The Latest from Iran (23 September): New York Sideshow, Tehran Main Event

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

1630 GMT: So Twitter Doesn't Matter? The pro-Government newspaper Kayhan is most irritated at a "twitition", promoted via social media, for Mehdi Karroubi to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. This is, apparebtly, the work of agents of the "West" and "Zionists" (and it is in a separate entry on EA).

1500 GMT: Ahmadinejad's away but his Government is still trying to play the enforcer at home. Fereshteh Ghazi reports that Majid Khorami, another member of the reformist Islamic Participation Front and head of Campaign 88 in northern Khorasan province, has been arrested.

1230 GMT: Another example of Red Herring Analysis. Meir Javedanfar is one of the most prominent US-based analysts of Iran, but he also foregoes consideration of the important dynamics inside Iran for the superficial of the President's performance today: "Ahmadinejad's words at the United Nations this week should therefore not be dismissed too quickly. They are a valuable reflection into the thinking of a regime that could soon become a nuclear power. On the contrary, President Ahmadinejad's words should serve as a blueprint for how a nuclear Iran might behave."

1115 GMT: Another Arrest. Confirmation today from various sources that Azar Mansouri, the political deputy to the Secretary General of the reformist Islamic Iran Participation Front, Mohsen Mirdamadi, has been detained. Mirdamadi himself has been under arrest since soon after the 12 June election.

1015 GMT: And here is Ahmadinejad's summary, from the AP interview, of who is to blame for the post-election conflict:

"These were our citizens who were killed, and they were not at fault. Those who were at fault were a group of politicians who basically instigated the events that transpired. I've asked the judicial system ... to find out who the perpetrators of those acts were.

"The government has no role in these events ... Undoubtedly, some foreign governments had a role to play in it ... It is all very regrettable ... Some European and American politicians took a wrong position and basically helped that happen."

1000 GMT: Associated Press has published extracts from their interview with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Its main significance is to bear out what we projected this morning about the media coverage of the President's forthcoming speech. Attention is paid to the Holocaust, Iran's nuclear programme, and the three detained US "hitchhikers". There is only one brief reference to Iran's internal situation.

0600 GMT: At 5 p.m. New York time (2100 GMT) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will address the United Nations General Assembly.

And to be honest, both for personal interest and for analysis, I really don't care. I can guess most of Ahmadinejad's script, and the way he'll deliver it, and how it will be treated. The one proviso is that, if there are large demonstrations --- involving not pro-Israeli groups but those protesting the internal situation in Iran --- it could dent Ahmadinejad's self-portrayal to his folks back home as confdient and secure leader.

The main action is in Tehran. We've got a separate analysis of Hashemi Rafsanjani's speech yesterday, and we're watching for reactions and manoeuvres.

Meanwhile, Grand Ayatollah Montazeri has linked up publicly with Mir Hossein Mousavi in a new challenge to the Government. A Mousavi statement has been followed by a Montazeri letter denouncing the false confessions of show trials.

One of the detention cases has been highlighted by the blogger Fereshteh Ghazi (iranbaan on Twitter). She notes that fellow journalist Ahmad Zeidabadi is under heavy pressure in Evin Prison to confess. The interrogator has told him: "We have orders to crush you. If you don't work with us we'll do anything we want to you, and if you don't sign the confession papers we'll make you eat them." Zeidabadi's wife said that the interrogator has severely beaten her husband.

One of Zeidabadi's charges is that in an open letter to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, he called him the "Leader" and not "Supreme" Leader. The interrogators have told Zeidabadi to apologise to Khamenei.

Iran: Rafsanjani Seizes the Initiative

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

I got it wrong. Writing on a train to Edinburgh and relying on a shaky translation, I updated yesterday that Hashemi Rafsanjani's address at the Assembly of Experts had been clever but cautious. With an emphasis on unity, an alignment with the Supreme Leader, and a call for resolution within the system, he had not made a direct challenge to the Government.

Wrong.

Fortunately EA's Mr Johnson, with a thorough and incisive translation of the speech, corrected my reading in a later update and identified Rafsanjani's very direct message to President Ahmadinejad and his allies. Put not so cleverly and carefully, it is this. Mr President, it is time for you to compromise, especially with the senior clerics, in a process overseen by the Supreme Leader. Doing so, you will acknowledge where the final authority lies in the Islamic Republic: with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, backed by his clerical experts, and not with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Doing so, you will acknowledge that your direction and your officials are responsible for post-election abuses which must be punished and redressed.

Several important caveats to this message should be noted. This does not mean that Hashemi Rafsanjani is in step with the Green movement. At no point yesterday, as far as I know, did he acknowledge their presence. The Qods Day demonstrations had been of the Iranian people showing their determined defense of the cause of Palestine. Mehdi Karroubi's letter was never cited as the source of Rafsanjani's knowledge of abuses. Only the Supreme Leader and the marjas (the most senior of clerics) were identified --- Khamenei explicitly, the marjas implicitly --- as the defenders of justice. And Rafsanjani always balanced his charges of crimes and abuses with the general invocation that they had been committed by all sides in the conflict, not just by the security forces and Government officials. Rafsanjani does not walk in step with the Green movement but their paths converge when it comes to the desire to curb Ahmadinejad.



And that leads to the second caveat: although Rafsanjani never said so, the opposition opened up the space and thus made it possible for him to make his challenge. In particular, Rafsanjani needs the demonstration on Qods Day that many Iranian people were not only still angry with the President, still insistent on changes in the system, but also ready to take to the streets to give political substance to their feelings. In retrospect, that seems to be the reason why the former President laid low on Friday, watching, wating, and calculating, and then made his appearance (which, inevitably, would be in the vicinity of President Ahmadinejad but, now it is clear, not alongside him) at the Supreme Leader's end-of-Ramadan speech. Rafsanjani had some security in the criticism of the Government by senior clerics, many of whom were in the Assembly yesterday, but even those individuals might be picked off by the Ahmadinejad forces with their relatives arrested and their reputations slandered. After Friday, however, he had the security of knowing that, if the Government persisted, so would mass opposition by the Green movement. Resistance would not be broken. And he had also had the security of the Supreme Leader's Sunday address. For Khamenei had said to the President and the Revolutionary Guard, in his directive that in-court confessions could not be used against any third party, that Rafsanjani's family were immune from the charges in the Tehran trials.

A third caveat is essential, however. Rafsanjani did not call and will not call, even in code, for the dismissal of Ahmadinejad. That moment, if it ever existed, passed long ago with the affirmation of the Supreme Leader that the 12 June election result would stand.

No, Ahmadinejad can still be top political dog. But Rafsanjani is asking that he be put in the doghouse and on a firm leash.

This leads to an irony which is not an irony. The still-loose President was on his way to New York when Rafsanjani made his speech challenging that President's authority. A far from ironic moment, however, because Rafsanjani had undoubtedly made another calculation. It is not just that Ahmadinejad is out of the country but that his rhetoric will be directed at external issues such as the nuclear programme and Irna's leadership in causes such as the campaign such as Zionism.

Those issues are secondary --- although almost all in the "Western" media will have no comprehension of this --- to the internal matters put forward by Rafsanjani yesterday. So, once more as with the 17 July Friday Prayer address, he has the initiative.

Here is the question. Will the Supreme Leader, who opened up the door to Rafsanjani's political re-entry, now accompany him in that initiative?

Analysis: 'New' Washington Consensus on Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process!

The tripartite meeting between Israeli, Palestinian, and American delegations took place in New York on Tuesday, with the leaders of the three groups participating. This was the picture which signals a shift in the US apparoach towards the Palestinian-Israeli conflict , from a step-by-step Road Map to an edited Washington version of a 2002 Saudi initiative based on wider issues and a regional context.

Yet Washington's "middle way" between the demands of Palestinians and Israelis is not new. The steps taken in the Obama Administration's Middle East foreign policy since last January were supposed to be clearer when the leaders of Israelis and Palestinians shook hands on Tuesday. But even this picture is incomplete, since the failure to include regional actors such as Syria, Iran, Lebanon and Iraq will undermine any effort on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

According to Washington, the final status agreement must come with continuing negotiations on other issues, especially on the Israeli halt of settlements in the West Bank. The formula is clear: the reassurance of the Palestinian side with the promised withdrawal of Israelis to pre-1967 war borders while reducing pressure on the Israeli side by moving the discourse of “total settlement freeze” to that of “restraining settlements activity” as the Israeli concede a nine-month freeze.



On Tuesday, U.S. President met with the Israeli delegation at first. Then, he talked to the Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas and his aides. Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, National Security Council head Uzi Arad, US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Mitchell took part in the earlier bilateral Israeli-American meeting. At the end, the tripartite meeting finally was displayed.

"Permanent status negotiations must begin and begin soon. And more importantly, we must give those negotiations the opportunity to succeed," Obama said and added:

It is past time to talk about starting negotiations; it is time to move forward. It is time to show flexibility and common sense and sense of compromise that is necessary to achieve our goals... Leaders in the Middle East could not continue 'the same patterns, taking tentative steps forward, then taking steps back.'

For Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel achieved what it had wanted after the tripartite meeting. He said to reporters in New York:

There was general agreement, including on the part of the Palestinians, that the peace process has to be resumed as soon as possible with no preconditions... We had two good meetings, even very good, I would say – one with President Obama and his team and later with the Palestinian team. Although the importance of the meeting is in its existence, it was an ice-breaking meeting between people who have not worked with each other for months. It provides a possibility to change things in the future.

However, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman was not as “positive” as his premier. He actually saw eye to eye with Abbas and said that "although the Palestinian side is saying it has no preconditions, it has all kinds of demands for moves in the West Bank." On the other hand, Netanyahu kept calm and came closer to Obama's diplomatic stance. He said:

They can raise the Jerusalem issue and we'll present our stance... In the joint meeting with Abu Mazen (Abbas) I told him that 'there is no use in insisting on these matters. Let's move forward.'

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas did not mention Netanyahu's 'talks without any preconditions' and reiterated that Israel had to leave all occupied lands and stop construction in Israeli settlements in the West Bank. He said:

In today's meetings we confirmed our positions and commitment to the road map and its implementation. We also demanded that the Israeli side fulfill its commitments on settlements, including on natural growth.

As for resuming talks, this depends on a definition of the negotiating process that means basing them on recognizing the need to withdraw to the 1967 borders and ending the occupation, as was discussed with the previous Israeli government when we defined the occupied territories as the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem.

This was reiterated in the talks with President Obama and in the trilateral talks. We believe the American administration will review the positions of the two sides in the coming weeks to make it possible for us to renew peace talks based on our stated position.

At the end of the tripartite meeting, we can say that the political discourses of each disputed party has not changed. For Israel, the following negotiations will continue without any Palestinian pre-conditions and for Palestinians, there will be no agreement without the withdrawal of Israeli existence and without a full halt to settlement construction. Lastly, and more importantly, for the Obama Administration, the process is likely to be a middle way: Guaranteeing Palestinians the full withdrawal of Israeli soldiers from the occupied lands and the Israeli halt to settlement freeze under Israeli authorization in the course of time; all of which to be mentioned in the final status agreement whereas confirming Israeli temporary freeze in settlements which is to come closer to a total halt in the course of time in return of Arab concessions in the name of normalization with Israel. So, all parties look like they have taken from the meeting now.

George Mitchell's answer to a question on whether the Obama Administration had skipped the settlement freeze focus and moved straight to final status issue tipped off the US position:

We have always made clear that they are means to an end, the end being the re-launching of negotiations on permanent status in a context in which there is a reasonable prospect for a successful conclusion to those negotiations... So there is absolutely no change in our focus.

However, this new version of Saudi Initiative in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is just a part of the Obama Administration's policy in the region. This middle-way solution can only work with new developments in US and Israeli relations with Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. The follow-up period, so sensitive to any regional development, is more significant than the plans of the Obama Administration on paper. Therefore, right after the tripartite meeting, Obama said he is watching the process closely and the U.S. Mideast special envoy George Mitchell would meet with Israeli and Palestinian negotiators next week, adding that he had asked his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, to report back to him on the status of the talks in October. For now, the Obama Administration has consolidated its position vis-a-vis Palestinians and Israelis. But, that is only for now....

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?

Iran: Welcoming Obama's Missile Defense Plan, Signalling to Moscow

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

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

On Monday, Hassan Qashqavi, spokesman for the Iranian foreign ministry, welcomed the Obama Administration's declaration that it was abandoning plans to base missile defence in Eastern Europe:

"The Islamic Republic of Iran welcomes any act or plan which results in the removal of weapons of mass destruction throughout the world, and, considers the removal of nuclear and other destructive weapons by the big powers as a service to world peace and security, if it is real and true."

However, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has reiterated that Iran is still the main threat justifying the deployment plan of defense missile system. Indeed, she said that Washington was going to deploy missiles sooner than the Bush Administration planned to do so, albeit from ships rather than the sites in Poland and the Czech Republic.

So, what does Teheran's statement mean, especially after Moscow's recent carrot/stick policy, offing diplomatic protection against any international sanctions and military support in return for political influence in Iran? It appears to be a clever move to keep attention on a US-Russian rivalry, with Iran as an excuse rather than a cause for missile defence. Qashqavi claimed, "Adopting the claim of a missile threat from the Islamic Republic of Iran was an opportunistic and domination-seeking US scam with political aims." He added:

From the beginning, the Islamic Republic of Iran has seen the basing of the missile system in Eastern Europe as part of the missile [force] rivalries between Russia and the US, and the expansion of the penetration of extra-regional security areas and a continuation of the penetration of the big powers in the Central European countries.