The Latest from Iran (22 September): A Trip to New York

Iran: More on Rafsanjani and Khamenei’s End-of-Ramadan Speech
The Latest from Iran (21 September): Distractions

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

1520 GMT: EA's Mr Johnson goes over the Rafsanjani speech, adding to and correcting our earlier analysis.

While there is no open challenge to the Government, Rafsanjani's call for unity includes recognition and inclusion of those senior clerics who have offered criticisms: "A measured thoughtful approach can lead to an optimal solution for the problems....The help and support of the Marjas (Grand Ayatollahs ) for the Establishment is absolutely necessary. In the last 30 years we have never had a problem in this regard and hopefully in the future this will not happen again. Threats must stop and small problems that must not be allowed to cause rifts [between the establishment and Marjas]."

Then Rafsanjani manoeuvred behind the general chiding of Ayatollah Khamenei of conflict:  "The Supreme Leader has condemned the atmosphere of defamation and confrontation that currently exists....All of us officials must pay attention to these issues so that this atmosphere does not get worse."

This led to the key passage of Rafsanjani's strategy of resolution which EA noted earlier: "Currently experienced and concerned individuals of the establishment are in the process of designing a blueprint providing a solution for the current situation....Considering that the University academic year will start soon, these efforts can be very useful, and we must reduce opaqueness from the atomosphere of society and refrain from opaque acts...so that an atmosphere for constructive criticism of society can be created....The supreme leader has emphasized the importance of the law, therefore both officials [a.k.a the Goverment and the Revolutionary Guards] and the protesters must act according to law."

And so Rafsanjani's manouevre without direct reference to the issues of detentions and abuses: "Both the officials and the protesters must not expect indifference if they break the law, since lawlessness breeds chaos in society...The supreme leader has also emphasized that the right of people to defend themselves [from accusations] must be observed [and] has prohibited broadcasting the confessions of accused individuals....If any member of the media broadcasts a confession accusing others [that broadcast] is against the law  and must be prosecuted. The fact that certain members of the media [irresponsibly] publish whatever they choose is against the law and should be dealt with."

Mr Johnson also clarifies and corrects our earlier report --- it was Ayatollah Mohammad Yazdi (not  Mesbah Yazdi) who was absent a very well-attended session.

1105 GMT: Speculation of Day. According to witness accounts, members' turnout at the Assembly of Experts meeting was the highest ever, but the Vice Chairman, Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi, a fervent supporter of President Ahmadinejad, was absent.

1045 GMT: 1030 GMT: More on the Rafsanjani statement, as presented by ILNA:

As expected, it is very clever and very cautious, with interpretation left to the beholder. Rafsanjani upheld the greatness of the Iranian nation on Qods Day, as the "holy and glorious presence" of marchers make clear that the defense of rights would never be forgotten. Iranians were ever-ready to stand up to "imperialists" and their "psychological warfare" trying to reduce Iran to "passivity" ahead of negotiations. The priority for Iranians was the "unity of our country".

Nothing there to separate Rafsanjani from the Government, especially as the call could be read as defiance of the "West" in talks on Iran's nuclear question. And the former President's reference to the recent assassination of the Kurdestan member of the Assembly was a call to support the security forces and judiciary as they investigated and prosecuted such crimes.

But what of the security forces, and the Government behind them, in the post-election conflict? Ahh, there's the rub: there's no obvious reference by Rafsanjani on that key matter, leaving his audience --- whatever their position on and in the issue --- in suspense.

1030 GMT: Gary Sick offers an excellent analysis of a recent poll of Iranians regarding the election and its aftermath. EA's Chris Emery adds his own take:

I think there are some statistical anomalies with the poll and major methodological problems- there is a perception that the government routinely tap phones and this will affect people's responses to some degree. There was also a very high refusal rate amongst those called (52%).

In many ways its greatest signficance lies in how it has been read. Those, especially in the West, who cry foul on the methodology will be to some degree influenced by their refusal to accept the unpalatable truth that Ahmadinejad is undoubtedly popular amongst millions of Iranians. On the other hand, I would never use this poll as a litmus test for support within either camp. The situation is simply far more complicated and the dynamics of the current power struggles cannot be accurately drawn out from this poll.

In sum, it is more interesting to watch how it is kicked around as a political football than as a genuine indicator of the relative strength of either Ahmadinejad or the Green's position.

0945 GMT: The spin is coming in on Hashemi Rafsanjani's statement at the Assembly of Experts meeting. The Iranian Labor News Agency links a call for unity with a declaration that resolution is imminent: "Those who care about the Regime have devised a plan to get out of current situation."

0915 GMT: The "Western" media are running with "news" that President Ahmadinejad has claimed that "his country is now stronger than ever and warned that Iranian military will retaliate with full might against anyone who dares attack it".

This is not news. If Ahmadinejad had told those assembled for the military parade commemorating the 1980-1988 Iraq War that Iran was really weak and its military hopeless, that would be news. The story, however, will set up tomorrow's coverage of the UN speech: Big, Bad Ahmadinejad and the World That Must Confront Him.

Of course, it's not like Mahmoud isn't helping the portrayal: “Our armed forces will cut the hand of anyone in the world before it pulls the trigger against the Iranian nation,” Ahmadinejad said during a military parade marking the anniversary of the start of the 1980-1988 Iraq-Iran war.



0415 GMT: All very quiet in Iran in the last 24 hours, apart from some rumblings over the position of Imam Khomenei's grandson, Seyed Hassan Khomenei (see yesterday's updates). The regime will roll out a two-day setpiece ,with the presentation of detainees Saeed Hajjarian, Mohammad Atrianfar, and Saeed Shariati in a televised "roundtable" to discuss how the velvet revolution has been pursued against Iran. And Press TV has an intriguing story, given President Ahmadinejad's attempts to ensure a "proper" bureaucracy responding to his wishes, of "the first of the post-presidential-election diplomatic appointments of the Ahmadinejad government...being implemented with new ambassadors lined up for European countries".

But it appears that we are in the midst of a 72-hour diversion with President Ahmadinejad presenting himself as undisputed leader in front of the United Nations General Assembly. He will speak at about 5 p.m. New York time (2100 GMT) on Wednesday. This will get sneers and denunciations from most of the "Western" media, but mainly over his references to Israel and possibly Iran's nuclear programme. Iranian state media will hail the pride of the nation in their President on the world stage.

Opposition activists are pinning hopes on a show of protest, with Mir Hossein Mousavi's Facebook page laying out a schedule of events. At the risk of being a jaded cynic, I'm not sure there is enough attention to the Iran issue in the US now to generate a high-profile demonstration, at least on the Iranian internal issue. (There will undoubtedly be protests from pro-Israel groups, but I'm not sure how this will intersect with the Green wave.)

All this said, there is one prominent wild card in the deck. Iran's Assembly of Experts, chaired by Hashemi Rafsanjani, holds its regular (but delayed) meeting today. Will the former President use the occasion to make his challenge, supported by other members, to the current regime? Or will he maintain his cautious line of vocal support for the Supreme Leader but no direct attention to the Ahmadinejad Government? And what will be the dynamic beyond Rafsanjani?

Comments

[Samuel]

@Chris,

"If I went back to my old school tomorrow and put a picture of Khomeini up I would bet my house that 99% of the Muslim kids would not know who he was."

Who would they recognize? The Pope? Brown? Blair, Putin, Obama, Beckham, Susan Boyle? Hate to say it but maybe these lads are not the brightest bulbs in the shop.
-------------------------------------------------------------
"Are you are honestly saying that you think AN is popular amongst the Muslim youth in Europe or that the basij are held as great role models?

Don't be simplistic. I said support for the Revolution itself.

If one is talking about Muslims youth who are activists, who have become politicized and radicalized then their support for the Iranian Revolution is much higher than the general population. I have seen it firsthand, and yes they would recognize the picture of Khomeini.

"While Iran is viewed unfavorably in Western Europe and the United States, it receives very positive marks from British and Spanish Muslims, while French and German Muslims are divided. European Muslims take a much more positive view of the Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections in January than do the majority populations, and perhaps not surprisingly, they are also much more likely to side with Palestinians in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." http://pewresearch.org/pubs/232/muslims-in-europe

The above research is obviously a few years old and it's not even focused on the youth component of the Muslim population in Europe which is clearly mored radical than their parents/elders.

Tariq Ramadan whose lectures on video and tape are extremely with European Muslim activists (hightly educated as well as poorly educated) has demonstrated the positive view of Iran in the most important way possible--by appearing on a TV show on Iranian Press TV. An act for which he has been swiftly punished by the way:

"More recently, Tariq Ramadan has been hosting debates on the Islam & Life programme on Press TV. The Erasmus University and city council of Rotterdam because of his appearance on Press TV fired him from his University position and barred him from any advisory role in a move which Tariq Ramadan described as Islamophobic and politically charged."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_Ramadan#cite_note-weekly-14

[Samuel]

Bill Davit,

I obviously don't agree completely with your analysis but you've focused on the key question.
"So we then ask ourselves why the Sunnis support Ahmandinejad?"

It is because they see that AN and the SL are the only ones who support Hamas, who support Hezbollah and all the other groups fighting the Zionist war machine. One Palestinian leader even spoke on Qods day.
Meanwhile the days of Nasser are gone, the corrupt Arab leaders talk against Israel BUT DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. It is BECAUSE OF IRAN THAT THERE ARE NO ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS IN SOUTH LEBANON TODAY OR IN GAZA.

[Samuel]

Bill Davit,

I disagree with you assocation of education with western style democracy. Many Asian countries like China and Singapore, have shown that you can attain high standards of living and education within an authoritarian or semi-authoritarian society. Lee Kuan Yew the former leader of Singapore has made this point many, many times.

[Bill Davit]

Samuel,

I happen to agree with your assesment on Sunni support for Ahmandinejad based on his countries actions towards Israel. Heaped on to all of it is the treatment the Arab states exhibit towards the Pals. If I am correct more pals have gotten citizenship(home) in the West than the entire Arab world. I don't believe Iran is the major reason why Israel has not setup settlements in the areas you mentioned. I believe Iran played a part but I also believe Syria, Lebanon, other Arab States, the left wing in Israel, and the West also played a role. We must not forget who pays the bulk of the bills for the Palestinians each year--its those hated Infidels of the West and what an Irony it is. Iran likes to think they are doing it all but the regime has only shown one tactic that is supporting armed resistance. Just like the charters of Hamas and Hezebollah state they want all of Israel Iran does as well. Is that trully constructive? While I believe they honestly care their political goals blind them to the reality on the ground namely the fact Israel is not going anywhere. Just as the Pals have a right so do the Jews. As I stated I am no fan of Israel's often illegal behavior but what trully constructive behavior has come from the rest of the nations in the area. Most seem to want to perpetuate the conflict in the hopes of using the Pals as a proxy to simply get rid of Israel. After all scripture says they Arabian penisula should be only for Muslims!

[Bill Davit]

Samuel,

Very valid point but you need to take into context the other variables. My arguement is not neccesairly about Western Democracy but the foundation it was built on greek/hellenistic thought. Like Western Democracy much of the succesful nations in Asia did embrace critical thought(the idea of experimentation, man can figure out the unknown, and to question everything.) In fact early greek thought was heavily influenced by early Asian thought. The sad part is once Islam came into the fold Europe was largely cut off from the East. It would be quite and experiment to consider what would have happened if the East had not been essentially shut off from the West for so many centuries.

China has a rich history in scientific discovery and the pursuit of education. Despite communism their people still progressed and I believe that had a lot to do with their basic culture. It should be noted the 1989 uprising by students was the catalyst for free markets and privatization. They paid a heavy price but the regime was forced to change or risk further trouble. I look at China as "in process" moving from an authoritarian form of government to a more liberal open society. China is a fascinating story because you are correct in stating authoritarian can suceed. The question is whether it is part of process moving away from it or just reinventing themselves. I still hold to my belief that with true open education authoritarian governments cannot last. Material prospertity is important but so is the intellectual and sprititual both of which are severly curbed in China.

[ChrisE]

Samuel,

It seems that rather than answer any questions I, or others, have raised, you are determined to have a debate on an issue entirely irrelvant. European Islamic immigration or the attitudes of Muslims to Iran are both red herrings- they are not even subjects that i have time or inclination to debate at length. Hence, this is my last post on the subject.

Bottom line is that Britain is 97.4% non Muslim. Most of the 2.6% are not politically active and only a very tiny minority want to see Britain become an Islamic state. Just because the SL has said they will doesn't make it any more true. Within the Muslim population, most are probably generally favourable to all other Muslim countries- especially those, like Iran in 2006 (when poll was made), which appeared increasingly likely to be attacked by the US.

But I maintain that most young British Muslims, like their non Muslim compatriots, do not have a close understanding of the Iranian Revolution, the Iranian constitution, the Shah, the Basij or Khomeini. I doubt that it was just my school- a selective Grammar School.

Quite apart from the fact that you said "Muslim youth in Europe are very Pro-Iranian Revolution".

Well actually that poll, even if we are to believe it, only indicates that majorities in Britain and Spain have favourable attitudes to Iran- which is a completely different statement to the one you suggested. Also, using your own poll, it appears that Muslims in France and Germany actually have a negative attitude to Iran.

Did the majority generally support the Iranian Revolution in 1979- probably. Most of the European left supported the revolution as well (for similar anti-imperalist and pro-democracy reasons). Was the Rushdie affair big for British Muslims- yes, for many it probably was.

The real question is how many British Muslims support, as you do, the brutal crackdown of the reformists? I strongly suspect that your zeal on the subject would be rarely matched.

But I'll say again- this is a straw man argument that has nothing to do with the current Iranian crisis. Looking back, I can't believe I indulged you.

[Amy]

Samuel
I will join Chris in pointing out that this whole line of thought is a straw man, but here are a few reasons that you can't predict or generalize re the future of Europe based on your data.

Muslim Ughers are uniting against the wonderfully totalitarian govt of China.

Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world, is not rushing to recast its govt on the IRI model. Neither are the mostly Muslim former USSR states.

India has a huge Muslim population yet remains a vibrant democracy. I'm not saying that there are great relations between all religious or ethnic groups, but the country is not trending toward the IRI model

There are people in Turkey who want a different form of govt, but they are taking a more or less proportional role in govt.-- not excluded but not favored by the majority

I'm just throwing out some examples. I know you'll want to pick them apart, but it would be a waste of time to do so. The thing is, in addition to being a red herring subject, these examples don't prove or disprove what can happen in another place or time like future Europe *and* neither can your counter-arguments. In this case the logical fallacy is arguing from the particular to the general when there is no general-- each case is individual-- there are too many variables in the equation, and each situation has it's own equation. The examples just show that no particular conclusion is pre-ordained.

Back to the original question, in Iran people were arrested and many are still in jail without charges or recourse to lawyers or their families. Why? For marching in the streets, shouting slogans from their rooftops, writing blogs... The Iranian regime has admitted that atrocities have occurred in jails. Nothing justifies treating people that way. If you revert to the argument that other countries treat their citizens that way, your picking up the straw man from earlier.

The question is why, in the particular case of Iran, is it acceptable to violate the country's own laws and the professed religion for the leaders treat people this inhumane way?

If you go after another straw man, people are going to drop out of the conversation, myself included.