignation Letter of US Official Matthew Hoh

Video and Transcript: Obama “I Will Never Rush” on Afghanistan (26 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

This story will be huge in US press today, complementing and maybe overshadowing President Obama's "I Will Not Rush a Decision" speech; it is already Page 1 in The Washington Post. Matthew Hoh, a former Marine Corps Captain and contractor in post-Saddam Iraq, resigned as political officer at the US Embassy in Kabul with a hard-hitting, incisive four-page letter. Despite attempts led by Obama envoy Richard Holbrooke to convince him to stay, Hoh decided that he had to stand behind his message: "I fail to see the value or the worth in continued U.S. casualties or expenditures of resources in support of the Afghan government in what is, truly, a 35-year-old civil war."

Matthew Hoh first US official to resign over Afghan War

UPDATED Afghanistan: Here is What Will Happen (in 4 Sentences)

Understanding “Mr Obama’s Wars”: Five Essential Analyses on Afghanistan and Pakistan
Afghanistan: The Real Importance of The“Non-Story” of 13,000 Support Troops

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 21 October: Overwhelmed by the mass of media coverage on the developments in Afghanistan? Well, just before going to the best inside story --- Karen DeYoung and Joshua Partlow in The Washington Post --- let's have a look at EA's four sentences from yesterday and see how they hold up:

1. Karzai accepts runoff. Check.
2. US declares satisfaction. President Obama to reporters, "President Karzai, as well as the other candidates have shown that they have the interests of the Afghan people at heart." Check.

3. Closest challenger Abdullah Abdullah accepts runoff. Check.

4. Coalition government with both Karzai and Abdullah to be formed. Wait for it --- it will come soon after the 7 November run-off.

5. US then declares troop escalation. Could be a pre-Christmas present for all of us.


Let's cut through the acres of newsprint and hours of broadcasts trying to get to grips with the controversy over the Afghanistan Presidential election, after a UN-backed electoral commission threw out 28 percent of the votes for current President and front-runner Hamid Karzai and 18 percent of the votes for his closest challenger, Abdullah Abdullah.

Today Karzai will reluctantly accept the finding that he received less than 50 percent of the first-round tally and will have to go through a run-off vote, secure in the knowledge that he will win. The US Government will declare its satisfaction with the outcome, knowing that Karzai will remain as President after the next ballot. Abdullah will be offered a prominent position in a new "national unity" Government. If he accepts, Washington will pronounce that the political conditions have been met for a (size still to be determined) military escalation.

Spread the word.

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 (15 October): Restricting the Movement

NEW Iran: Karroubi Responds to Government Threats "Bring. It. On."
Iran-US-Russia Deal on Enrichment, The Sequel
Latest Iran Video: Selling Ahmadinejad’s Economic Plan (13 October)
Iran: The Latest on Mehdi Karroubi
The Latest from Iran (14 October): Watching Karroubi, Rafsanjani, and the Supreme Leader’s Health

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



2010 GMT: Our Daily Contribution to the Khamenei Death Rumour Mill. The Supreme Leader's Facebook site has the following message from Wednesday, "Today Noon; Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran attended a rite in respect of Imam Sadeq(A.S)".

If true, this would disprove Tuesday's Peiknet story, the original source of the current health rumors, that the Supreme Leader had been confined to his house by doctors.

1620 GMT: A Dutch Member of Parliament, Harry van Bommel, has urged Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen to take further action against the imminent execution of Iranians sentenced in post-election cases:

Protest at the European level is not enough. The Netherlands should also use its own channels. There is an escalation of political oppression in Iran and we should react to that by using heavier diplomatic means....To prevent the eradication of any kind of opposition in Iran, the Netherlands must act now.

Human rights is one of Verhagen's policy priorities, and he can be contacted in English or Dutch via Twitter.

1545 GMT: Mehdi Karroubi has responded --- big-time --- to Government attempts to arrest him over his allegations of abuses of detainees. We've got the details in a separate entry.

1405 GMT: Fereshteh Ghazi has posted an interview with  the lawyer of Arash Pour-Rahmani, who was sentenced to death for subversive activity last week. Her headline is a blunt description: "Close to Death but Clueless".

1400 GMT: Iranian authorities continue to prevent filmmaker Jafar Panahi, who was briefly detained on 30 July, from leaving the country.

1110 GMT: President Ahmadinejad has used the setpiece of a meeting with an Egyptian writer and scholar to declare that further US sanctions on Iran are unlikely: “In a status where countries are seeking free trade, talk of embargoes is meaningless. At any rate, they have already imposed sanctions against our country, but achieved nothing. The world is a big place and all states are not controlled by a certain bullying regime."

Of course, this could be read as defiance but another reading is that Ahmadinejad is signalling that productive engagement is alive and well.

0900 GMT: Yesterday we noticed the latest message from Grand Ayatollah Montazeri, delivered after his class at Qom's seminary, challenging the Revolutionary Guard. An EA correspondent adds details of the statement:

As Ayatollah Khomeini has said, the Army, Revolutionary Forces, and Basij militia must not interfere with the political affairs as it would be very dangerous for the country. These forces should use their power against the enemy not the people and friends.

Statements that protecting the Islamic republic is obligatory only apply if the Islamic system is loyal to its values and slogans.

The values and the slogans of the Islamic Republic are "Independence, Freedom, and the Islamic Republic". Independence means not to be obedient to a superpower. Freedom is having the freedom of speech and the belief that the opponents will not be put behind bars. Republic means a system based on people's votes and finally Islamic means that the system should be based upon the Islamic values.

0815 GMT: Amidst the rumours about the Supreme Leader's health, there will be some terrible "analysis" today, but the blogger Allahpundit takes an early lead in the competition. It's not so much that he/she declares "Irresponsible Rumor of the Day" and then treats it as true for his/her thought. It's more that the speculation is awful:

Before the summer uprising, the odds-on choice to succeed [the Supreme Leader] was Rafsanjani....One possibility is [now] the Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi, Ahmadinejad’s own personal “spiritual advisor”....Another possibility is that the [Revolutionary] Guard will simply finish the process started this summer and stage a full-blown military coup, installing Ahmadinejad or Jafari as dictator and taking things from there....The third possibility is the likeliest — namely, finding a puppet from among the clerical ranks who can be sold to the west as a 'pragmatist' or 'reformist' while letting the Guard control things behind the scenes.

0625 GMT: Amidst continuing chatter --- all unconfirmed --- about the declining state of the Supreme Leader's health, including claims that the Tehran Bazaar is talking about Ayatollah Khamenei's passing, this line stands out: "Obviously, every rumor about Khamenei’s death to date has been false."

0615 GMT: Meanwhile, in the "West", there has been a notable switch from the nuclear issue to "human rights" to challenge the Obama Administration's engagement with the Ahmadinejad Government. This morning's Washington Post editorial endorses the latest speech by Iranian lawyer and Nobel Prize laureate Shirin Ebadi: "Mr. Obama has extended the hand of friendship to a man who has blood on his hands. He can at least avoid shaking the hand of friendship with him." Tehran Bureau, increasingly prominent as a site for the views of the Iranian diaspora, features Setareh Sabety's comment, "I do not want my President, who made me cry with his words of justice and freedom, who made me think that the impossible was possible, to shake the hands of the murderer of my children."

0600 GMT: More "Information"? Could be coincidence but Javan Online, the newspaper associated with the Revolutionary Guard, has followed its story on Hashemi Rafsanjani with a purported statement from Ayatollah Mahdavi Kani on the post-election protests. Mahdavi-Kani was named as co-author with Rafsanjani of the draft National Unity Plan, published by Fars News in late September, the incident that prompted Rafsanjani's denunciation on Tuesday of "false news".

Meanwhile, Javan's lead story is another purported analysis of US-supported regime change.

0500 GMT: A rather strange day on Wednesday.

We watched for signs of political movement from Mehdi Karroubi and Hashemi Rafsanjani; what we saw was the extent of the Government's attempts to break their challenge.

The headline story of the Government's threats to prosecute Karroubi and Mir Hossein Mousavi was supplemented by accounts of the restrictions on the movements of both men. With constant surveillance and pressure by Government forces, they are confined to houses for long periods and, in the case of Mousavi, reportedly corresponding by written messages inside the home.

As for Rafsanjani, who is free to move and who holds key positions inside the establishment, he faces the Government distortion of his words and views. It also should not be forgotten that the regime maintains the threat of prosecution of his family members if the former President should move too far out of line.

A reader writes passionately, "Rafsanjani has no power any more and he lost it all trying to resolve his personal agenda." That's a fair challenge, especially given Rafsanjani's cautious and perhaps over-complex approach to politics, but I think it minimises the extent of the Government's fightback against a dangerous foe, especially after his mid-July Friday Prayers.

I also think that, as the Government is doing, one has to keep all the leaders in the picture. Individually, Karroubi, Mousavi, and Rafsanjani (as well as others like former President Khatami and senior clerics) can only have limited effect in the campaign for "reform" of the Ahmadinejad Government and Iranian system. It is only when there is both the movement of Rafsanjani inside the establishment and the challenge brought by Karroubi-Mousavi from outside --- again, a convergence we saw in mid-July --- that President Ahmadinejad and his allies are on the defensive.

Logically, then, the Government's approach is divide and rule. If Rafsanjani can be threatened and distorted into a strategy of gradual --- very gradual --- steps and Mousavi can be bottled up, then Karroubi's persistent statements are mere annoyances.

So is that it, then? Not quite. The paradox is that the umbrella political term in Iran right now is "National Unity Plan". Indeed, the Javan "information" that Rafsanjani supported Ahmadinejad's 2nd-term Government was put out in the context of a political meeting on that Plan.

We still don't know the details of the current draft Plan, from amongst the confusing reports of recent weeks, but any "National Unity Plan" which does not take some account of the opposition of past months will be seen as far from unifying.

And, yes, even that could be successful --- can Mousavi, Karroubi, Khatami, and the dissident clerics summon up the strength for another confrontation? --- were it not for another looming presence. The Green movement has been quieted and limited by time and Government restrictions, but it has not been vanquished. And 4 November, the day of the next major demonstration, is now less than three weeks away.

The Government restrictions have lengthened the political game --- we now see patterns in months, rather than weeks or days --- but it has not won it. No amount of surveillance, disinformation, or threat of prosecution can cover up that reality.