The Latest from Iran (25 September): The Nuclear Distraction

NEW Video: Ahmadinejad Interview with Time Magazine
NEW Transcript: Obama and Sarkozy Statements on Iran Nuclear Programme
NEW Iran: Obama's "Get-Tough" Move for Engagement
Iran: Rafsanjani, Ahmadinejad, and the Multi-Sided Chess Match
Latest Video: Full Speech of Ahmadinejad at UN General Assembly
Iran: English Text of Letters between Mousavi and Montazeri (13 and 22 September)

1835 GMT: Report that Azar Mansouri, deputy head of the Islamic Iran Participation Front, has been arrested after an interview with Norooz.

1735 GMT: Is Iran's "Secret Nuclear Plant" Legal? The quick soundbite for Time from its interview with President Ahmadinejad is ""This does not mean we must inform Mr. Obama's administration of every facility that we have."

However, Ahmadinejad may have a point, one which is relevant to the current case. Iran notified the IAEA on Monday that it was constructing a new pilot enrichment plant. If Tehran has not put nuclear material into this facility, Iran is in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty's Comprehensive Full Scope Safeguards Agreement, which requires it to a six-month notification period before nuclear material is put in the facility. (Iran withdrew from the more Subsidiary Agreement 3.1, which requires more detailed and timely notification, after the International Atomic Energy Agency referred Iran's nuclear program to the U.N. Security Council.

So the case to prosecute Iran under the Non-Proliferation Treaty is not clear-cut. Of course, the US can and will rely upon the U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding that Iran cease all enrichment. Whether other countries (China, Russia) take the same line remains to be seen.

1730 GMT: President Ahmadinejad may have backed out of an encounter with the New York media, but he did give a one-on-one video interview to Time magazine. We've posted in a separate entry.

1700 GMT: President Ahmadinejad has replaced his New York press conference with an interview with Press TV.

1500 GMT: We've just posted Chris Emery's shrewd analysis of the politics of the US revelation of the "secret nuclear plant" and the Obama statement: "This high-profile initiative by Obama was designed to get movement on engagement."

1425 GMT: Amidst the continuing chatter on the Obama statement --- no additional information, just the theme of "He was Really Tough" --- news services drop in this interesting twist "Ahmadinejad cancels his 5 pm EST (2100 GMT) speech in NYC [New York City]".

1245 GMT: The Obama Line. The President has just made his statement on the Iran "secret nuclear plant". The message? This demonstrates Iran's "continuing unwillingness" to meets its "international obligations" on development of nuclear capability. This showed the "urgency" of resolution at talks with Iran on 1 October in Geneva.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has backed this up by saying "everything must be put on the table", and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has proclaimed this "the most urgent problem" of today.

This feels more and more like a scripted play. The "West" has known for some time that Iran was constructing a second uranium enrichment plant but had not announced this to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Tehran figured out that the US had learned of the plant and was preparing a big setpiece, ahead of the 1 October talks, to reveal the Iranian duplicity. So Iran went to the IAEA on Monday to put its plans above-board. This, however, was  not going to deflect the US-UK-France scheme to put Iran on the defensive in advance of the first direct discussions between Washington and Tehran.

1220 GMT: By the way, there was a Friday Prayer address today. After the drama of recent weeks, this one, by hard-line Government supporter and head of the Guardian Council Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, went almost unnoticed.

Nothing much new here. Jannati talks about triumph over "the enemy" through the political, military, and regional power of Iran and invokes the Holy Defense of the 1980-1988 war against Iraq. Like the Supreme Leader, he portrayed the demonstrations of Qods Day and Eid-ul-Fitr as Iranian support for the world's oppressed, and he condemned the tragedy of the assassination of the Kurdestan member of the Assembly of Experts.

1210 GMT: And Here's You Obama Administration  Line. A "senior Administration source" uses one of the reliable channels (i.e. will put out the message as presented, will not look behind or beyond it), ABC's Jake Tapper: "[Obama] to express 'great and increasing doubts about the strictly peaceful nature' of Iran's nuclear program"

1200 GMT: NBC's Ann Curry nails the politics on the "secret nuclear plant" story, and she only needs 1 Tweet to do it: "Remember the US and Iran about to negotiate. The West has an interest in increasing the pressure now."

1145 GMT: The Iran State Line. Press TV, in an article posted this morning, does not address the "secret nuclear plant" story but refers to French and British allegations of an Iranian nuclear progamme, made during the exchanges at the United Nations this week, as "totally baseless and untrue". The Iranian UN mission added that remarks by French President Nicolas Sarkozy were a "futile attempt aimed to cover up [French] non-compliance with its international disarmament obligations".

1050 GMT: So the story of Iran's "secret nuclear plant" (which isn't secret, since Tehran informed the International Atomic Agency of the construction of the uranium enrichment facility on Monday) is going to dominate the news cycle, as every US and many international outlets rush lemming-like to the tale and President Obama makes a statement at 1230 GMT.

If only someone takes a step back to note this comment from CNN's Fareed Zakaria, made after President Ahmadinejad's UN speech: "Ahmadinejad has been on a campaign over the last few weeks to change the subject. His great fear was that he would come to New York and the subject would be the Iranian regime and his massive repression of the Iranian democracy movement, the street protests, all the allegations being made by Iranians of what is happening in Iran --- rape, torture, abuse. What he wanted to do was to talk about anything but that."

0900 GMT: Ahmadinejad's Useful US Idiots. I was going to write the following analysis for Saturday, but events prompt me to offer a preview:

Ahmadinejad was on verge of major mis-step by playing New York trip as sign that all now resolved at home. 'West', however, played into his hands by raising Iran (and Ahmadinejad) to iconic threat on nuke issue. And Netanyahu gives kiss of death to opposition by praising their supposed aim of regime change. So the President gets to do his aggressive defend-Iran thing, getting more legitimacy out of West than he has many of his own people.

Five minutes after jotting this down, I read the Administration's latest strategic masterpiece in The New York Times, courtesy of David Sanger (who seems to have no recognition that he is a messenger-boy);

President Obama and the leaders of Britain and France will accuse Iran Friday of building a secret underground plant to manufacture nuclear fuel, saying it has hidden the covert operation for years from international weapons inspectors, according to senior administration officials.

Well done, guys. Instead of keeping your mouths shut and letting Ahmadinejad return to political complications at home, you've given him the ideal platform to pose as defender of Iranian sovereignty. And watch how your PR stick, wielded just before talks with Iran on 1 October, is turned into a stick by the President, his allies, and his supportive State media to bash "foreign-directed" reformists and the Green movement at home.

Idiots.

0650 GMT: Catching up, indeed. Even though the EA roadtrip was less than 72 hours, there appears to be a month's worth of incidents to consider. Forget the Ahmadinejad sideshow in New York; the events in and around the Assembly of Experts offer a plethora of possibilities. We've attempted an analysis,
"Rafsanjani, Ahmadinejad, and the Multi-Sided Chess Match", this morning.

Of course, state media features Ayatollah Khamenei's address to the Assembly of Experts, but it also keeps playing up President Ahmadinejad's defiance of the "West", from his warning against sanctions to his explanation that "Down with the US" refers to the "ugly behavior" of the American Government.

Comments

[Nelly]

@Scott
Do you know who are Obama's advisors about Iran? Initially I was relieved when Obama became president instead of George W. I was more or less confident in Obama and thought he would be smarter then just looking at short term politics. In the way they are acting now, the American government seems to be just handling affairs in such a contra productive manner.
Since you are an University Professor and a specialist on US foreign affairs, couldn't you send them (the presidents advisors) your sharp analysis on the matter? Maybe they can become a little more cautious and let A.N. (hopefully) loose his battle at the home front first. I am worrying about the outcome of all this and afraid that eventually there will be decided in favor of an attack (by US or Israel) on Iranian nuclear facilities.

[John Birch]

"Well done, guys. Instead of keeping your mouths shut and letting Ahmadinejad return to political complications at home, you’ve given him the ideal platform to pose as defender of Iranian sovereignty. And watch how your PR stick, wielded just before talks with Iran on 1 October, is turned into a stick by the President, his allies, and his supportive State media to bash “foreign-directed” reformists and the Green movement at home."

I think you've lost sight of the bigger picture here and you're too focused on the internal Iran angle. The U.S. is seeking to increase the pressure on Iran and to win over others to a policy of sanctions. This also connects to the Poland-Czech Republic ABM decision. The Obama administration is not concerned about how this will play internally in Iran and how Ahmadinejad, who they already accept that they will have to deal with, might spin it. Downplaying this revelation does not serve U.S. policy at all and it is hardly surprising that the media would run with this as it is a big story.

[Scott Lucas]

Nelly,

I do know some of Obama’s advisors and even co-wrote an article with one of them long before he went into Government. I think, however, that I’m destined to be a mischievous outsider.

S.

[Scott Lucas]

John,

I appreciate your argument --- my point is not that there is a lack of US policy but that the implementation of this one, in timing and in manner, has the unfortunate effect of strengthening Ahmadinejad in the current context of Iranian politics.

Have a look at Chris Emery's separate analysis on EA, which I think complements your points.

S.

[ChrisE]

I actually share Scott's concerns regarding strengthening AN's position. However, I personally think that there is probably a limit now to which a) external influences affect Iranian politics b) the extent to which AN can make political capital out of it c) that AN relies on doing so.

I suspect that those manoeuvring against AN have a strategy that was not contingent upon anything other than what was a very predictable outcome at the UN.

But, it's now obvious that the UN was essentially a sideshow for what happened at the G8, at least as far as the US et al were concerned.

Also not that many great options available

1. Go hard on nuclear issue- maybe arouse the nationalist card
2. Go hard on internal crisis and repression (as Zakaria suggests)- this would also have allowed AN to play the nationalist card and paint the Green Movement as supporting a Western agenda
3. Say nothing- politically very difficult and also could have been portrayed by AN as a victory.

I've broadly kept to the line that the international community has little capacity to influence the internal Iranian crisis- which means that they might as do what they can to gain leverage on the nuclear issue.

Also telling that AN cancelled his 5pm news conference at the UN.

[Amy]

I strongly agree with Chris's http://enduringamerica.com/2009/09/25/iran-obamas-get-tough-move-for-engagement/" rel="nofollow">assessment. President Obama isn't just picking up where Bush left off. Going in that direction would be counter to what he has said & done to this point. This move is tactical, not strategic. Here in the US, it will fire up the right. Being less naive, the neocons may give it lip service but will receive little real cheer from it. As Chris said, "the point is that the engagement strategy remains in tact."

If this development happened a couple of months ago, AN might have gotten nationalist leverage from it, but at this point, there's been too much water under the bridge internally. The people saw the show trials & they know what happened in the prisons. They are wise to the external threat card and they know their adversary. As things play out around the meeting, they will see the international dynamics. Fortunately the meetings begin soon.

[Amy]

Nelly
Of course it's just my opinion, but I can't imagine the US attacking Iran or Iran's nuclear facilities. Today's announcements are more in line with Chris Emery’s analysis linked above. The majority in the US would not support such a move after Iraq. The President has no desire to go that route. As for Israel, the international repercussions of an attack would be fierce. I don't think the Israeli govt would want to put itself in that position

[kevina]

http://twitter.com/MikVerbrugge" rel="nofollow">Verbrugge has VERY interesting tweets.

So interesting that I really cannot buy it.

[kevina]

Heh, funny thought came to my head. If Die Zelt is right, then boy, Iranians are going to be friggin busy with elections (Majlis, Presidency, local elections, and now a Supreme Council election).

[Amy]

kevina
It certainly would be one big wow
sounds waaaay to good to be true

[Amy]

Did SL lead prayers of some of the Marjas? Was he referring to Hojjatieh as a stand in for all who oppose Velayat-e Faqih? It would be consistent with the restructuring rumors...

The rumors may just reflect huge tensions around Velayat-e Faqih after Hashemi's statement & the events surrounding the AoE meeting.
(as if I knew what I'm talking about)

[ChrisE]

Can someone please summarise what is being claimed? I cannot find anything on die zeit's website and the Verbrugge tweets are nonsensical.

Is this talking about the SL's possible resignation?

I find this very unlikely.

This the constitutional provision:

Article 111 [Leadership Council]

(1) Whenever the Leader becomes incapable of fulfilling his constitutional duties, or loses one of the qualifications mentioned in Articles 5 and 109, or it becomes known that he did not possess some of the qualifications initially, he will be dismissed. The authority of determination in this matter is vested with the experts specified in Article 108.

(2) In the event of the death, or resignation or dismissal of the Leader, the experts shall take steps within the shortest possible time for the appointment of the new Leader. Until the appointment of the new Leader, a council consisting of the President, head of the judiciary power, and a religious men from the Guardian Council, upon the decision of the Nation's Exigency Council, shall temporarily take over all the duties of the Leader. In the event that, during this period, any one of them is unable to fulfil his duties for whatsoever reason, another person, upon the decision of majority of religious men in the Nation's Exigency Council shall be elected in his place.

[Amy]

Caveat-- it's all rumor... the best I can make out is:
The part that sounds solid is that SL either gave a speech or led prayers & spoke very positively about the Marjas, but with many references to Hojjatieh.

The part rumored to come from die zeit is that there is a plan to change Velayat-e Faqih by creating a 5 person (or multi-person) council, a possibility that has been mentioned often in recent weeks. People are speculating that it's part of Hashemi's plan-- the blueprint referred to in his AoE speech.

It really sounds like hope blown out of proportion following the possibilities raised by Hashemi's speech and the way the AoE meeting played out

[whereismyvote]

Can someone please give me the link for what you are referencing? It is hard to search the internet... I can see MikVerbrugge tweet, but have trouble finding the link its source and anything else...
die zeit’s site is also non accessible. Before we jump the gun, lets confirm what we are talking about.

[Amy]

whereismyvote
I didn't see a link either-- it's not clear where it's coming from. I can access die zeit but can't read German

[whereismyvote]

Article on Parleman News:

http://www.parlemannews.ir/index.aspx?n=3881

It seems the Plan referenced by Rafsanjani in the AoE meeting is a plan being worked by him and some members of the Expediency Discretionary council... His spokesman indicates that Mr. Rafsanjani only referenced this plan to informe the AoE of it.

[Amy]

What is the role of the Expediency Discretionary council? What might working with that council indicate about the nature of the plan?

[whereismyvote]

Very opaque unfortunately Amy, but I posted the article in relation to the request from Chris E as it is all I can see to major change / rumors...
As good an explanation as to any

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expediency_Discernment_Council

Also note that Rezai (presidential candidate) was made the secretary of the council.

[whereismyvote]

The web site of the council and what its 11 point role is.

This seems to be in tune with many of the points raised by Rafsanjani and also indicated.
http://www.majma.ir/hfile.ashx?guid=0e5aee13-d24b-43b7-9c0d-5932f7e53fb3&size=500

[kevina]

What does the Parleman article say?

[peace maker]

Nelly,

One of Obama's main advisors is Dennis Ross. If you do not know him well , just google him and I think you'll find some answers to your questions.

This is also an article by Roger Cohen in which he explores the role of Dennis Ross in the mechanics of American policy-making towards Iran.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/magazine/02Iran-t.html?_r=1

[kevina]

http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0BzDodvnKGP31ZTZmZWQyNGYtYjdkYy00ZTY1LWFlNmMtMjg0OWJlMGI4NzM2&hl=en" rel="nofollow">PDF translation of Die Zeit

It's disjointed but you get the point. Unclear is whether this would be a Green wish list or if it really is being put together by Hashemi. If the latter,...

[Peter]

Reuters has a rather informative article (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE58O4Z520090925) regarding the debate over the "legality" of the plant under the NPT. Apparently the NPT was amended in 1992 to require notification "as soon as the decision to construct or to authorize construction has been taken, whichever is earlier." Iran agreed to follow it according to Reuters and it was thus in force at the time that construction on the Qom plant began in 2006. (The article is a bit vague unfortunately regarding the manner & date of Iran's agreement to follow the amended NPT.) Iran repudiated that amendment the following year in 2007 and is now claiming that it is only bound by the original wording of the NPT.

[Arshama]

@ Scott, Nelly, John and ChrisE
I really wonder about our different perceptions on Obama's foreign policy. Imho your president is playing strong cards against AN and the regime. Iranians consider AN's speech at the UN as a national shame, further isolating the country from the world community. Recently Mohsen Sazegara quoted Mohsen Makhmalbaf (director) that the Green Movement does not want nuclear missiles. AN cannot play the nationalistic card, because a majority did not elect him and does not accept him: Just remember the mass demonstrations on Qods day, when the crowd changed the official slogan "Death to Israel" into "Death to Russia" or expatriates shouting "Killer, get out!" before his NY hotel.
Additionally Wall Street Journal reports that big oil companies already are clandestinely reducing their fuel exports to Iran. On the other hand several bazaaris supporting the Movement have been arrested in Tehran recently.
Bazaaris are traditionally conservative, but their business is on decline since the elections. Apart from that not many of them want to be considered as supporters of rapists.
In short: When your home is on fire, angry neighbours are not very welcome.
Obama obviously convinced Medvedev to support harsher sanctions. With rising pressure from within this regime is doomed to fail.

[Amy]

peace maker
Thanks for the link. I haven't read anything so fascinating in ages, and very well written. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/magazine/02Iran-t.html?_r=2" rel="nofollow">The Making of an Iran Policy)

Dennis Ross is only one of several Obama advisers on Iran. Unlike his predecessor, President Obama doesn't surround himself solely with people who agree with him. I'm not defending Ross, but am saying that the process can't be read by looking at individual participants. It doesn't work to single out one adviser and say: Here is President Obama's Iran policy. Consider this section:

In Tehran, just before the election, I sat down with Nasser Hadian, who once taught at Columbia and is now at Tehran University. He’s an influential thinker on foreign affairs who got to know Ross while he was in the United States. Hadian told me that Iran has taken Obama’s outreach seriously. Hadian has been part of a group of foreign-policy experts, convened by Mahmoud Vaezi at the Center for Strategic Research in Tehran, who have been meeting every two weeks to review how to respond to the U.S. offer. Vaezi prepares reports that are submitted to Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the reformist former president who has been bitterly critical of the June 12 vote, and to Khamenei himself.

Hadian sees this role for Ross:

I’ve argued that Ross would be an important assurance, someone able to convince the American Jewish lobby that any eventual agreement is workable.” That view, he suggested, had gained some traction in Tehran.

He listed several figures key to the negotiations:

Hadian said Iran has looked at everyone in the policy mix — Burns, Ross, Talwar, Vali Nasr (an Iranian-American aide to Richard Holbrooke, the State Department envoy), Gary Samore (a nonproliferation expert at the N.S.C.), Tony Blinken (a national security adviser to Vice President Joe Biden) — and the general feeling was positive...

Unfortunately, when the article was written, Nasser Hadian was in prison.

Just saying that one adviser does not embody our policy toward Iran (thank goodness).