UPDATED Iran: So What's This "National Unity Plan"?

The Latest from Iran (29 September): The Forthcoming Test?

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 1800 GMT: A reader usefully interjects, "I would like to just remind you that "The Unity Plan' is not from Rafsanjani and it is from 'Pro-Government people seeking truce.'"

It's a fair point, but the reason that this Plan was linked to Rafsanjani was because of widespread chatter, some of it fuelled by Rafsanjani allies, that the former President was the driving force behind the initiative for political reconciliation. Mehdi Karroubi's letter, published in a separate entry, also works from that assumption.

The overriding point is that we don't know Rafsanjani's role in this plan.

UPDATE 1650 GMT: My apologies for a slip-up in the previous entry. There are only eight names listed for the 9-member committee. That is because the 9th spot is for a representative of "political opposition (Mousavi)"


UPDATE 0650 GMT: The names of the proposed nine members of the top Committee in the "draft" of the Plan: Ayatollah Mahdavi Kani (“hard-line” cleric), Ayatollah Hashemi Shahroudi (former head of Judiciary), Ali Akbar Velayati (former Foreign Minister), Aboutorabi Fard (Deputy Parliament Speaker), Mahmoud Doai (Head of Etalaat News and former Ambassador to Iraq), Hassan Rohani (Rafsanjani stalwart), Masih Mohajeri (editor of Jomhuri Eslami newspaper), Habibollah Asgharowladi (leader of the Motalefeh Party).

It is claimed that the "draft" was written by Habibollah Asgaroladi, M.Mirsalim, M.Bahonar (Deputy Parliament Speaker), M.Nabavi, H.Mozafar, Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel (former Parliament Speaker).

UPDATE 30 September 0640 GMT: No further political developments but events at Fars News indicate that this was an early draft of a plan which the paper, either through poor journalism or an attempt to cause mischief, initially presented as a final, agreed proposal. After posting and then withdrawing several stories overnight, Fars eventually put up a version which explicitly refers to the Plan --- similar in its provisions to what we set out below --- as a "draft".

URGENT UPDATE 2015 GMT: There have been curious twists in the story. Fars had now modified its story of the document, saying that it is a "draft" from the Expediency Council. There is no date, no stamp, and no signature. (Note: within the last 30 minutes, the modified Fars story has been pulled from the website.)

This would still match up with a narrative, prominent in recent days, that the Expediency Council, chaired by Rafsanjani, had taken the initiative in producing a plan for political resolution to be considered by the Assembly of Experts. Yet, assuming the document is authentic, the story stops there. What happened to it when it was considered by the Assembly? Is the Expediency Council in charge of the process? What role does the Supreme Leader play in this political game?

Yet, the more one goes into the detail of the document, the more tenuous even this scenario becomes. The plan of a 9-person committee overseeing subcommittees to consider issues from electoral fraud to abuse of detainees is cumbersome, to say the least, but the prospects are almost fantastic. Would this complex set of committee and subcommittees dare overturn the Guardian Council's upholding of the original Presidential result or threaten widespread prosecution of security forces or government officials?

Even more striking is the document's deliberate slight of certain political figures. The repeated references to the inclusion of a representative from an "opposition candidate" (singular, not plural) and the equally repetitive naming of Mir Hossein Mousavi could not be clearer in its intent to split the Green opposition. So, if this is a plan for "National Unity", it rests upon a blunt attempt to cause disunity.

Indeed, the snub of Mehdi Karroubi (and, beyond the Green movement, Mohsen Rezaei) is so blatant that the document has a feel of "disinformation". However, if it were a false plan, one would expect it to be disowned very quickly by Mir Hossein Mousavi and, possibly, Rafsanjani. So far neither has spoken.

The other leading possibility is that this is an early draft of a plan floated by someone or some group. But whom? There the trail stops, for now.

What can be said tonight is that a purported plan for political resolution has actually provoked more division. The draft may explain why Karroubi wrote his second letter to Rafsanjani yesterday and why the tone was sharply critical. In effect, "Hashemi, why have you betrayed us?", both with a plan dividing the opposition (arguably co-opting Mousavi into the "establishment") and with the conversion of the Assembly of Experts into a body to close ranks against legitimate protest.

We're working on a full analysis of the National Unity Plan, as printed in Fars News this afternoon, but to be honest, it is so potentially dramatic in its provisions that we need time to work through the dynamics. So here's how our snap analysis unfolded. If you follow the path, you'll probably see that we think there is a convergence of forces which brings Mir Hossein Mousavi into the "acceptable" negotiations and shuts out Mehdi Karroubi. What this means for the Supreme Leader (how much influence has he lost by handing over "resolution" to a Truth Commission?) and President Ahmadinejad (is the Plan/Commission with him or against him?) is far less certain:

1550 GMT: We are working on an analysis of the "National Unity Plan" published in Fars News this afternoon but here's the headline:

The authors, who call themselves the delsoozan ("those whose hearts are aching" over the post-election conflict) have declared, "Let's join hands and fix the nezam (system)." Because of "the rise of some uncertainties in the political arena", the "elders and devotees...after several meetings have decided a plan for national unity that would enable a --- way out of the present situation".

The plan appears to be inclusive in its recommendation for a "national unity committee", with representatives from all parties including one from Mir Hossein Mousavi's campaign.

1610 GMT: Sting in the Detail. But, if the National Unity Plan proposes a committee with at least one representative from the Green opposition, it also offers a big-time slap in the face to somebody:

In reality, what was witnessed after the elections was a vast effort and movement of a political entity that was against the legal institutions and pillars of the system. This went as far as the fact that during Qods Day, the sayings of the Imam and the Revolution went under attack by this group.

So was this destructive "political entity" the Green Wave?

1615 GMT: Another Cryptic Passage from the Plan. "Truth seeking commission must put the word 'end' to the current situation in the country."

1619 GMT: And, for what's it worth, an EA correspondent answers the question racing around the Internet, "Is This Rafsanjani's Plan?": "It's a Hashemi-laden letter. You can almost see his fingerprints."

1622 GMT: The Proposed Truth Commission? One representative of the marjas [senior clerics], one representative from Assembly of Experts, one representative from Interior Ministry, one rep from Majlis [Parliament], one representative from Judiciary, one representative from Expediency Council, one representative from Guardian Council, one representative from the "House of Parties", and one representative of the "protesting candidate (Mousavi)".

1628 GMT: So Who Got Left Out of the Plan? Take a look at that Commission membership again. No representative of the "other" defeated Presidential candidates, Mohsen Rezaei and Mehdi Karroubi.

1635 GMT: And while you're getting your heads around Who's In, Who's Out and Why, consider this from an EA correspondent: "The mere acceptance of this Plan by Supreme Leader would be quite something as he would have to implictly recognise that he has not been able and will not be able to cope with the situation alone and so he needs ad hoc help from 'friends and family'."

Comments

[Afshin]

@Thomas

I think the world is overrating Iran's military power. They are in no way a match for USA and in no way a threat for a WW. The only issue is that oil prices will sky rocket and US can not afford the casualties.

But purely looking at it on a military level the war would be over in less then a few weeks.

[Bijan]

The issue for the US is not so much the level of sophistication of the US military versus the Iranian military but rather a question of resources and public policy. While there may be a lot of anti-Iran sentiment, I do not believe the public is ready for more deaths of American soldiers. Another consideration, and I agree with Afshin that the world, should I say the media leads one to believe that there Iran is a military power, this probably was more of a reality in the past than present. However, if there was some level of a ground invasion, etc the causalities would be high. This would not be another Iraq where troops surrendered in masses. From a policy standpoint, this is something else the US administration, current or future, does not want on their plate.

[Thomas]

Afshin,

I believe that the emotions of people would drive this as it would be further proof that the US/Israel was out to destroy Islam. Iraq would become hot again for the US as the Shia south rose up for their own interests, and their would continual irregular warfare through out the world for several years as others used the excuse for their own needs. Plus US presitige would be lost in the West for being moronic hotheads that can not be trusted, along with the economic damage from commodity prices rising when Iran sinks a single tanker with a Silkworm and no insurance becomes available.
Though after typing the above I realize I did exaggerate with the world war comment, but the damage in domestic politics,international politics and economy is not price that the US would be willing to pay. And Israel would pay a higher price as the families of those casualities would question US support to them. This is why Bush kept the Cheney wing of the adminstration from attacking in the second term.

[Thomas]

As for the Truth Commission, what is the feeling on the streets of Iran? Is it believed this is going to happen?

[Thomas]

Bijan,

Alot of the anti-Iranian sentiment went away in June. All of sudden people saw humans, not monsters. The US media and elite has a right wing bent with a healthy dose of neo conservativism so they won't give up their policy narrative. The key point I was trying to make is the US wargamed this in 2004-5 and lost. Israel's technical capablity to be successful is in question and the US military is dead set against an attack,Zbig's unoffical warning to the hotheads is we will stop it. Most of the media posturing is for the US political front by neo-cons and likudniks. In the end, there won't be an attack. Though to be fair to Iranian military, there is alot of damage they can do to naval ships, commercial ships and other installations inthe gulf.
T

[Peter]

Iran's military is nowhere near a match for Israel's let alone the US's. Nevertheless Iran's facilities are hardened and/or buried under mountains. They can't be completely destroyed with current munitions through an aerial attack, at best they can be knocked out of commission for a year or two while they're being repaired. So without a simultaneous insertion of ground forces, a successful air attack would at best briefly delay Iran's development of a nuclear weapon while simultaneously rallying support for the current regime. This would be a marginal success at best and over the longer term it is likely to do more harm than good. There is also a price that Iran could extract from the US too in retaliation:

1) The US is very much addicted to middle-eastern oil and Iran has the ability to disrupt that flow. Just the serious threat of such a disruption could cause oil prices to skyrocket and thus push America's currently sputtering economy into an even deeper hole.

2) Iran has the ability to ensure that Afghanistan (which is dire enough as it is) ends in a total failure for the United States should they decide that the US must be humiliated there at any cost.

3) Iraq is not so stable that Iran couldn't change the climate such that the scheduled American pull-out looks like a defeat instead of a mild victory.

When you weigh the potential gains vs the potential costs, an American tactical strike just isn't worth it. As far as ground forces are concerned, the US has none to spare as they're tied up elsewhere. Even if the US did posses the needed ground troops, between the bad economy and the war-weariness that has gripped the country, the President would have little support for a new war outside the neocons and evangelicals who didn't vote for him anyway. So no, I don't see it happening under the current set of circumstances.

[Megan]

What matters really is the view of people who live in Iran. Last evening sanctions vs. military strike was put for debate at epersianradio.com (program time 11:00 PM, PST). I was surprised to hear that 90 percent of people who called were in favor of either/or. The split was 50/50. Those in favor of military strike were asking for targeted strike on Nuke facility and more importantly military bases. One caller said if military strike destroys and kills as many Pasdar and Basiji by targeted bombing they do the rest and finish the government. Those in favor of sanctions were asked if they were prepared for the burden on them and they responded it would not be worse than now and even if it was they would manage it if it meant the end of the government. Ten percent who were against either option were callers outside Iran. Though unscientific and certainly no basis for decision making it revealed how badly people wanted to toss out the government. I am sending an e-mail to the radio station and asking them to continue the session.

[Amy]

Interesting-- a different take on how Israeli govt is looking at the situation
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSLT558247" rel="nofollow">ANALYSIS-Israel rethinks anti-Iran warnings

[Somebody]

@Megan

epersianradio.com has had some good coverage since the election (I caught Hashemi's sermon and the aftermath thanks to their broadcast) but it is a monarchist radio station with a monarchist listenership. A poll they conduct will not only be unscientific, it will be entirely skewed toward the views of a minority of the Iranian population who favour a return of the monarchy (something that's not likely to happen without war or revolution).

[Megan]

@ Somebody,

I appreciate your comments. Let me please clarify. Epersianradio.com was not conducting a poll. It had an open forum on the topic of potential remedy, e.g. military strike and/or sanction, by international community and was asking people how they felt.

I came across this radio station when it was broadcasting Rafsanjani speech. I have been tuning in since that day every evening at 11:00 because I am interested to hear from people in Iran. I feel people who live in the heart of this struggle are those who really matter not those who are outside looking in. I prefer this radio station over others because it is less structured and gives callers an open forum to share their thoughts. I must say I was surprised to read your comments about monarchist agenda. During these couple of months that I have been tuning in I have never heard the host pushing such agenda. I have not even sensed that from his callers. His callers come from cross section of Iranian society and from across Iran. I like the 11:00 o’clock host because he refuses to direct people to any specific direction or agenda and even if callers ask him his views he replies he is interested to hear theirs. That is pretty rarer in broadcasting.

I also believe in a true democracy people ought to be free to pursue their political and ideological point of view and majority will rule whatever that might be.

[Pedestrian » Blog Archiv]

[...] have been all sorts of conflicting reports the past few days about a “national unity plan“. Seems to me that the hardcore principalists don’t want to be left behind in [...]

[Libra73]

We have a story in Perisn about " khaleh susske" Or the the " miss ladybug". She says to her suitor, "If I were to become your wife, what would you beat me with?" . My Iranian friends know the rest of this story.

The problem with Iran is that after decades of suffering under despots of all kind, hitting us over the head, we have become a nation of Khaleh susskeh. we have become used to getting hit over the head. We are ready to settle for anything and anyone as long as we perceive some improvement of our lives.

At this stage the islamic republic has become so desparate that they have had to form this commitee, hoping for a lifeline. The regime is in deep crisis, threatened from all sides, hanging by a thread and they know it.
They need to buy time.

We can not put our faith in the hands of a few insiders, especially the likes of rafsanjani, Moussavi, and Larijanis, all of whom have blood on their hands, and Islamic Republic, "not a word more not a word less" -as Moussavi put it so efficiently this week- as their goal. They are playing poker with 70mil lives and we are happy just sitting on the sidelines analyzing what might come out of it.

Protests must continue untill student leaders and activists have a seat at this table. Otherwise, it is ought to be seen with great suspiscion and distrust.