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'."

Media End-Times: Glenn Beck Decides to Interpret Iran

The Latest from Iran (30 September): Confusion

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

Words cannot describe the experience of watching Fox's man-over-the-edge and an "expert" with a large tie explain how Shi'a Islam, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the 12th Imam add up to genocide and nuclear annihiliation. However, I await Beck's next tin-hat analysis: "Why Pre-Milliennialist Christians Are Waving Hello to the Apocalypse".

(Did the Expert with a Tie really say, "Jesus forces people to convert [to Islam] or die"? And has he coined the term for the next social movement: "Secret Closet Twelver"?)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEBQto4wpJk[/youtube]

The Latest from Iran (30 September): Confusion

NEW Iran: Mousavi Meeting with Reformists (30 September)
Iran: Karroubi Letter to Rafsanjani (27 September)
NEW Video/Transcript: “Will Israel Attack Iran?”
Iran Top-Secret: The President’s Gmail Account
Iran’s Nuclear Programme: Obama Backs Himself into a Corner
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

2040 GMT: We now have an English translation of the Mousavi meeting with the reformists, posted in a separate entry.

1910 GMT: Parleman News has updated and extended its summary of the Mousavi meeting with reformist faction Imam Khomeini Line. The story reiterates the significant shift in Mousavi's approach that we have noted (1240 GMT, 1615 GMT, 1800 GMT).

1900 GMT: Overseas Mystery of Night. Why is Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki in Washington? I presume it's to visit the Smithsonian Institution and maybe the National Art Gallery, since the State Department denies he is seeing US officials.

The party line is that Mottaki, having been in New York for the United Nations meeting, is visiting the Iranian Interests Section at the Pakistan Embassy. No explanation, however, of what he has been doing in the several days after the UN gathering. (AP has an English summary.)

1815 GMT: Another Clue to the Plan? From Mehr News:

Grand Ayatollah Nasser Makarem Shirazi has called for the establishment of a committee comprised of MPs and other prominent national figures that would be tasked with attempting to end the political disputes in society.

“A committee comprised of MPs and certain elite people outside the Majlis should… create friendship between political groupings so that these disputes end. The continuation of these deputes is not in our country’s interests,” he told seminary students and religious figures at meeting in Qom on Wednesday.

1800 GMT: This.  Could. Be. Huge. Consider this extract from Mir Hossein Mousavi's statement to reformists, posted on the Facebook page linked to him: "Forming a new party cannot add to countries existing capacities, while strengthening the cores of the social movement will create new capacities and improve the movement."

Throughout the summer, Mousavi talked of forming a new political movement (he didn't call it a "party", since that would have to be licensed by Iranian authorities). Even in his recent promulgation of The Green Path of Hope as a "social movement", he implied that it would have a political role challenging the Ahmadinejad Government.

Now he has abandoned that approach, one presumes, because he has chosen to work with the Plan promoted by institutions within the system that he was challenging up to this week.

1615 GMT: Quiet afternoon but this further summary of Mousavi's message to reformists sets off a bell: "Today, national unity is of outmost importance."

Now, of course, all politicians are going to make calls for unity but does this mean that, whether or not a National Unity Plan has been agreed, Mousavi is going to work with an "establisment" committee for a political accommodation?

1300 GMT: The reformist Imam Khomeini Line, which met Mir Hossein Mousavi yesterday (see 1240 GMT), will also be meeting Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami. (But what about Karroubi?)

1254 GMT: The Movement Cannot Be Silenced. A reader kindly directs us to a blog by Persian Umpire on the spread of information inside Iran. Amidst interesting notes such as "BBC Persian is...gobbling up the Voice of America audience because of superior programming and better news coverage", the author sets out this important observation:

We see your tweets, pics, posts, leaks, walls, rumors, articles, flames, trolls, messages of support, slogans, comments, funnies, videos, and everything else you produce. Let us take Twitter which is actually an important source for us, especially for breaking news even if it is happening in Iran. Case in point: this week’s student protests. For those who do not have accounts, there are websites that broadcast the public tweets from any hashtag. Surprisingly some of these sites are not yet filtered. In cases where filtering is in place, we use proxies to get to this information. Also, there are RSS feed readers that we can use to get to your messages through web-based mail services and thus bypassing the filters in a different way. There is no way to block us in, other than cutting the internet altogether, and the government cannot do that easily as some of the crucial internal communications, such as banking, depends on it. If they ever decide to do this, it will take a campaign of outlawing and phasing out residential connections. Even in this case we still have internet at work, and in the end, long-distance dial-up. If I have to pay a $200 phone bill per month to read what you write, so be it.

He/she adds, "How does a minority crawling the nooks and crannies of the internet, let a majority know about it? Information gathered from websites is first disseminated through chat and email, and then word-of-mouth does what it does best."

1250 GMT: Nice to see that The New York Times hasn't been completely diverted by the nuclear issue. Nazila Fathi writes today about Tuesday's second set of universities protests, in particular the demonstrations at Sharif University.

1245 GMT: Reformist MP Darius Ghanbari has criticised the Parliamentary fact-finding committee for avoiding the issues of Kahrizak Prison and secret burials, as well as the points in Mehdi Karroubi's letter, in their unclassified report.

1240 GMT: The Plan in Action? Parleman News has published an account of a meeting between Mir Hossein Mousavi and the reformist Imam Khomeini Line. Mousavi's message? "Greens are now within the system."

1230 GMT: We've posted the English translation of Mehdi Karroubi's second letter to Hashemi Rafsanjani. To say it's critical is an understatement; Karroubi is calling out the former President for not backing demands for justice and reform.

1050 GMT: It is reported that leading reformist Saeed Hajjarian was released this morning from Evin Prison.

1045 GMT: Police representatives have announced that 10 officers have been arrested in connection with claims of detainee abuse at Kahrizak Prison.

1030 GMT: The intrigue on the "National Unity Plan" (see our separate entry) gets stranger. Fars claimed last night that Assembly of Experts member Ayatollah Haeri-Shirazi had denounced talk of a Plan being brought to the Assembly as a "lie". Haeri-Shirazi's office this morning issues a statement denying any such discussion. Fars News then brings out the transcript and the audio file of the conversation.

1000 GMT: Telling Half the Story. CNN splashes the headline, "IAEA: Iran broke law by not revealing nuclear facility", on an interview with the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohammad El Baradei. He says:

Iran was supposed to inform us on the day it was decided to construct the facility. They have not done that. They are saying that this was meant to be a back-up facility in case we were attacked and so they could not tell us earlier on.

Nonetheless, they have been on the wrong side of the law, you know in so far as informing the agency about the construction and as you have seen it, it has created concern in the international community.

Here, however, is the El Baradei comment that does not get a headline and only
a reference near the bottom of the article:

Whether they have done some weaponization studies as was claimed is still an outstanding issue. But I have not seen any credible evidence to suggest that Iran has an ongoing nuclear program today.

0900 GMT: Confirmation of reports from earlier this week: post-election detainee Alireza Eshraghi has been sentenced to 5 1/2 years in prison for acts against national security by "insulting the Supreme Leader and President" and attending illegal gatherings.

0830 GMT: One other report which emerged last night. The Iranian Government is still considering the temporary closure of universities because of "swine flu".

0820 GMT: A morning to re-assess what has happened in the last 24 hours, especially with the purported "National Unity Plan". Latest indications are that the plan, which emerged last night, is actually an early draft, so it raises more questions than answers. We've got up-to-the-minute analysis in a separate entry.

The other event on the radar is tomorrow's meeting between Iran and the "5+1" powers in Geneva on Tehran's nuclear programme. Media fury continues in the US, but the Obama Administration is now far more cautious in its statements. In particular, it appears that the American attempt to "negotiate from strength" through the sanctions threat is running into difficulties. We've got the latest in another entry.

Finally, for those who prefer the "real" story, Enduring America has gotten access to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Gmail account.

Iran's Nuclear Programme: Obama Backs Himself into a Corner

Iran’s Nuclear Programme: Scott Lucas in La Stampa (English Text)
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

Last week's high tide of politics over the Iranian "secret nuclear plant" still has some unpleasant backwash today, 48 hours before the US and other "5+1" powers meet Iran in Geneva. Bret Stephens of The Wall Street Journal takes the prize for meaningless swagger with his declaration of a neo-conservative resurgence: "A view of the world that understands that American power still furnishes the margin between freedom and tyranny, and between prosperity and chaos, is starting to look better all the time. Even in France."

Meaningless because, unless Mr Stephens is ready to lead the bombers over Iran, there's precious little he can do to back up the bluster. Far more importantly, the Obama Administration may be finding that it has talked itself into a high-profile corner.

The clue is the latest White House spin to the front-line newspapers. Yesterday's New York Times gives the game away. On the surface, it proclaims, "U.S. Is Seeking a Range of Sanctions Against Iran", but the more you read, the narrower that range becomes. Officials admitted, "The United States was not likely to win support for an embargo on shipments of gasoline or other refined fuel to Iran. The European allies...view this as a 'blunt instrument' that could hurt ordinary Iranians, inflame public opinion and unite the country behind the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."

The initial flourish, offered after President Obama's statement last week, that even Moscow was in line with a tough approach has sagged limply: "Administration officials acknowledge it will be difficult to persuade Russia to agree to harsh, long-term sanctions against Iran, whatever the assurances that the Russian president, Dmitri A. Medvedev, gave last week to Mr. Obama. China, these officials say, is even less dependable, given its reliance on Iranian oil and its swelling trade ties with Iran."

So all that's really left in "the range" is the suggestion of barriers to investment in Iran's gas and petroleum industry and more restrictions on Iranian financial institutions, covered by the assurance, "The administration also is seeking to build a broader coalition of partners for sanctions so that it may still be able to act against Iran even if China and Russia were to veto harsher measures proposed in the United Nations Security Council."

And even then promise of multilateral action is further constricted today. The Wall Street Journal reports that the White House will still face numerous challenges matching its rhetoric on sanctions with real international action, said U.S. and European officials involved in the process. That makes "the U.S. Treasury -- and not the United Nations -- the main focus of the West's financial campaign against Iran for now...The Treasury has pursued dozens of unilateral sanctions against Iranian banks, government officials and defense companies in recent years in an attempt to pressure Tehran."

The US Treasury? As far as I can tell, the American effort has gone from a united international front against Iran's threat to a "coalition of one".

There's still some blowing of smokes in places like Tuesday's Washington Post with the declaration, "The Obama administration is laying plans to cut Iran's economic links to the rest of the world if talks this week over the country's nuclear ambitions founder." Once again, however, it only takes a few paragraphs to see through Sanctions' New Clothes: "The administration has limited options in unilaterally targeting Iran, largely because it wants to avoid measures so severe that they would undermine consensus among countries pressing the Iranian government."

When rhetoric finally arrives at the obstacle of action, steps mentioned include making it more difficult for foreign firms to get adequate insurance for investments in Iran. But, surprise, surprise, the US has been pursuing that effort for years, so there is nothing new in the measure. Nor is it clear how much more punishment can be meted out by the suggestion of tightening restrictions on Iranian financial institutions.

And none of this can obscure the inconvenience that, as noted in The New York Times, major investors like Russia and China are likely to keep investing and trading. Credit to Simon Tisdall of The Guardian for stating the blunt facts:

Iran provided 10% of China's crude oil needs last year; its market share is expected to grow. Chinese companies and middlemen are supplying one third of Iran's refined petroleum requirements as western companies back off. Earlier this year the China National Petroleum Corporation signed a $1.7bn investment deal with the National Iranian Oil Company. The overall Chinese energy stake in Iran is said to be worth $100bn.

Speaking before crucial nuclear talks in Geneva, Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu urged the US, Britain and other UN security council members to eschew confrontation. "We believe that all sides should take more steps to ease tensions and resolve problems, not the opposite," she said. Beijing's meaning was plain. Even if it supported sanctions in principle (which it does not), it was not disposed to support measures that would harm its national economic self-interest.

It appears that the US plan was to show up at the Geneva talks with a loaded gun. An article in Sunday's Washington Times revealed:

President Obama's decision to confront Iran with evidence of a secret nuclear production site Friday was the culmination of a deliberate strategy over the past nine months to gain maximum impact from the disclosure by building up to it with other steps on the world stage.

A high-ranking administration official [said] that while the White House knew about Iran's construction of a second uranium enrichment plant before Mr. Obama took office in January, it waited to drop the bombshell until U.S. officials had conducted extensive diplomatic advance work.

Even when Iran disrupted the plan by telling the International Atomic Energy Agency of its second enrichment plant, the Administration kept a grip on the holster; indeed, by the time Obama made his statement, he was waving a pair of six-shooters.

Only one thing. If you're going to bring a gun to the table, you best make sure you've got enough bullets. And the Administration is beginning to discover, very late in the day, that it may not have even one in the chamber.

No amount of bluster, not even of Stephens-esque proportion, does not remove that difficulty. Indeed, it only bears out the ill-judged strategy of speaking loudly and carrying a very small stick.

UPDATED Iran's Nuclear Programme: Scott Lucas in La Stampa (English Text)

Non-Proliferation and “Iran’s Nukes”: Chris Emery on Al Jazeera English
The Latest from Iran (28 September): Signals of Power

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 29 September: Many, many thanks to an EA reader who translated the interview.

I had a long chat with Francesca Paci of the Italian newspaper La Stampa on Sunday, starting from the news of Iran's missile tests to consider the "secret nuclear plants" and the politics leading up to Thursday's meeting in Geneva of the "5+1" powers and Iran. Paci's original article is on the La Stampa website.

So Now, Ahmadinejad is Back in the Saddle

Professor Lucas from University of Birmingham: Nuclear Programme Serves to Divert Attention from Domestic Problems in Iran

PACI: What are the aims of the launch of the Zelzal missiles by the Iranian Army on a war footing?

LUCAS: The true goal of these large-scale manoeuvres in Tehran is to reduce Ahmadinejad's internal opposition. While the West responds to the military provocation of Ahmadinejad, he fights a definitive battle for his national legitimacy.

Rockets allow the Iranian leader to credit himself with the power that the June elections have called into question. So does the relaunching of the nuclear threat.

PACI: Let's start with the missiles: Why a bellicose military demonstration just now?

LUCAS: Iran is preparing itself for Thursday's meeting in Geneva [with the US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, and China] and wants to arrive there with the toughest possible stance. When the second uranium enrichment facility was revealed, Ahmadinejad's government said he would consider the visit of International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, but 24 hours later he said he had done nothing wrong, and now he launches missiles. Tehran cannot afford to snub the talks but Ahmadinejad wants to meet the 5+1 powers in a strong position.

PACI: Monday the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps tested the Shahab 3, a powerful missile potentially able to reach Israel.

LUCAS: I do not think the launch changes the military situation. The timing is what matters most. Ahmadinejad wants to promote himself, and the West has fallen into the trap.

Iran is not currently violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty, according to which the second enrichment plant must be declared six months before receiving uranium. Even the Americans have said the plant will be operational "within a year". The Subsidiary Clause to the NPT, setting tougher conditions for the IAEA to inspect the facilities has never been ratified by the Iranian Parliament, although Iran accepted it on a voluntary basis between 2003 and 2007. No infringement therefore, so far. But in emphasizing the challenge of Ahmadinejad to the United Nations, the media gave him the political stature that the June vote had deprived him.

PACI: The Iranian president speaks to the world so that his own country hears him ?

LUCAS: Yes, and the American media have swallowed the bait. In New York, Ahmadinejad founded everything on the nuclear issue, thus managing to deflect attention from his domestic problems. He gave five interviews that accredited him as a leader, and he achieved an important point in using the nuclear threat to stabilize its legitimacy at home, where the opposition is far from being tamed.

PACI: Is it conceivable that he will succeed in a remobilization of the Iranian people as the country faces possible new sanctions?

LUCAS: Not this time. Two years ago the manoeuvre succeeded, but after the vote in June, national pride is no longer a strong point for Ahmadinejad: after all, all the election's candidates were in favor of nuclear power. Iranian people have realized that the President is using the excuse of endangered sovereignty in order to protect himself.

PACI: What do you think of the strategy of President Obama?

LUCAS: The White House already knew about the new installation in Qom. Why do they denounce it now?

Well, Obama was waiting for the right moment to increase pressure on the Iranian government, who must have understood this and spoke before Washington could unmask the "secret plant".

The US Administration is divided. Some sincerely support the diplomatic policy, others consider the dialogue as impossible and push for military action. Obama plays on both sides. His strategy is good, but the tactics suffers from these divisions. Iran is a key actor in the region: if it were to be attacked, the Middle East would be lost. America can not ignore it, not least because of its role in Afghanistan. This is why Richard Holbrooke [Obama's special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan] insists on negotiations.