Green Tweets: Mapping Iran's Movement via Twitter

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

Our colleague Ali Fisher, who writes the excellent blog Wandren PD on public diplomacy and new media, has unveiled the first results from his study of the interaction of Twitter users with post-election protest in Iran. Writing for the USC Center on Public Diplomacy, he has mapped the conversation around the tags #GR88, #FreeIran, #Neda, and #Sohrab as well as the tag #helpiranelection (which I did not know about and was apparently created by a software developer in Israel).

As promising as this study is, the potential for it is even greater. As Fisher notes, "[The tag] #IranElection had so much data that a user would have had to scan 1,000 tweets every hour to keep up."

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".

Israel-Palestine: Sacrificing the Goldstone Report to the War of Politics

UPDATED Palestine: Pressure on Abbas to Resign in Goldstone Report Furour
Saudi King Abdullah in Damascus: Where is Syria Heading?

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

The Goldstone Report on the Gaza War is no longer a set of findings on possible crimes by both sides during the fighting. So, an enquiry that was supposed to cast bring light on the bombed rubbleis now  a political tool to be wielded against the "enemy". And that is not only the "enemy" in the Israel-Palestine conflict but also within Palestinian politics.

Yesterday the Palestinian UN Mission issued a press release saying asserting full support for the Libyan request for a meeting of the UN Security Council. However, Libya's proposal was rejected. Although the Council decided to move its next meeting from 20 October to 14 October, Washington's position was clear. US Deputy Ambassador Alejandro Wolff said that the Obama Administration would not approve any decision:

The report needs to be discussed by the Human Rights Council, and decisions on what next steps and what is the appropriate disposition of this report are decisions that will be taken in Geneva. So, for Washington, it is not the Report itself [but] the peace process [that] is more significant.

Meanwhile, Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas tried to repair his political position, damaged by the PA's initial support for deferral of a UN vote on the Report. An Abbas associate said, "If Israel does not soften its positions on the peace process, the Palestinian Authority will resume pushing to get the Goldstone report moved to the Security Council, and thence to the International Criminal Court." Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat told the French media that the PA could reveal the names of all the countries who pressured Abbas to defer the UN vote and, instead, negotiate with Israel without preconditions.

Hamas is increasing its bargaining power with the claim that Abbas deferred the UN vote because Israel threatened to expose his support for its war on Gaza. Egypt had announced that Hamas and Fatah would sign an accord on October 25, but on Wednesday, some Hamas officials said on Wednesday hat this was not the appropriate time for a deal. Mahmoud Zahar, a senior Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip, reportedly told Egyptians to either postpone or call off the planned intra-Palestinian conference in the wake of Abbas's "high treason".

Saudi King Abdullah in Damascus: Where is Syria Heading?

Israel-Palestine: Sacrificing the Goldstone Report to the War of Politics

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

Returning Syrian President Bashar Assad's visit to Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah held talks with Assad in Damascus. Thetwo talked about the Middle East , exchanged national medals, and signed an agreement to regulate taxation. Buthaina Shaaban, an adviser to Assad, described the talks as productive, "strengthening the Arab Islamic position" in the face of Israeli intransigence.

Although Abdullah's visit, his first as King, is not expected to bring a fundamental change in the region, it is a positive sign of the continuation of "engagement" by the Obama Administration with Damascus. At the same time, Syria is not willing to sacrifice its "alliance" with Iran and will portray this meeting as a part of a solid front facing  Israel. As Shaaban said, "Syria's ties with Iran and Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia, would help create an effective Islamic bloc."

The Latest from Iran (7 October): Drama in Parliament?

UPDATED Iran: Rafsanjani Makes A Public Move with "Friendship Principles"
UPDATED Iran: How a Non-Story about a Non-Jew Became Media Non-Sense
Video: 4 Clips from Tehran Azad University Protests (6 October)
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 Analysis2

2130 GMT: A very depressing end to the day. The Committee on Human Rights Reporters has announced that Mohammad Reza Ali Zamani, a member of the The Association of Monarchists, is
to be executed by hanging for taking part in the demonstrations following the June elections. Zamani, who had no access to independent legal representation, was transferred on Monday from Section 29 of Evin Prison to Branch 15 of the Revolutionary Courts and his sentence was handed down by Judge Salavati.

To our knowledge, this is the first death sentence for a partipicant in post-election protest.

(http://chrr.us/spip.php?article6138)

1800 GMT: Disturbing article in Payvand that 10 of the 21 members of the "press court jury" have been replaced in elections. Out go Fatemeh Karoubi, wife of Etemade Melli party head Mehdi Karoubi, Masih Mohajeri, editor-in-chief of Jomhouri Eslami newspaper, and cleric Mohsen Doagu, all of whom have been critical of the Ahmadinejad administration. The news accompanies the closure of three more newspapers since Sunday.

1715 GMT: Report that 12 members of the Iran Teachers Union who were arrested on Tuesday (the day after World Teachers Day) have been released from detention.

1530 GMT: Let's Keep It Global, OK? Sure looks like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants to talk about matters other than domestic trifles. He appeared on Iran state television after a Cabinet meeting to confirm Tehran's willingness to consider "third-party enrichment" of its uranium, adding:

I think these negotiations were a step forward and I hope we proceed with the same trend so we will have constructive cooperation to resolve all outstanding global issues....In these negotiations we witnessed better behaviour than in the past from some countries and we noticed that the logic of respect and justice is being established gradually. These talks are good basis for continuation of the negotiations.

1319 GMT: Prompted by readers, we're investigating the story that the Obama Administration has cut funding to four Iran-centred human rights organisations. The only article so far, in Boston.com, considers the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center. The three other groups are not identified.

1315 GMT: Fereshteh Ghazi ("Iranbaan") has updated on the condition of a number of detainees, including the two of 18 students who were not released after University protests last week.

1105 GMT: And Now A Distraction. Press TV summarises the Supreme Leader's public address in the northern city of Chalous:

The enemy started to throw mud and spread rumors in order to undermine and downplay this big political victory....The enemy caused unrest in a part of the country. We see that it is worried about the 85 percent participation of the Iranian nation in the presidential election....Iran's foes are angry with progress and development of the nation.

And so on and so on....

0915 GMT: OK, So We Did Talk. Aladdin Boroujerdi, the Head of Parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, has messed up the Government's "Maybe We Did, Maybe We Didn't" strategy by confirming that Iranian and American delegates did have bilateral discussions at the Geneva meeting on Iran's nuclear programme. Saeed Jalili, the lead Iranian negotiator, had denied that any 1-on-1 conversation took place.

0820 GMT: One source for the claim that Saeed Mortazavi is on the firing line for the Parliamentary report on post-election abuses (see 0740 GMT) is member of Parliament Ali Reza Zakani, who claims that documents will soon be produced for judicial authorities establishing Mortazavi's guilt.

0810 GMT: Ayatollah Dastgheib has written another letter criticising the handling of the post-election crisis, alleging that "military men" are the cause of "vices" in Iran.

0755 GMT: Is This A Confession of Fraud or An Attack on Larijani? In an interview, conservative member of Parliament Javad Karimi Ghadousi claims that Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani wants a National Unity Government so that he can replace Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as President. Ghadousi criticises Larijani for investigations of post election events, such as the raids on Tehran University dormitories and the abuses at Kahrizak Prison, "in defiance" of the Supreme Leader's statement that these were "side issues".

This, however, is the headline assertion: Larijani called Mir Hossein Mousavi on the night of the Presidential election to congratulate him on victory, and Deputy Speaker Mohammad Reza Bahonar wrote a letter to Ayatollah Khamenei that the regime has to accept and prepare for Mousavi as President.

0745 GMT: Back in Action (with a Great Headline). It looks like Mehdi Karroubi's Web presence has returned, with the repackaging of Tagheer on a different URL. It criticises proposed First Vice President Rahimi (see yesterday and 0530 GMT) with one of the best lines in the post-election crisis: "Fake Correspondence of Fake Minister in Fraudulent Government".

0740 GMT: News is coming out of the Iranian Parliament that while parts of the report on post-election abuses are classified, it does criticise --- as rumoured --- former Tehran Prosecutor General (now Iran Deputy Prosecutor General) Saeed Mortazavi and Tehran police chief Ahmad Reza Radan.

0550 GMT: Nothing to See Here. Not a word on Press TV's website about the internal political dynamics. Instead it goes for Iran in the World, with "the [Supreme] Leader...has said Iran's military advances are no a threat to any nation but instead are helping them progress 'without dependence' on the US."

Nothing in Fars News' headlines either; however, the Islamic Republic News Agency does feature a critique of "the archaeology of Hashemi Rafsanjani's National Unity Plan". The analyst, Mohammad Sajjad Nosrati, begins with an invocation of "the discourse of [French philosopher/sociologist] Michel Foucault" (somehow I can't see the same approach being applied to Barack Obama's health care plan in the US) before asserting that the Plan was put forth a few months before the Presidential election.

0530 GMT: After days of fencing and manoeuvring for position, we may see some interesting developments inside and around the Majlis today, as a Parliamentary committee is scheduled to present its report on post-election abuses.

Tensions between the President and conservative/principlist groups have been re-emerging, with hints that condemnation of episodes such as the crimes in Kahrizak Prison may have to name some names, pressing the Ahmadinejad Government to take the reprimand and offer up a scapegoat. That has been accompanied by a renewal of discontent over the President's choice of allies and cronies, with whispers becoming public grumbles about selections such as the First Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi. And one should not overlook that the headline, "Supreme Leader Reshuffles Top Positions" at the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps and Basiji headquarters, sits on top of a continuing battle between the President and others to control the Ministry of Intelligence.

Still, the key word in the opening sentence above is "may". The Parliamentary report has already been delayed, and conservative/principlist critics may decide once again to put aside their differences with Ahmadinejad. For what we have yet to see in this crisis is a conservative/principlist decision to set aside their basic opposition to "reformists", allying with them at least temporarily to force changes from Ahmadinejad and the security forces.

And that in turn takes us to the heart of the confusion and tension over the "National Unity Plans", whether that is one Plan, two rival Plans, or even more. With a lot of attention on Hashemi Rafsanjani, the question has not been answered: is there any plan which has finally brought agreement between conservative/principlist groups and reformists to work together in a committee to bring signficant changes?