Iran Election Guide

Donate to EAWV





Or, click to learn more

Search

Friday
Sep042009

Neda Update: The Appeal for Her Fiance, Caspian Makan

The Latest from Iran (4 September): A Friday Pause?

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

NEDA MAKANI don't think that this story, after all the iconic treatment of the shooting of Neda Agha Soltan on 20 June by Basij militia, has received much attention. From Amnesty International:
Tehran resident Caspian Makan, who was the fiancé of Neda Agha Soltan, a young woman killed in the recent protests in Iran, is in detention in Evin Prison. Amnesty International believes that he is being held because he witnessed her murder and later made a statement linking her killing to a member of Iran’s Basij militia. He is at risk of torture or other ill-treatment....

Caspian Makan was arrested at his home in north Tehran on 26 June. He had told BBC Persian TV, in an interview on 22 June that “Eyewitnesses and video footage […] clearly show that probably Basij paramilitaries […] deliberately targeted her”....

Caspian Makan is reported to have told his family that if he signs a “confession” saying that the PMOI [People's Mujahideen Organisation of Iran], a political body banned in Iran since 1981, killed her, then he may be released from Evin Prison in Tehran. Amnesty International fears that he  may be forced to sign such a “confession” under torture or other ill-treatment, given the pattern of human rights violations
following the election. He may be a prisoner of conscience, held for peacefully exercising his right to freedom of expression.

Amnesty have asked those who are concerned to send appeals for Makan's release to the Supreme Leader and to head of Iran's judiciary, Sadegh Larijani.
Friday
Sep042009

Iran: Satire Becomes "News" - Ahmadinejad's Ayatollah and Prisoner Rape

The Latest from Iran (4 September): A Friday Pause?

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

MESBAH YAZDIAmidst the current debate about gathering and disseminating news beyond the "mainstream" media, a lesson comes out of a false story on Iran.

Yesterday EA staffer Chris Emery noted a story on Israel National News that Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi, widely labelled as the key religious advisor to President Ahmadinejad, said last month that "coercion by means of rape, torture and drugs is acceptable against all opponents of the Islamic regime". In a question-and-answer session with followers, Mesbah Yazdi went into graphic detail in his permission to rape, concluding,
If the judgment for the [female] prisoner is execution, then rape before execution brings the interrogator a spiritual reward equivalent to making the mandated Haj pilgrimage [to Mecca], but if there is no execution decreed, then the reward would be equivalent to making a pilgrimage to [the Shi'ite holy city of] Karbala.

The Israeli outlet gave no source for its story, and it has been known to run less-than-verified claims. So our judgement at EA was "How far away are we staying from this?!" Other sites, however, eagerly ran the piece, and it is now enshrined on Wikipedia.

The story is false. Chris Emery did some more digging and found that it had been posted at Balatarin (a portal like Digg and Newsvine for Internet articles) three weeks ago in the "Fun/Entertainment" section. The original story has now been pulled, because so many people mistook it for reality, but a quick read of the Balatarin version (even with the shaky English offered by Google Translate) makes clear that this was a bit of very black comedy gone very badly wrong.
Friday
Sep042009

Iran: OK, The Cabinet's In, Has Ahmadinejad "Won"?

The Latest from Iran (4 September): A Friday Pause?
The Latest from Iran (3 September): Ahmadinejad Gets His Cabinet

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

AHMADINEJAD2Today, on Iran's "weekend", should be a political catch-your-breath day after the culmination of Parliament's approval of 18 of 21 proposed Ministers for the Ahmadinejad Cabinet. News slowed to a standstill last night, and there is almost nothing of significance this morning. There are Friday prayers in Tehran, but no sign that they will produce the headline statements of the last three months, from the Supreme Leader's 19 June drawing of the post-election line to Hashemi Rafsanjani's 14 July intervention to President Ahmadinejad's hard-line anti-opposition pitch last week.

The President's immediate victory, with one unexpected minor setback (the loss of his proposed Minister of Energy), does not mean that the battle is over. Far from it. However, to appreciate the tensions, contests, and manoeuvres, you have to read far beyond "mainstream" coverage, especially outside Iran.

Most of the Western press have pretty much lost the plot. That's why, to our obvious frustration, almost all (with the notable exception of The New York Times) offered simple and misleading reviews of the final Parliament act yesterday. For some, the vote was the signal to move the focus to Iran's nuclear programme. For some, it was the quick grab headline of the Islamic Republic's first woman minister or Mr Most Wanted (Ahmad Vahidi, for a 1994 bombing in Argentina) becoming the Minister of Defense. For others, it was a "white flag" moment for the opposition, as Iran's "hardliners" had united behind the President. Game over.

Wrong. To be honest, I found yesterday's discussion by readers on our updates far more fascinating and useful than the press summaries. (Thanks, by the way, to all who have contributed.) Have a look, because it is here that the next steps of Hashemi Rafsanjani --- who dropped out of the non-Iranian narrative of events --- are considered. It is here that the important matter of the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps, and its relationship with the President and the Supreme Leader, is in play.

And it is here that attention is paid to those conservative and principlist elements who continue to dislike and even move against Ahmadinejad, even if they did not make their stand yesterday. What now for the Larijanis --- Ali still as Speaker of the Parliament, Sadegh as head of judiciary --- and their allies? What now for high-profile MPs like Ali Motahari and Ahmad Tavakoli, who have bitterly challenged the President and his inner circle since mid-July? What now for those who saw the in-fighting at Ministries like Intelligence as an attempt by Ahmadinejad (and the IRGC) to expand their control and who didn't take too kindly to it?

(And, lest we forget, our question from last week is not resolved, despite Ayatollah Khamenei's open intervention to assist with confirmation of the Cabinet, "What now for the Supreme Leader?")

For us, the post-election crisis has never been a matter of a single, dramatic showdown between the regime and its opponents but a series of waves, inside and outside the Government. There was the immediate wave of mass demonstrations (which were renewed at points throughout July), the wave of resistance to Ahmadinejad's inauguration, the wave of response to the detentions and trials, fed both by Mehdi Karroubi's initiatives and by conservative/principlist disquiet, and the wave that led up to yesterday's vote.

Clearly, the wave of resistance to an Ahmadinejad Cabinet is now dissipated. Indeed, I think it is now fair to drop the label "post-election crisis". Despite all those who will never believe that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won the 12 June vote, he has now gone through all the bureaucratic motions of re-assuming office. However, there is still a "legitimacy crisis". Just because you're President doesn't mean that folks accept your authority.

In part, that "legitimacy crisis" may not be as prominent because the Green wave is in a bit of a lull. Ramadan plays its part here, as well as battle fatigue and the disruption of the opposition's organisation. The leadership of Mir Hossein Mousavi in particular is now primarily on Facebook pages, given the shutdown of his websites, the detentions of some of his top advisors, and restrictions on his movements.

But, whether as an outcome of these difficulties or as a measured strategy, the Green movement has now set out its next resurgence. On 18 September, Qods (Jerusalem) Day, the plan is to assemble as Hashemi Rafsanjani speaks at Friday prayers in Tehran.

OK, but that's two weeks away, and there's no guarantee that the movement will produce a mass show of resistance (or even that Rafsanjani, given his withdrawal from prayers in mid-August, will appear), right? Of course, but that scepticism in turn discounts that tensions continue within the regime.

At the risk of repeating our "Iranians love chess" cliche too often, one strong move does not mean checkmate. And the President and his allies still have a glaring weakness in their defences. Look at the list of waves above. The one that has always been crashing ashore since mid-July has been the criticism of the post-election crackdown through detentions, beatings and abuses, confessions, and trials. And that wave was not put out to sea with the Parliament vote.

It is possible that Ahmadinejad has come through the worst of this. There was a signal this week that the post-election criticism of Mohsen Rezaei, despite the death of his campaign advisor's son in detention, may be muted by putting Rezaei at the head of State broadcasting. The Supreme Leader may be satisfied that he made his point when he "closed" Kahrizak prison. Sadegh Larijani may be content to take his place at judiciary and not challenge the continuing trials; alternatively, Ahmadinejad and the IRGC may accept that they should now curb the crackdown and let proceedings take a lower profile, with releases of some prisoners and "moderate" sentences for others. Ayatollah Khamenei may even announce an end-of-Ramadan "amnesty" for iconic detainees such as Saeed Hajjarian and Mohammad Ali Abtahi.

But, as of now, we don't know. And there's a twist in the tale.

Actually, it's not a twist. It's a storyline that has been here all the time. As EA's Chris Emery and our sharp-eyed/sharp-minded readers have noted, post-election events have added to the strains on the Iranian economy. The post-election crisis brought Government to a standstill and exposed problems in Iran's infrastructure. Of course, Ahmadinejad and his new Cabinet may try to stabilise or even jump-start the economy, but the President's record in this area hasn't been too good.

And that is where "post-election crisis" turns into "legitimacy crisis". It's one thing for an activist to get angry over a stolen vote; another for a "non-activist" to get angry because transport doesn't work, food is more expensive, housing isn't assured, and the lights go out.

If that is the case, if there is a wave of resentment over the economy that happens to arise at the same time as the ongoing waves over the political authority of the President and his allies (and I write that in full cognizance of the opinion of EA colleagues and some of our readers that the Revolutionary Guard has shown its muscle in recent weeks).....

Welcome back to the storm.
Friday
Sep042009

Middle East Inside Line: Chavez Attack on Israel, Gaza Low-Intensity Conflict

hugo-chavezChavez's Diplomatic Dive Bombing of Israel: Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez targeted Israel and the U.S. during his visit to Syria. After a one-hour meeting with Syrian President Bashir al-Assad, Chavez blamed Israel for "dividing the Middle East" as "a country that annihilates people and is hostile to peace":
The entire world knows it. Why was the state of Israel created? ... To divide. To impede the unity of the Arab world. To assure the presence of the North American empire in all these lands.

I believe [this] is a fateful battle. It's either now or never in order to liberate the world from imperialism and change the world from a unipolar into a multi-polar world.

Likud Splitting over Settlements Issue? Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is feeling pressure from his Likud Party members in the wake of headlines that he already accepted a temporary freeze on settlement construction in the West Bank. More than half of the party leadership has accepted an invitation to speak at a hawkish rally in Tel Aviv on Wednesday. Vice Premier Silvan Shalom, Ministers Gilad Erdan, Moshe Kahlon, Yuli Edelstein and Michael Eitan, and Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin have accepted, while Vice Premier Moshe Ya'alon has not decided whether to attend.

Shalom has asserted:
A clear, wide majority in the Likud would not give a hand to any step that would strangle the settlements, which is one of the party's banners... We need to take steps to advance the diplomatic process, but with conditions, and one of them must be not freezing the settlements that we built. The Palestinians cannot ask us to make unilateral, irreversible, far-reaching concessions that impact the permanent [borders] just for agreeing to meet with us.

Shalom added that US President Barack Obama's diplomatic process would "blow up in our face and lead to a dead end."

Education Minister Gideon Sa'ar supported Netanyahu on Thursday:
In today's complex situation, our prime minister whom we chose, Binyamin Netanyahu, must maintain all our national interests - the settlements that are the apple of our eye, Jerusalem, and also our relations with the United States and avoiding international isolation, because we will not be able to do the things that are close to our hearts if we are isolated.

Israel-Gaza Low-Intensity Conflict: Seven mortar shells were fired from Gaza into Israel, all hitting open areas without casualties or damage. On Thursday night, Israeli jets bombed a tunnel in the southern Gaza Strip.
Friday
Sep042009

Video and Transcript: Gates-Mullen Briefing on Afghanistan (4 September)

On Thursday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, held a press briefing to discuss developments in Afghanistan. The appearance came days after the submission of a review by General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan, to President Obama recommending American strategy.

We'll have a full analysis tomorrow on this, but here's the key point, beyond the spin and bluster about a "new" approach to "protect the Afghan people". While Gates and Mullen would not comment on the troop increase in McChrystal's review, there will now be a process of several weeks in which the Administration will strike a serious pose about the build-up, possibly even spinning against the military to assert its authority and maintain some limits, before a "compromise" of another 20,000 to 25,000 US troops is authorised. That will bring the total of American forces, when you add in the "private" contractors and security units to about 150,000, more than the Soviets had in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

Meanwhile this morning, the US-NATO strategy of protection killed up to 90 Afghans when jet bombers struck two hijacked fuel tankers.

SEC. GATES: Good afternoon. I want to start today with an update on where we stand with General McChrystal's assessment on Afghanistan, and then turn things over to Admiral Mullen for his perspective.

First, some context. Soon after taking office, President Obama approved the deployment of some 21,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan to help cope with the anticipated Taliban spring offensive and to provide additional security for the Afghan elections last month. Our allies and partners also sent significant additional troops to provide for election security.

In late March, the president announced a comprehensive new civil, military and diplomatic strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, with the goal of disrupting, dismantling and defeating al Qaeda in order to prevent them from launching another major attack against our country.

A new military commander, General McChrystal, was appointed to implement the military component of the new strategy. When General McChrystal took command in June, I asked him to report back to me in about 60 days with his assessment of the security situation and his thinking on the implementation of the president's new strategy.

I received that report two days ago and informally forwarded a copy to the president for an initial read.

I've asked General Petraeus, the commander of Central Command, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the chairman to provide me with their evaluation of the assessment and the situation in Afghanistan, and will send their views plus my own thoughts to the president early next week. I expect that any request for additional resources would follow after this process and be similarly discussed by the president's national-security team.

All of this is being done as part of a systematic, deliberative process designed to make sure the president receives the best military information and advice on the way ahead in Afghanistan. As I said earlier, what prompted my request for this assessment was the arrival of a new commander in Afghanistan, not any new information or perceived change in the situation on the ground. My request and General McChrystal's response both are intended to help us effectively implement the president's March strategy, not launch a new one.

Admiral?

ADM. MULLEN: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I would just add a couple of thoughts. First, on process, as the secretary indicated, he's asked the chiefs and myself to review General McChrystal's initial assessment and provide our thoughts, our advice. The chiefs and I have already met twice in the tank this week to discuss it, and we're planning at least one more session later on. My intention is to wrap up our review by Friday.

Our job -- and it's one we take very seriously -- is to provide the secretary and the president our best military advice. And we're going to do that with a clear eye not only on the needs in Afghanistan but also the needs of the force in general and on our other security commitments around the globe.

Second, it's clear to me that General McChrystal has done his job as well, laying out for his chain of command the situation on the ground, as he sees it, and offering in frank and candid terms how he believes his forces can best accomplish the mission the president has assigned to him.

And that is what this whole thing is about: the mission assigned, the strategy we've been tasked to implement. There has been enormous focus on troop numbers and timelines lately, lots of conjecture, lots of speculation.

I understand the interest in those things, and it's legitimate. Those numbers represent real units, real people and real families. But the troop piece of this is just that. It's a piece, critical, but it's not total.

What's more important than the numbers of troops he may or may not ask for is how he intends to use them. It should come as no surprise to anyone that he intends to use those forces under his command to protect the Afghan people, to give them the security they need to reject the influence the Taliban seeks.

Now, you've heard me talk for much of the last two years about Afghanistan. You know how much I remain concerned about the situation there. There is a sense of urgency. Time is not on our side.

I believe we understand that. And I believe we're going to regain the initiative, because we have a strategy. We have a new approach in implementing that strategy. And we have leaders on the ground who know the nature of the fight they are in, leaders who know that the other people and the other families who matter just as much, in this fight, are the Afghans themselves.

Our mission is to defeat al Qaeda and to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a safe haven again. We cannot accomplish that alone. We'll need help from other agencies and other countries. But we will also need the support of the local population.

So in my view, the numbers that count most are the number of Afghans we protect. As one villager told a visiting U.S. lawmaker recently, security is the mother of all progress.

SEC. GATES: Lara.

Q Thanks. A question for both of you. New polls show that public support for the war in Afghanistan is eroding. They're coming just as you prepare to go to Congress to ask for funding to fulfill General McChrystal's anticipated resource request. How concerned are you that the fading support will make it harder for those requests to be fulfilled, and how concerned are you both about this idea, that the war is slipping through the administration's fingers, is taking hold with Americans?

SEC. GATES: Well, first of all, I don't believe that the war is slipping through the administration's fingers. And I think it's important -- first of all, the nation has been at war for eight years. The fact that Americans would be tired of having their sons and daughters at risk and in battle is not surprising.

I think what is important is for us to be able to show, over the months to come, that the president's strategy is succeeding. And that is what General McChrystal is putting in front of us, is how best we can, at least from the military's standpoint, ensure that we can show signs of progress along those lines.

But I think it is also -- there is always a difference between the perspective in terms of timing in this country, and certainly in this city, and what's going on in the country. And I think what's important to remember is, the president's decisions were only made at the -- on this strategy were only made at the very end of March.

Our new commander appeared on the scene in June. We still do not have all of the forces the president has authorized in Afghanistan yet, and we still do not have all the civilian surge that the president has authorized and insisted upon in Afghanistan yet.

So we are only now beginning to be in a position to have the assets in place that -- and the strategy or the military approach in place to begin to implement the strategy. And this is going to take some time.

By the same time (sic), no one is more aware than General McChrystal and certainly the two of us that there is a limited time for us to show that this approach is working, and certainly for the secretary of State and the president as well, because there is this broader element of the strategy that goes beyond the military.

But I would just say we are mindful of that. We understand the concerns on the part of many Americans in this area, and -- but we think that we now have the resources and the right approach to begin making some headway in turning around a situation that, as many have indicated, has been deteriorating.

Q And the Chairman doesn't --

SEC. GATES: I'm sorry. Go --

ADM. MULLEN: The only thing I'd add to that is, this has been a mission that has not been well-resourced. It's been under-resourced almost since its inception, certainly in recent years. And it has -- and part of why it has gotten more serious and has deteriorated has been directly tied to that. President Obama has approved the troops, approved the civilians that, as the secretary indicated, are literally in many cases just arriving on scene.

I talked about a sense of urgency, and I do believe we have to start to turn this thing around from a security standpoint over the next 12 to 18 months.

I think the strategy's right. I -- we know how to do this. We've got a combat-hardened force that is terrific in counterinsurgency. And to listen to General McChrystal, he believes it's achievable, and I think we can succeed.

That said, it's complex. It's tough. We're losing people, as everybody knows. And yet that's the mission that the president has given us in the military, and it's the one that we are very fixed on carrying out.

Read rest of transcript...