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

Video and Transcript: Obama "I Will Never Rush" on Afghanistan (26 October)

Afghanistan: Resignation Letter of US Official Matthew Hoh
Understanding “Mr Obama’s Wars”: Five Essential Analyses on Afghanistan and Pakistan

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

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbva_yYhIoc[/youtube]

Keeping you strong takes something else—a country that never forgets this simple truth. It’s not the remarkable platforms that give the United States our military superiority. Although you have some pretty impressive aircraft here. It’s not the sophisticated technologies that make us the most advanced in the world, although you do represent the future of naval aviation.

No, we have the finest Navy and military in the world because we have the finest personnel in the world. You are the best-trained, best-prepared, best-led force in history. You—our people—are our most precious resource.

We were reminded of this again, with today’s helicopter crashes in Afghanistan. Fourteen Americans gave their lives. And our prayers are with these service members, their civilian colleagues and the families who loved them.

And while no words can ease the ache in their hearts today, may they find some comfort in knowing this: like all those who give their lives in service to America, they were doing their duty and they were doing this nation proud.

They were willing to risk their lives, in this case, to prevent Afghanistan from once again becoming a safe haven for al Qaeda and its extremist allies. And today, they gave their lives to protect ours.

Now, it is our duty, as a nation, to keep their memory alive in our hearts and to carry on their work. To take care of their families. To keep our country safe. To stand up for the values we hold dear and the freedom they defended. That is what they dedicated their lives to. That is what we must do.

So I say to you and all who serve: of all the privileges of serving as President, I have no greater honor than serving as your Commander-in Chief. You inspire me. And I’m here today to deliver a simple message—a message of thanks to you and your families.

By being here, you join a long, unbroken line of service at Jacksonville—naval aviators from World War II to Korea to Vietnam, among them a great patriot named John McCain. You embody that sailor’s creed: the “spirit of the Navy and all who have gone before”—Honor, Courage, Commitment.

In recent years, you’ve been tested like never before. We’re a country of more than 300 million Americans. But less than one percent wears the uniform. And that one percent—you and all those in uniform—bear the overwhelming burden of our security.

After months of exercises in the Pacific and stopping narco-traffickers off South America, you—the “Mad Foxes”—joined the recovery of that Air France crash off Brazil.

After hundreds of combat missions over Iraq and Afghanistan…when Somali pirates kidnapped Captain Richard Phillips, you—the “Fighting Tigers”—were first on the scene. And others among you—the “Nightdippers”—were part of the carrier group that brought our captain home.

You’ve delivered medical care to people around the world, as my wife Michelle saw this summer when she welcomed back to port the Comfort—including those of you from Naval Hospital Jacksonville.

And like thousands of sailors in today’s Navy, you’ve gone ashore to meet the missions of our time, like the “Desert Lions” who served in Iraq.

Today, we also send our thoughts and prayers to all the folks from Jacksonville on the front lines at this very moment: pilots and aircrews around the world, Navy corpsmen on the ground in Afghanistan. And those of you—the “Dusty Dogs”—who’ll deploy next month to the Persian Gulf. You’re going to make us proud.

But there is no service without sacrifice. And though few Americans will every truly understand the sacrifices that you and your family make—day in day out, tour after tour, year after year, I want you to know this.

Your dedication to duty is humbling. Your love of country is inspiring. The American people thank you for your service. We honor you for your sacrifices. And just as you have fulfilled your responsibilities to your nation, your nation will fulfill its responsibilities to you.

That’s the message that I offered to the inspiring Gold Star families I met with a few moments ago—families who have made the ultimate sacrifice and whom we honor. And that’s the message I bring to you and all our forces, families and veterans—around Jacksonville and across America.

You’ve made the most profound commitment a person can make—to dedicate your life to your country. And perhaps give your life for it. So as your commander-in-chief, here’s the commitment I make to you.

To make sure you can meet the missions we ask of you, we’re increasing the defense budget, including spending on the Navy and Marine Corps. This week, I’ll sign that defense authorization bill into law.

To make sure we’re spending our defense dollars wisely, we’re cutting tens of billions of dollars in waste and projects that even the military says it doesn’t need—money better on spent on taking care of you and your families and building the 21st century military that we do need.

To make sure we have the right force structure, we’ve halted reductions in Navy personnel and increased the size of the Marine Corps. And this year—the first time in the history of the all-volunteer force—the Navy and every component of every branch of the military, Active, Guard and Reserve, met or exceeded their recruiting and retention goals. Yes, that’s due in part to tough economic times. But I say it’s also a testament to you and everyone who volunteers to serve.

To make sure you’re not bearing the burden of our security alone, we’re enlisting all elements of our national power—diplomacy, development and a positive vision of American leadership in the world.

And while I will never hesitate to use force to protect the American people or our vital interests, I also promise you this—and this is very important as we consider our next steps in Afghanistan:

I will never rush the solemn decision of sending you into harm’s way. I won’t risk your lives unless it is absolutely necessary. And if it is necessary, we will back you up. Because you deserve the strategy, the clear mission, the defined goals and the equipment and support you need to get the job done. That’s the promise I make to you.

As you meet your missions around the world, we will take care of your families here at home. That’s why Michelle has been visiting bases across the country. That’s why the Recovery Act is funding projects like improvements to your hospital and a new child development center at Mayport. It’s why we’re increasing your pay, increasing child care and helping families deal with the stress and separation of war.

Finally, we pledge to be there when you come home. We’re improving care for our wounded warriors, especially those with Post-Traumatic Stress and Traumatic Brain Injuries. We’re funding the Post-9/11 GI Bill—to give you and your families the chance to pursue your dreams. And we’re making the biggest commitment to our veterans—the largest percentage increase in the VA budget—in more than 30 years.

These are the commitments I make to you; the obligations that your country is honor-bound to uphold. Because you’ve have always taken care of America, and America must always take care of you. Always.

You know this. It’s the spirit you live by every day. It’s the pride—and yes, the anxiety—when you wave goodbye to your loved ones on the tarmac. It’s the joy—and relief—when they come home safe. And it’s the dignity and respect you show every fallen warrior who comes home to Jacksonville, like the navy aviator you honored two months ago.

Navy Captain Michael Scott Speicher. The kid from Orange Park. Loving husband. Devoted father. Based at Cecil Field not far from here. Then, on the first day of Operation Desert Storm, he was taken from us. And in the long years that followed, a Navy family and this city would endure the heartache of the unknown.

Through all those years, no one missed Scott more—or fought harder to bring him home—than his wife Joanne. His friend and former Navy pilot Buddy Harris. And their children: Meghan, Michael, Madison and Makenzie. They were among the Gold Star families I met with, and we thank them for being here with us today.

Then, this summer, the news came. After 18 years, after all the dashed hopes, we found him. Scott’s remains were finally coming home. The evening news and morning papers told the story of that day. But few told the story of the days that followed.

It’s the story of how you greeted the plane upon landing—hundreds of sailors—and escorted his flag-draped casket to your chapel. How Navy honor guards kept constant vigil, through the night, as so many of you passed by to pay your respects. How thousands of you—sailors and civilians—lined the streets of this base as you gave Scott back to the city he loved. That’s what you do, not only for Scott, but for all the fallen warriors you bring home.

It’s the story of how that procession retraced the steps of Scott’s life. Past the Jacksonville veterans memorial that now bears his name. Past the church where he worshiped, the high school where he excelled and Cecil Field where he served.

It’s the story of how Jacksonville seemed to come to a standstill as people lined street after street to honor one of their own. Scott’s friends and total strangers. Police and firefighters standing at attention. Small children holding American flags. Graying veterans giving a firm salute. And then, as Scott was finally laid to rest, a final fitting tribute—his old squadron roared overhead, high across the sky.

That’s the spirit we see here today. You, men and women devoted to each other—and to your country. A proud country devoted to you. And the example you set for us all: that if you can come together—from every corner of America, every color and creed, every background and belief—to take care of each other, to serve together, to succeed together, then so can we. So can America.

Thank you for your service. And thank you for reminding us of the country we can and must always be. God bless you Jacksonville. And God bless the United States of America.

Iran: More on Kian Tajbakhsh and Tehran's "Velvet Revolution"

Iran’s American Prisoner: The Case of Kian Tajbakhsh (Continued with 15 Years in Jail)
Iran: How the Regime Constructed the “Velvet Revolution”
The Latest from Iran (27 October): Domestic and Foreign Collide

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

Despite (or possibly because of) the muted public response by the US Government to the 15-year sentence handed down to Iranian-American academic Kian Tajbakhsh, the campaign for his release has picked up steam in the last week. On Sunday we featured an article by Karim Sadjadpour, and fellow scholar Haleh Esfandiari, who was detained for months with Tajbakhsh in 2007, has blogged for The New York Review of Books.

Gary Sick, a former US Government official who has been named in the regime's indictments as a "foreign operative" working with Tajbakhsh, has also offered his thoughts. Without forgetting that hundreds of others remain in post-election detention, we post this to link Tajbakhsh's case to a wider analysis of the Iranian Government's accusations and tactics in its portrayal of "velvet revolution".

Last week, an Iranian-American colleague of mine, Kian Tajbaksh, was sentenced in Tehran to 15 years in prison. The indictment included the charges that (1) he was in contact with me; (2) that he was part of the Gulf/2000 network that I manage; and (3) that I am an agent of the CIA.

Normally, I simply ignore silly accusations such as this. They are nothing new. On one hand, it has been intimated that I must be under the influence of Iranian intelligence (by prominent neoconservatives who believe that my views on Iran’s political development and especially its nuclear program are not sufficiently alarmist). I have also been accused (by such worthies as Hossein Shariatmadari, the ultra-radical editor of Iran’s Kayhan newspaper, who is also a representative of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei) of being a CIA agent. I regard these insinuations as badges of honor, since they merely confirm that I do not subscribe to the ideological extremes of either of these groups. I have always felt that my reputation could speak for itself and required no public defense.

However, this time the accusations are really not about me but about a friend and colleague. Moreover, they are not just newspaper hyperbole by people who have an ax to grind and whose desire to make a political point exceeds their respect for the truth. These assertions are a matter of law—an official indictment by the judicial authorities of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

It is often said that it is impossible to prove a negative. How do I prove that I am NOT an agent of the CIA? How do I prove that the Gulf/2000 Internet project is NOT engaged in overthrowing governments? How do I prove that Kian—a friend and a colleague—was NOT trying to lead a “velvet revolution” against the Islamic Republic of Iran?

Let me simply reverse the questions. I spent 24 years in the U.S. Navy—my only connection with the U.S. government. The Navy sponsored my education at the University of Kansas. It took me to the Persian Gulf for my first exposure to the region that has become my professional specialization. It sponsored my graduate work for a Ph.D. degree at Columbia University. And it paid my salary while I was on the National Security Council staff at the time of the Iranian revolution and the hostage crisis. I never received a paycheck from any other agency of the U.S. government. Do the prosecutors in Iran have evidence to the contrary? If so, please let me know.

There are a number of commentators on Iran, such as Reuel Gerecht, Graham Fuller, and Bruce Riedel, who indeed worked for the CIA. Although their political views disagree sharply, they always identify themselves as former CIA employees. I do not identify myself that way for the very simple reason that I never worked for the CIA.

The prosecutors charge that Kian was in touch with me. Right. We were both academics in New York, and we saw each other from time to time. However, I have gone back over the past 20 years with that in mind, and I am struck by something quite different. Over that period of time, I have known every Iranian ambassador to the United Nations and many members of the staff of the Iranian U.N. mission. I have spent much more time with them than with Kian.

More important, I have been in meetings with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on four different occasions over the past three years. I have spent at least nine hours with him, much more than I ever spent with Kian. In my last meeting with Mr. Ahmadinejad, I told him that if he were simply a lowly academic, instead of the president of Iran, he would be subject to arrest upon his return to Iran for meeting with the roomful of U.S. academics and think tank representatives that he had assembled at his hotel. He scoffed at the idea. Now one of my colleagues, a lowly Iranian-American professor who was about to take up a position at my university, is being condemned to 15 years in prison because, among other things, he had contact with me.

Iranian security officials are notably lacking in any sense of irony or humor. But I do wonder whether President Ahmadinejad is being considered for indictment because of his extensive contacts with me over the past four years.

The Gulf/2000 network is an Internet project that began 16 years ago to facilitate communication and information sharing among individuals who have a professional association with issues involving the Persian Gulf. It includes individuals of widely differing backgrounds and opinions, including both private citizens and government officials from countries around the world, including Iran. If any Iranian government official wishes to know about G2K, as we call it, he need only consult his colleagues who are members.

G2K is routinely cited in international conferences in Tehran and elsewhere as a reliable source of informed commentary and factual information about issues involving the Persian Gulf. It is limited to specialists, but it is not a secret. It includes individuals of every possible political persuasion. And it is not engaged in overthrowing governments.

The indictment against Kian is in fact an indictment of the legal and security structure of the Iranian government. The charges are false, deliberately false. They consist of a series of political fabrications devoid of even the flimsiest effort to verify the truth.

These accusations cast shame on any institution that professes respect for justice and law. They substantiate the words of Grand Ayatollah Montazeri, one the founders of the Islamic Republic of Iran, that this government is no longer either Islamic or a republic but merely the latest in the shabby succession of Middle Eastern military regimes. These charges remind us of the excesses of the Stalinist show trials and the abominations of the Chinese Red Guards—examples of revolutions that betrayed their own ideals.

This is not about Kian, and it is certainly not about me. It is about the abject failure of a ruling clique that has lost the confidence and support of its own people and must contrive scapegoats to excuse its own deficiencies.

Israel's Diplomatic Albatross? Avigdor Lieberman

Israel-Palestine: Clinton Tries to Help Abbas
Israel: Netanyahu and Barak Limit the Gaza Inquiry

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 week the meeting of foreign ministers of Mediterranean Union countries was postponed by France after efforts to bring Egypt to the table failed. Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit had stated that he would not attend if Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman was present. France is considering an invitation to prime ministers to rescue the summit.

Lieberman's effect is being felt elsewhere, however. In an interview given to The Guardian, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan stated that Lieberman had threatened the region with the use of nuclear weapons in Gaza during the Operation Cast Lead. In contrast Erdogan, who will visit Tehran next week, said Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons and "is Turkey's friend."