2155 GMT: Kalemeh reports that the wife of the late Seyed Ahmad Khomeini, the son of Ayatollah Khomeini, has been attacked by clerical students.
1905 GMT: Economic Rumour or Reality (cont. — see 1135 GMT)? The “bank crisis” continues to spark Internet chatter, whether accurate or mischievous — the German-based Akhbar Rooz reports on bank closures after panicked customers tried to withdraw their money because of reports of bankruptcies. And Voice of America Persian is now broadcasting on the topic.
1900 GMT: You Couldn’t Make It Up (Unless You’re Iranian State Media). Earlier this week Kayhan, the “hard-line” Iranian newspaper, reported that a US “HARP” energy-shifting weapon caused the earthquake in Haiti.
We noted the item in amazement and good humour — as a reader noted, shrewd Iranians think of Kayhan as Iran’s version of The Onion, the satirical US “newspaper” — and thought that would be that. However, Press TV, linking up with Venezuelan partners, keeps the joke going today: Read the rest of this entry »
Chris Emery and another top EA correspondent respond to yesterday’s “The Plot Against President Ahmadinejad” and readers’ question by considering the process for the President’s removal and the political questions that would follow:
EMERY: First of all, we should not overlook that there would have to be another election within 50 days in the case of impeachment. The massive question then would be whether (Mir Hossein) Mousavi would be barred from standing. If he was, then the exercise in restoring legitimacy is worthless. If he wasn’t, then the regime would be taking a monumental step. Can’t see it happening for those reasons alone.
UPDATE 1945 GMT: Take this for what it’s worth from former CIA operative Robert Baer: “I’ve been told that the Bush Administration at one point considered Jundallah as a piece in a covert-action campaign against Iran, but the idea was quickly dropped because Jundallah was judged uncontrollable and too close to al-Qaeda. There was no way to be certain that Jundallah would not throw the bombs we paid for back at us.”
– We followed up Sunday’s bombing in southeastern Iran with a discussion between EA’s Mr Smith and Chris Emery on the likely attackers, the Baluch insurgent group Jundallah. Meanwhile, the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps and Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani were claiming that Jundallah was supported by foreign intelligence services, including US operatives.
EA correspondent Josh Mull dissects the Jundallah-US narrative to put some questions not about the claim but about the significance of the bombing. — WSL
My immediate question is why the blaming of Jundallah head Abdolmalek Rigi automatically makes Tehran’s anti-Western rhetoric more credible. Who else could they have named that would NOT lend credibility to their anti-Western rhetoric? The Kurdish PKK? The Baluchistan Liberation Army? The Mujahedin-e-Khalq? The US is said to have supported all of them against the Tehran regime at one point or another, so what makes Jundallah an extra-credible outlet for US activities? Read the rest of this entry »
Enduring America’s Chris Emery on Al Jazeera’s Inside Story with Stephen Zunes and Andy Martin about President Obama’s nuclear non-proliferation initiative and the US approach to Iran’s nuclear programme:
Last night EA’s Chris Emery sent me this challenging question:
“What do you think the Green Movement consider to be their achievable aims on Friday and, more generally, beyond that? What would be their ideal result?
“My view is that the Green Movement is unsure what is achievable now and aim simply to demonstrate that they have not gone away (an achievement in itself — but not necessarily leverage). Sadly, I think the authorities probably have a clearer idea of their aims and consider most of them, but not all, achievable.”
UPDATED 31 August, 0725 GMT: Enduring America’s Chris Emery, formerly known as “Mr Jones”, has now made his contribution to what is becoming, I think, one of the most important discussions in the post-election crisis — see below. Mr Smith has offered a reply.
UPDATED 1145 GMT: Mr Smith has made another intervention in the debate.
–
Over the weekend, after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s tough talking at Friday prayers in Tehran and as he was submitting his Cabinet choices to Parliament, we have been debating the President’s position and future prospects. EA’s Mr Smith and Mr Johnson are joined by Muhammad Sahimi of Tehran Bureau, whose column sparked the discussion, and Fintan Dunne.
SAHIMI: ….Such fabrications [like those in his Friday speech] are of course meant to present Ahmadinejad as a confident leader. But, in reality, he is weaker and more isolated than ever. True, the right wing is in control, but that control has been achieved first and foremost by the support of the high command of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). Otherwise, the base of support for Ahmadinejad among the population is extremely narrow, limited to at most 15% of the population. Read the rest of this entry »
On July 31st, a politically diverse group of 31 academics, students, and anti-war protestors published an open letter in The Guardian of London, criticising what they viewed as the western media’s one-sided coverage of the post-election developments in Iran. Foremost amongst the fallacies they perceived was the portrayal of the election results as “the start of a ‘velvet’ revolution against the Islamic Republic”. At the same time, the letter alleged that the US State Department has used the crisis to “justify its continuation of Bush-era policies of financing anti-Iranian government organisations”. Not only was this an act of political opportunism on the part of advocates of regime change, this interference and propaganda campaign aided the Iranian Government’s crackdown on the opposition and slowed the pace of democratic progress.
The authors contend that is only without foreign threats and interference that “the Iranian people [can] reach their aspirations of freedom and establish their unity in a framework of independence and national sovereignty.” For the reformist and Green Movement to affect real change in Iran, there must be a reversal of the West’s opposition to Tehran’s nuclear program and an “end [to] all their illegitimate economic, political and military pressures aimed at the internal destabilization of Iran”.
Beyond this critique of Western policy towards Iran, the authors issued suggestions for finding a “reasonable solution for the conflict”. They demanded of the Government an end to attacks upon activists and the immediate release of political detainees. The letter also calls for a spirit of national conciliation facilitated by the establishment of an “independent truth and national reconciliation commission with representation from all candidates, such that it can gain the trust of the people of Iran”. Addressing the leaders of the reformists and the Green movement, the authors suggest that “in order to prevent exploitation of the current crisis by western propaganda and opportunist groups, they unambiguously oppose all sanctions and condemn regime change. operations and any foreign support for the anti-Islamic Republic opposition”.
The publication of this letter provoked a spirited debate within academic circles, so Enduring America invited interested parties to participate in a roundtable discussion. The exchanges touched upon all the issues raised in the letter but also spread to a wider debate on how the academic and media approach critical analysis of Iran. Participants included: Siavush Randjbar-Daemi, a Doctoral Candidate in Contemporary Iranian History at Royal Holloway, University of London. Holding dual Iranian citizenship, he has reported extensively on Iranian affairs for national Italian newspapers; Dr Farideh Farhi, a leading US-based scholar of Iran and co-author of the letter; Chris Emery, a British-based Doctoral Candidate who has written on Iranian affairs for The Guardian and contributes regularly to Enduring America; and Nathan Coombs, a Doctoral Candidate in London who specialises in revolutionary politics and is co-editor of the Journal of Critical Globalisation Studies.
SIAVUSH RANDJBAR-DAEMI: The authors introduce themselves as “anti-war activists” and proudly highlight their recent efforts against the “the pervasive deception created by western and Israeli-influenced media”. The group further attempts to remember that it does not wish to see a particular faction in Iran advance its goals, rather they wish to see the country’s “national rights” to be respected and be borne to fruition. Read the rest of this entry »
Yesterday, an analyst from BBC Persian Television, speaking on BBC News 24 on Monday, predicted the protests are going to wither and die because of the government’s crackdown and heavy security across Tehran. He also criticised comparisons with 1979. I asked two Enduring America contributors, Steve Hewitt and Chris Emery, “Is he right?”
Is the 1979 Analogy Relevant?
STEVE HEWITT: I agree. Iranian society then was united against the Shah with a strong rallying figure in the form of Khomeini, whereas today it is just very polarized.
CHRIS EMERY: I agree that analytically there is little point in making analogies with 1978-9. Khomeini did not just have a cause or a sense of injustice, as Mousavi has today, he also had a constitutional template for a radical overhaul of Iran’s political system and foreign relations developed over years. He also had a far-reaching network for achieving his goals; Mousavi, on the other hand, is improvising.
2155 GMT: Kalemeh reports that the wife of the late Seyed Ahmad Khomeini, the son of Ayatollah Khomeini, has been attacked by clerical students.
UPDATE 1945 GMT: Take this for what it’s worth 
Last night EA’s Chris Emery sent me this challenging question:
UPDATED 31 August, 0725 GMT: Enduring America’s Chris Emery, formerly known as “Mr Jones”, has now made his contribution to what is becoming, I think, one of the most important discussions in the post-election crisis — see below. Mr Smith has offered a reply.
Yesterday, an analyst from BBC Persian Television, speaking on BBC News 24 on Monday, predicted the protests are going to wither and die because of the government’s crackdown and heavy security across Tehran. He also criticised comparisons with 1979. I asked two Enduring America contributors, Steve Hewitt and Chris Emery, “Is he right?”
Entries (RSS)