Iran: The (Il)Legitimacy of Ahmadinejad

He came and he's gone. From New York, that is, not from his claimed authority as President of Iran. And after all the built-up drama surrounding his appearance at the United Nations, much of it a pre-scripted sideshow posing as the main act (Israel, the Holocaust, Iran's nuclear programme), what matters is the political situation to which Mahmoud Ahmadinejad returns, not the one he has just left.

This is in no way to denigrate the protestors who turned out yesterday to show the US and the world that Ahmadinejad was not acceptable. They represent the challenge to legitimacy that is at the heart of the conflict in Iran.

The important question was always going to be how many observers recognised that challenge. After all, Iranian state media were always going to ignore the protests in favour of the presentation of Ahmadinejad as international statesman. The postures that fuel the finger-wagging of the "Western" media --- his campaign against Zionism, his questioning of the scientific basis of the Holocaust, his chiding of "imperialism" --- support that portrayal. So this morning Fars News (farsnews.ir) has several articles pointing to Ahmadinejad as the agenda-setter in New York, including one on his six-point plan for global change.

So it is depressing to see that the Los Angeles Times sets aside the issue of legitimacy for "more important" headlines such as "Russia's president pledges to help U.S. nudge Iran on nuclear issue" and "Iran's President Extols Himself and Denounces Israel". It highlights Ahmadinejad's declaration, "[The Iranian voters] entrusted me once more, by a large majority, with this heavy responsibility," and only notes several paragraphs later, "Earlier, outside the United Nations, hundreds of protesters raised green flags -- the color of the opposition movement in Iran -- and signs reading 'Free Iran' as they railed against Ahmadinejad." The New York Times opens with the "thousands of demonstrators" and Ahmadinejad "stoutly defend[ing] his legitimacy. However, it then races to the safer ground of "familiar attacks against the United States and...an oblique rant against Jews", as well as the discussions of "world powers" over Iran's nuclear programme.

Far more important than the game of charades in New York but well beyond the notice of all but Iranian media, a more complex act of political theatre was being played out in Tehran. Having made his opening statement at the Assembly of Experts, Hashemi Rafsanjani was absent from the second day of the session. That enabled the fervent Ahmadinejad supporter, Ahmad Khatami, to read out a statement and claim that Rafsanjani endorsed "every line" of it.

The statement expressed full allegiance to the Supreme Leader --- no surprises there, for the flutter of a challenge to Ayatollah Khamenei's position has now stilled, and Rafsanjani's own strategy is to show undisputed support to bring the Supreme Leader towards his position. More significant was the appreciation of
the Supreme Leader’s “wise policies” in extinguishing the “seditious flames” in recent events. That one-sided view of blame for post-election conflict is at odds with Rafsanjani's more balanced presentation, as is the explicit claim that foreign powers had conspired to overthrow the Islamic system of Iran in recent events.

Most importantly, the Assembly upheld the legitimacy of Ahmadinejad's authority, praising Ayatollah Khamenei for dismissing any notion of fraud in the election and congratulating the President on his second term. The one opening for opponents of that legitimacy, and a more-than-implicit nod to the absent Rafsanjani, was the injunction that Ahmadinejad heed the “critiques of concerned Shiite clerics” as he led the Government.

So the wheel turns once more. The New York distraction is over --- thank goodness. For less than week of Qods Day, Iranian politics has again run the gauntlet of demonstration, resistance, negotiation, and Establishment pushback.

Confrontation or compromise? The question may have been a dramatic device to frame the last 72 hours in the United States. In Iran, that question is not artifice: it is at the heart of the battle for legitimacy that has defined the most important period for the Islamic Republic since 1979.

Video & Transcript: Obama After the Israel-Palestine Meeting

After the tripartite meeting, President Obama's press statement made its mark on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

In his statement, Obama called both parties to look at future and move forward. He called both leaders "to do more." It means consolidating security against Hamas for Mahmoud Abbas and putting a 9-month settlement freeze into practice for Benjamin Netanyahu at first. Most importantly, President emphasized the significance of negotiation the permanent status and refrained from using a "full halt toIsraeli constructions" yet used "restraining settlement activity."

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

Transcript:

Please be seated, members of the delegations.

I have just concluded frank and productive bilateral meetings with both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas. And I want to thank them both for appearing here today. I am now looking forward to this opportunity to hold the first meeting among the three of us since we took office.



As I said throughout my campaign and at the beginning of my administration, the United States is committed to a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the Middle East. That includes a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that results in two states, Israel and Palestine, in which both the Israeli people and the Palestinian people can live in peace and security and realize their aspirations for a better life for their children.

That is why my Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and my Special Envoy George Mitchell have worked tirelessly to create the context for permanent status negotiations. And we have made progress since I took office in January and since Israelis -- Israel’s government took office in April. But we still have much further to go.

Palestinians have strengthened their efforts on security, but they need to do more to stop incitement and to move forward with negotiations. Israelis have facilitated greater freedom of movement for the Palestinians and have discussed important steps to restrain settlement activity. But they need to translate these discussions into real action on this and other issues. And it remains important for the Arab states to take concrete steps to promote peace.

Simply put it is past time to talk about starting negotiations -- it is time to move forward. It is time to show the flexibility and common sense and sense of compromise that’s necessary to achieve our goals. Permanent status negotiations must begin and begin soon. And more importantly, we must give those negotiations the opportunity to succeed.

And so my message to these two leaders is clear. Despite all the obstacles, despite all the history, despite all the mistrust, we have to find a way forward. We have to summon the will to break the deadlock that has trapped generations of Israelis and Palestinians in an endless cycle of conflict and suffering. We cannot continue the same pattern of taking tentative steps forward and then stepping back. Success depends on all sides acting with a sense of urgency. And that is why I have asked Secretary Clinton and Senator Mitchell to carry forward the work that we do here today.

Senator Mitchell will meet with the Israeli and Palestinian negotiators next week. I've asked the Prime Minister and the President to continue these intensive discussions by sending their teams back to Washington next week. And I've asked the Secretary of State to report to me on the status of these negotiations in mid-October.

All of us know this will not be easy. But we are here today because it is the right thing to do. I look forward to speaking with my colleagues. I'm committed to pressing ahead in the weeks and months and years to come, because it is absolutely critical that we get this issue resolved. It’s not just critical for the Israelis and the Palestinians, it’s critical for the world, it is in the interests of the United States. And we are going to work as hard as necessary to accomplish our goals.

Thanks.

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....

Transcript: George Mitchell on Obama-Abbas-Netanyahu Meeting

After the end of the tripartite meeting, the U.S. Mideast special envoy George Mitchell briefed reporters and answered questions. Here is the background of the meeting and what the outcome of this meeting means:

Transcript:

MR. GIBBS: Good afternoon. Sorry we're running a little bit late today. We will do a statement from, and take some questions -- our Special Envoy for Middle East Peace, former Senator George Mitchell.

SENATOR MITCHELL: Thank you, Robert. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I'll make a brief statement, and then I'll be pleased to respond to your questions.

The President had direct and constructive meetings with both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas, and then he held his first trilateral meeting with the two leaders. As the President said, this was an important moment. Let me first give you some brief details.

Each of the three meetings was about 40 minutes long. The tone was positive and determined. The President made clear his commitment to moving forward, and the leaders shared their commitment. In the meetings with Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas, the President was joined by Secretary Clinton, General Jones, Tom Donilon and myself. For the trilateral meeting, the President was joined by Secretary Clinton, General Jones and myself.



In their meetings, Prime Minister Netanyahu was joined by Foreign Minister Lieberman, Defense Minister Barak, and National Security Advisor Arad. President Abbas was joined by Secretary General Yasser Abed Rabo, Negotiations Affairs Department Director Saeb Erekat, and Foreign Minister Riyad Al-Maliki.

This was the first meeting between Israelis and Palestinians at this level in nearly a year. Even nine months ago, such a meeting did not seem possible. Less than a week before President Obama took office, conflict was raging in Gaza and southern Israel, causing deep suffering on both sides. Today the atmosphere is different. Both parties share the goal of a two-state solution and of comprehensive peace. And both parties seek the re-launch of negotiations as soon as possible, although there are differences between them on how to proceed. The United States stands with them to help advance toward these objectives.

We have made progress, on security and economic opportunity in particular, but we have much further to go. As the President said in his public comments, it's past time to talk about starting negotiations. All sides must summon the will to move forward. Permanent status negotiations must begin, and begin soon. This was a message that the President conveyed to each of the leaders in private, as well.

We're now going to enter into an intensive, yet brief, period of discussion in an effort to re-launch negotiations. Our aim is clear: to finally succeed in achieving our shared goals and to end the cycle of conflict that has done so much harm.

I will be meeting with my Israeli and Palestinian counterparts, and with the Arab states as well, and we'll build on the work that was done today to encourage all parties to take responsibility for peace and to act on their commitments.

I want to make a brief personal comment. I believe deeply, rising out of my past experience, that just as conflicts are created by human beings, they can be ended by human beings, with patience, determination, and dedication. Our aim is to achieve a comprehensive peace in the region that will enable Israelis, Palestinians, and all of the region's people to share a secure, prosperous, and stable future.

We knew this wasn’t going to be easy. It's a mark of the President's deep, personal and ongoing commitment to peace that he chose to participate directly at this juncture. As he said today in his public comments, despite all the obstacles, despite all of the history, despite all of the mistrust, we have to find a way forward. That's what we will be focused on in the days ahead.

Now, I'd like to just read to you a couple of quotes from what the President said in the meetings. I wrote these down -- they're either 100 percent accurate or very close to 100 percent accurate. (Laughter.)

He said, "It's difficult to disentangle ourselves from history, but we must do so." "The only reason to hold public office is to get things done." "We all must take risks for peace." "Peace between Israel and the Palestinians is critical to Israel's security and is necessary for Palestinians to realize their aspirations."

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, and now I'll be pleased to take your questions. And I'll leave it to Robert to identify the questioners.

MR. GIBBS: Jen.

Q You said that -- you were talking about your own respect for the President's willingness to engage in the process at this point. Why did you decide to go (inaudible) these meetings even though there's nothing to announce and the two sides remain so far apart? Why did you decide to take that step?

SENATOR MITCHELL: Because of his deep personal commitment and his desire to move forward to convey to the parties his sense of urgency, his impatience, his view that there is here a unique opportunity at this moment in time. That may pass if there is further delay. And as I said in my remarks, I think it does demonstrate his -- it's a demonstration of the depth and sincerity of his commitment.

Q But why is this a moment of opportunity when they're so far apart right now?

SENATOR MITCHELL: Well -- I'm sorry, you can't hear her?

Q Can't hear.

SENATOR MITCHELL: Yes, she said, why is it a moment of opportunity when they're so far apart right now?

First, the reality is that while differences remain between them, we have made very substantial progress. And without being argumentative, I would not characterize their positions as being so far apart right now. Secondly, it is precisely because there are still differences and that we need to move forward that the President elected to hold this meeting for the very purpose of seeking to impress upon the parties the need for urgency and to close these final gaps.

Q As you said, the tone of the President's comments to the press was one of impatience. And I'm just wondering what specifically was said in the talks today that give the President hope that this can move forward? You talked about things that have happened in the past that you see as progress. But what happened today? What did they say in the talks that made him feel like this can go forward?

SENATOR MITCHELL: I would not be so presumptuous as to quote the other leaders, but I can tell you my understanding and interpretation of their comments was that they are committed to a comprehensive peace. They both, of course, have previously expressed their support for a two-state solution. They recognize the urgency of moving promptly and have so stated. But they did restate their views and their positions on those issues on which there remain differences.

And so I think it will be very helpful for them to have heard from the President the views that I've just identified that he has and has expressed to them, and to recognize that, notwithstanding all of the many issues which he confronts, that he is prepared to take the time at this juncture, when there is not an agreement between them to re-launch negotiations, to devote his time, effort, and his -- what I think is his deep commitment to get this process going, to move to the next stage.

Q I know you don't want to quote for them, but can you talk about the tone of the conversation?

SENATOR MITCHELL: The tone was at all times cordial. It was direct, frank. I think it fair to say at some points, one could describe comments as blunt on all sides. These are men who have serious responsibilities, who recognize their responsibilities, and I believe the President impressed upon them, including but not limited to some of the quotations I read out here, that this is a matter of urgency.

Q The administration has spent the last few months focused intensely on settlement freeze on the -- of the Israelis, and confidence-building measures on the part of the Palestinians. Now, today you're talking about the need to move quickly to permanent status negotiations. Does that mean you've decided to skip the settlement freeze focus, and that it might be easier and quicker to get results if you go -- move straight to final status?

SENATOR MITCHELL: Our objective all along has been to re-launch meaningful final status negotiations in a context that offered the prospect for success. We have never identified the steps requested as ends in themselves. 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. There is no change in what we feel is the way forward. We want to get negotiations re-launched, and everything we have said and done in this period has been in an effort to achieve that objective.

Q But are you moving --

Q -- about the format of the negotiations? Will the U.S. be at the table, or are there going to be only bilateral, or will the Quartet be somehow involved?

SENATOR MITCHELL: We have had discussions with negotiators from both sides on those and many other issues. We anticipate that there will be a substantial period of time -- in I would say a matter of weeks -- between the time that there is an agreement to re-launch negotiations and the time that they commence. And we will, during that period, explore in even greater detail than we have the resolution of those issues.

We anticipate that there will be an active United States presence. But of course that does not preclude the likelihood of direct negotiations between the parties. No successful negotiation is all of one or all of the other. There has to be both in appropriate circumstances on appropriate subjects. And we're going to try to proceed in a manner that is guided by a single standard: What is the method that will be best calculated to achieve the desired result of a comprehensive peace in the region?

Q Can I ask if you've got any more details on who is going to participate in the intensive talks in New York this week, in Washington next week? And what realistically can Secretary Clinton report back to President Obama so quickly -- he said mid-October, right?

SENATOR MITCHELL: Right. I will meet on Thursday in New York with two representatives of the Prime Minister of Israel -- Isaac Molcho and Mike Herzog -- both of whom have participated very actively in the discussions that have gone on. I also will meet with Saeb Erekat in behalf of the Palestinians, with whom also we've had extensive discussions. I expect also to meet with Israeli Minister of Defense Ehud Barak, with whom I've also met on many, many occasions.

We do not yet know the composition of the negotiators that they will send next week, but we anticipate that they will be the same ones -- either those I mentioned or people with whom we have also been engaged over the past several months.

Q How directly was the issue of a settlement freeze discussed? Did you push the U.S. view that they were illegal?

SENATOR MITCHELL: I'm sorry. What's the question?

Q How directly did you -- was the issue of the freeze on settlements discussed? And was there any pushing of the -- what I understand is the U.S. position that they are illegal?

SENATOR MITCHELL: Our position remains unchanged. It was discussed in all of the meetings. And we will continue to do the best we can to achieve a re-launch of negotiations. I want to emphasize our objective from the beginning over the last several months has been very focused, a re-launch of negotiations. The actions we've asked parties to take were not ends in themselves; they were means to the end. And that's the end we continue to seek.

Q And is this the obstacle, now? Is it still the obstacle?

SENATOR MITCHELL: I'm sorry?

Q Is it still the obstacle, the settlements?

SENATOR MITCHELL: There are many obstacles. They're not -- I want to make clear there are differences that remain, and that is one. That's not the only one, there are others. We have substantially and significantly progressed in reducing the number of issues on which there is disagreement. And we hope to complete that process in the near future.

Q Senator Mitchell, does the President support the Israeli proposal a temporary freeze of settlements for six to nine months? Does he support that, a temporary freeze of settlements?

SENATOR MITCHELL: We are continuing our discussions on that issue with both sides on how best to create the context for a re-launching of negotiations, and the -- (cell phone rings) --

MR. GIBBS: -- in the Senate and peace in the Middle East, the respect doesn't come. (Laughter.)

SENATOR MITCHELL: We had worked that out so that you'd do that when I get a tough question. (Laughter.) From now on you've got to do a little bit better in terms of the timing. (Laughter.)

And so that's what we are continuing our discussions on. We have not reached an agreement on that issue.

Q And do you think the temporary freeze would be enough to move to the final status negotiations? Is the President still in favor, he wants to see a complete freeze with all settlement activity?

SENATOR MITCHELL: We are continuing our discussions on that issue. And we're trying to bring it to a point where we can re-launch the negotiations, and we could discuss it with both sides.

Q Senator Mitchell, I want to push you on this question of a -- I know you said there hasn't been a change in what you guys are doing. However, over -- since the administration has been in office, you guys have been pushing very hard on the settlement issue and not talking as much about moving directly to final status talks. And so I guess I'm wondering has there been -- was there any discussion in the meetings today that changes or alters the approach to moving quickly to final status talks? And if not, then why the sort of apparent change in rhetoric from the President?

SENATOR MITCHELL: With the greatest of respect, I do not share your characterization of what we have done. It may be the case that the public reports have emphasized that area at the expense of others, but we have been very clear from the beginning, first, that there is a wide range of issues, and we have made significant progress on those issues, and that they were all directed to a single point, and that was a re-launch of negotiations.

I'll just tell you a story to tell you how I'm feeling right now. When I was Senate majority leader, we had a long and contentious series of debates and actions on a major issue, and we had resolved what I thought were most of the issues; there will still differences. And lo and behold, a big article appeared, I think it was in The Washington Post, which, wouldn't you know it, highlighted the differences, and proclaimed it a failure. And I asked the reporter, in a polite but complaining way -- (laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: From The Washington Post.

SENATOR MITCHELL: And he responded. He said, Senator, you will never see a headline that says "Two million commuters made it safely to work today. But if one car crashes and a couple of people are killed, that will be the headline." He said, "That's the way the world works." And I accept that's the way the world works. But the emphasis which you describe has not come from us. We have emphasized -- I have repeatedly said our objective is to re-launch negotiations. And all of these are steps to achieve that end.

And we have made significant progress in many of the areas -- economic growth, very substantial; agreement on the removal of illegal outposts; a whole series of other actions regarding specific areas that I understand don't get attention precisely because we've passed the stage of disagreement over them.

So we're going to continue our efforts. We believe that we have come a long way; that there is a very decisive difference in where we are now than where we were when the President took office; and we feel a sense of urgency to take it the next step and to bring it to a conclusion.

Q I'm sorry, can you start final status negotiations without the settlement issue being resolved? And should that happen?

SENATOR MITCHELL: We are not identifying any issue as being a precondition or an impediment to negotiation. Neither the President, nor the Secretary, nor I have ever said of any one issue, that or any other, that it is a precondition to negotiations. What we have said is that we want to get into negotiations. We believe the suggestions that we've made and the requests that we've made would, if accepted and acted upon, create the most favorable conditions available to try to achieve success in those negotiations. But we do not believe in preconditions. We do not impose them. And we urge others not to impose preconditions.

MR. GIBBS: Thanks, guys.

SENATOR MITCHELL: Thank you, all.

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?