Rahim-Safavi, speaking at a conference organized for the “cultural experts” of the IRGC, said, “The goal of soft war is to change the culture, values and beliefs of the youth….Our weakness is in this very issue of culture, which our enemies have identified before we did. Therefore we must battle against and overcome the attacking culture with our soft and cultural power.”

NEW Iran: The Opposition’s Campaign in the US — Sequel With Revelations and A Lesson
NEW Iran: Connecting the Dots — 5 Signs of Regime Trouble
NEW Iran Letter: “I Am Still Alive to Tell the Story” (Shams)
Iran Special: Zahra Rahnavard on Women’s Rights and The Green Movement
Iran: The Opposition’s New PR Campaign in the US
Iran Analysis: Rafsanjani’s “Finger in the Dike” Strategy
The Latest from Iran (13 March): Settling In

1830 GMT: Let’s Make Up a Cyber-War. More regime propaganda — the Revolutionary Guard has briefed the Parliament on the nefarious cyber-plot of the opposition around Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, bringing in names like the filmmaker Mohsen Makhmalbaf and human rights activist Ahmad Batebi. (There’s a video as well.)

After the briefing, the head of Parliament’s National Security Committee said Human Rights Activists in Iran had fabricated a list of killed protesters and passed it to Mir Hossein Mousavi.

1725 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch — One Who Did Not Remain Silent. Emad Bahavar, head of the youth branch of the Freedom Movement of Iran, has been re-arrested.

Bahavar was arrested earlier this year and released after a short period. However, instead of refraining from criticism of the regime, he wrote a long, incisive analysis of “The Hardliners’ Project”.

On Wednesday, after Bahavar had appeared in court to defend his case, security forces raided his house without a warrant, threatened his family, and confiscated personal possessions. Bahavar was re-arrested when he went to court to protest the illegal behaviour.

1705 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. The former Chief Executive Officer and founder of Persian Blog, Mehdi Boutorabi has been arrested.

1700 GMT: We’ve posted an update and an analysis of this weekend’s “opposition campaign”, which proved to be far less than a campaign, in the US.

1530 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Tehran Prosecutor General Abbas Jafari Doulatabadi has confirmed that Iranian-American academic Kian Tajbakhsh has been released for 15 days on $800,000 bail.

1525 GMT: Really, They Are All US-Sponsored “Cyber-Terrorists”. Fars continues the propaganda overload attacking human rights activists with an “analysis” claiming that the Bush Administration and the CIA launched a $400 million campaign in 2006 for a cyber-battle against Iran.

This is a convenient pretext for Fars to lump together all the “bad guys” — the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, monarchists, Baha’is, and human rights activists — as traitors. Named groups includes Human Rights Activists in Iran, Nobel Prize winner Shirin Ebadi’s Center for Defense of Human Rights, and the Human Rights Committee and the One Million Signatures campaign for women’s equality.

1515 GMT: Stopping the Fire Festival. As our readers have noted, the Supreme Leader has turned on one of Iran’s national ceremonies, Chaharshanbeh Souri, as an event “void of religious roots and cause of great harm and corruption”.

Chaharshanbeh Souri, which takes place on the eve of Iranian New Year, is an ancient Iranian pagan festival with the building of bonfires and symbolic gestures and chants. These summon the fire to burn all sickness and lend its energy to a healthy new year.

1500 GMT: Back from a family break (Happy Mother’s Day to all those celebrating in Britain) to go on Rafsanjani Watch.

Looks like the former President Hashemi Rafsanjani has continued his careful prodding of the Government, this time with attention to state media. He urged Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (Seda va Sima) not to operate as “a gang”, warning that it would lose the trust of the public if it did so. He added that IRIB needs to assume a more “national” approach and pay more attention to people.

1145 GMT: Purge the Universities!

Press TV, from Islamic Republic News Agency, reports that up to 130 Iranian members of Parliament have written the Minister responsible for higher education, Kamran Daneshjoo, calling for strict action to be taken against proponents of secularism in universities throughout Iran.

The legislators warned Daneshjou of the activities that were carried out in universities by “certain individuals who are hostile toward the Islamic system”. They insisted, “The cultural message of the [1979] Islamic Revolution is the most important topic that university professors and the elite must seek to promote….Activities of individuals, who feel enmity toward the Islamic establishment, are unacceptable. What is more, nowhere in the world are resources and opportunities generously handed out to those who seek to bring down the establishment and the principles that society is governed by.”

Of course, the demand of the MPs for “serious and decisive” action against “the enemies of the Islamic establishment,” “proponents of secularism,” and “those who work to weaken the government” is a political set-up for the regime to get rid of unacceptable professors and limit scholarships and overseas education to only “proper” students. Last week Daneshjoo used a speech to denounce “deviant” academics.

0920 GMT:~Khomeini in the Cold. Looks like the regime is going to continue treating the family of the late Ayatollah Khomeini as too dangerous to acknowledge, given their criticisms of the Government. The memorial service for Khomeini’s son Ahmad has been cancelled due to “mausoleum repairs”. Most ceremonies at the Khomeini site since June 2009 have been postponed.

0915 GMT: Two Sunday Specials for You. We feature a defiant weblog from released detainee Foad Shams, “I Am Still Alive to Tell the Story”, and Mr Verde has an analysis of 5 Signs of Regime Trouble.

0910 GMT: A Lament for the Election. Eshagh Jahangiri, the Minister of Industries and Mines in the Khatami Government, has declared that, after the Presidential vote on June 12, the chances of progress were lost for Iran.

OK, he would say that as he’s a reformist, right? Yes, but the location of the criticism…the not-so-reformist Khabar Online.

0900 GMT: No More Satire — Iran’s Changing Flag. Remember a couple of months ago that we posted a comedy story about the apparent changing of the colours in Iran’s flag, removing Green for Blue?

Well, look likes we might have to replace our satire warning for a label that this is Very Serious. From Khabar Online:

At the last session of Iran’s Guardian Council in the current Iranian year (ends on March 20) held today, the speaker of the entity, Abbas Ali Kadkhodaei, answered the questions raised by the journalists.
He said that if a trustable evidence is provided on the national flag color change at the recent state ceremonies, the council will probe the issue.”

“The rules are transparent on this case and must be abided by all executive bodies. If it’s true, those organizations which have committed such act should be questioned,” he maintained.

Recently at some ceremonies held by the government, the green stripe on the Iranian flag had changed to blue or black, including one attended by the President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad staged a in Tehran for the head of the state-funded Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA). At the ceremony in a graphic design behind Ahmadinejad, the green stripe of the country’s national flag had turned to blue.

0650 GMT: I thought at one point on Saturday that the main story might be an opposition initiative to sway American opinion, with a purported spokesman for Mehdi Karroubi holding forth to US journalists in a press conference and private talks.

That proved a fizzle, however, as the “former senior aide” primarily offered a distracting thesis of an Ahmadinejad-Khamenei split and got little coverage from a nuclear-focused (obsessed?) US media. The New York Times, for example, prefers a tangential thinkpiece by David Sanger, and The Washington Post is also off on a Tehran and the Bomb story.

Still there’s an important lesson for the Green Movement here in the diversion and possibly damage of those claiming to be “spokesmen” for the opposition, when they are in fact expressing primarily personal opinions, and how they could built up as Green representatives by a media started of significant information from inside Iran. We’ll have an update later today.

So what were the real stories? Well, there is what appears to be a regime strategy to break the opposition through the “revolving door” of releasing some detainees — with the threat that they go back to prison if they step out of line — and taking new prisoners with declarations of terrorists front groups and agents for the US.

On Saturday, a number of high-profile prisoners, notably journalists and the Iranian-American academic Kian Tajbakhsh, were reportedly freed. At the same time, the campaign to break human rights organisations was declared with the propaganda of media like Fars and Kayhan, with their announcements of dozens of arrests of campaigners linked to the “terrorist” Mujahedin-e-Khalq and Washington, and the attack on the websites of Human Rights Activists in Iran.

The latest statement from the Revolutionary Court declares that those arrested belong to a group called “Iran Proxy,” which is accused of
“downloading national databases, infiltrating and sabotaging internet sites, resisting government filtering efforts, creating secure spaces for users of internet networks, creating secure telephone lines and data for interviews with Radio Farda, Radio Zamaneh and television networks of Voice of America”. The Court alleges, in a reference to a campaign to distribute anti-filtering software so Iranians can access the Internet, “Members of Iran Proxy in Iran were in receipt of significant salaries in Iran in order to distribute over 70 thousand proxies through the internet.”

Then, however, there is the news of pressure on the Government, not through manufactured rings of secret US-backed agents but through members of Parliament. The  story of the battle between the Majlis and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad over the President’s budget and subsidy reform plan seems to have attracted little notice. But, after the President appealed to the Supreme Leader and then gate-crashed the Parliament and still lost the vote on his proposal, it is a sign of Ahmadinejad’s authority in jeopardy.

0830 GMT: The Mousavi interview on Kalemeh has just come out. The takeaway line is “Spreading Awareness is the Goal of the Green Movement”, but there is far more here to be read and analysed.

—

Whisper it softly, because the “Western” media are still sleeping, but politics is on the move again in Iran.

Kalemeh, the website of Mir Hossein Mousavi, has put out advance notice this morning that an interview with Mousavi will be coming out later today. No word on content, but this follows last weekend’s assurance from a Mousavi-Mehdi Karroubi meeting that they would soon be letting the Iranian people know of their plans and Karroubi’s mid-week interviews with his website and with an Italian newspaper.

Meanwhile, in Japan, Ali Larijani is making a big push from within the establishment. The signal of a deal for Japan to carry out “3rd party enrichment” on Iran’s uranium is a major international development, but its internal implications are just as significant. If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has been in Syria, is on-board with the Larijani (and probably Larijani-Khamenei) manoeuvre, that points to a coordinated push to move n the nuclear issue and Iran’s regional position. However, if the President is out of the loop on the initiative, then Larijani is establishing his credential as the major “secular” player in Iranian politics.

Incredibly, given the attention to the nuclear issue, not many “Western” journalists have noticed the Japan development. Instead, our favourite New York Times reporter, David Sanger, takes the award for If You Don’t Know, Just Make Up Some Crazy Stuff. Sanger takes on the question of why Iran moved most of its low-enriched uranium to an above-ground facility two weeks ago (simple answer: Ahmadinejad and Co. wanted a very public demonstration that they could make at least a tiny bit of 20% uranium from 3.5% stock). Since he has no information other than Washington chit-chat (whether it is based on actual intelligence, rumour, or propaganda), this is where the piece winds up:

The strangest of the speculations — but the one that is being talked about most — is that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is inviting an attack to unify the country after eight months of street demonstrations that have pitted millions of Iranians against their government.

A somewhat most significant story, albeit based on more over-statement comes from the address of Ehud Barak, the Israeli Defense Minister, to the Wasihngton Institute for Near East Policy:

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak raised doubts Friday on the likelihood of an Iranian nuclear strike on his country.

I don’t think the Iranians, even if they got the bomb, (will) drop it in the neighborhood. They fully understand what might follow. They are radical but not totally crazy.

Barak’s signal came after meetings with US officials like Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In contrast to Sanger, the Israeli minister — and the State Department — are taking the rationale for an Israeli military attack on Iran off the table. The push will be for stricter economic sanctions.

Not that those sanctions are assured of an easy passage. Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov put out his own signal, eagerly received by Iran’s state media:

There is no evidence that Iran has made a decision to produce nuclear weapons. If we go with the sanctions, we’ll not go beyond the goal of our purpose of defending the nonproliferation regime.

We don’t want the nonproliferation regime to be used for … strangling Iran, or taking some steps to deteriorate the situation [and] the living standards of people in Iran.

That’s not a total rejection of more sanctions but a carefully-worded statement that any new steps will have to be measured and only pursued after much discussion.

Which brings us back to the really interesting news. While the international show goes on, it is the Iranians themselves — be it a Mousavi or a Larijani — who deserve watching right now.

2155 GMT: News from Evin Prison. Another demonstration tonight by families of detainees and their supporters — Peyke Iran reports hundreds present. The website claims 23 detainees have been released to the cheers of the crowd.

2020 GMT: All is Well! All is Well! Today’s award goes to a Brigadier General Hassan Firouzabadi, who offered this assessment of the current situation:

The Islamic Republic of Iran is looking at a bright future under the aegis of the visionary leadership of Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei and the support of a considerable number of devotees inside and outside the country…

“Ceremonies marking the 31st anniversary of the 1979 Islamic Revolution will kick off this year at a time when Iran has made great progress in various fields of science and technology. The global powers, along with their supporters inside the country, desperately sought to undermine the principles of the Islamic Revolution.

So, Mr Firouzabadi, we pass over to you the EA All is Well Trophy Video:

Click here to view the embedded video.

NEW Latest Iran Video: Foreign Minister Mottaki on Elections & Protests (31 January)
NEW Iran Analysis: Mousavi and Karroubi Answer the Regime — “Defiance”
NEW Iran From the Outside: Helping Through “Active Neutrality”
Latest Iran Video: Defending the Executions (30 January)
Iran Document: Mousavi-Karroubi Declaration on Rights and 22 Bahman (30 January)
Iran’s Executions: The Reformist Participation Front Questions to Sadegh Larijani
Iran Patriotism Special: Wiping the Green From The Flag
The Latest from Iran (30 January): Threat

2015 GMT: The speaker of the reformist minority group in Parliament, Mohammad Reza Tabesh, resigned to protest restricitons such as the filtering of the party’s website Parleman News and the banning of its reporter from the Parliament and preventing guests of MPs from entering the Parliament. (Those guests include family members of political prisoners. One delegation was turned away today.)

The Deputy Speaker and members of the party intervened and requested Tabesh to remain in his post.

1920 GMT: Mahmoud, They Haven’t Forgotten You. Just in case anyone was wondering if the “conservative” opposition to the Government had gone quiet, a refresher on a story from yesterday….

High-profile member of Parliament Ahmad Tavakoli, in a letter to Ahmadinejad through the website Alef News, has criticised the warnings handed out to newspapers by the Press Supervisory Board: “In most of the cases the reasons mentioned were very unsound and unbelievably unjustified.” Tavakoli also derided the Ministry of Intelligence’s list of 60 international organisations, involved in “soft war” with whom Iranians were to have no contact: “In the spheres of politics and media, it is the duty of the government to enhance freedom and to ban illegal limitations and narrow-minded restrictions.”

1915 GMT: On the Economic Front (cont.): The Central Bank has issued a gloomy report about Iran’s economic performance in recent months, with declining investment, output, and exports. The report has appeared in both the Green movement’s Rah-e-Sabz and the pro-Rafsanjani Ayande News.

1800 GMT: On the Economic Front. The Swiss engineering group ABB AG has stopped taking new orders in Iran with a view to ending operations in the country.

1755 GMT: Iranian Labor News Agency reports that 218 members of Parliament have signed a motion calling on “prominent figures” to support the Supreme Leader:

“We must give stern warning to the enemies and bullying powers that their conspiracies will be thwarted by Iranian wise and vigilant nation as before. We advise the prominent figures who fanned the flames of dispute to make good on their mistakes and remain committed to rule of law.”

1745 GMT: Detainee News (cont.). Dr. Alireza Beheshti, Mir Hossein Mousavi’s top advisor (not to be confused with Alireza Beheshti Shirazi, another Mousavi advisor) and son of the late Ayatollah Beheshti, has complained about unacceptable prison conditions in a short telephone call to his family. Beheshti’s wife said that the regime is still searching for charges against her husband; one of the possibilities is that he has multiple mobile phone numbers.

Beheshti, detained in the new wave of arrests after Ashura, has suffered a heart attack while in custody. He reportedly has not been able to meet his lawyer or study his file.

1645 GMT: Larijani, Tough Guy. An English translation of the remarks of Sadegh Larijani (see 1445 GMT), head of Iran’s judiciary, from Rah-e-Sabz’s original report:

Larijani, while defending the execution of a number of people, particularly those accused of being a Mohareb (enemy of God), said: “These people were Moharebs and members of terrorist groups, had weapons or were found with explosives when arrested.”

Sadegh Larijani once again reiterated the resolve of the judiciary in dealing with Mohareb groups and said, “Legal criminal procedures were meticulously followed during every phase of the investigation with regards to the cases of these individuals.”

With regards to those who seek to create an illusion that there was negligence by the judiciary system in dealing with the defendants and who suggest that they were arrested hastily and without respect for the law, Larijani said, “The criteria by which the judiciary addresses all judicial cases is based only on Sharia (religious and divine law).”

1615 GMT: Detainee News. Seyed Alireza Beheshti Shirazi, a senior advisor to Mir Hossein Mousavi senior advisors and the chief editor of his Kalemeh Sabz newspaper, is still in solitary confinement. Beheshti, detained in the Ashura demonstrations, has not been charged, has not been given a lawyer, and has not been allowed to contact his family.

Dr. Ali Arab Mazar, another imprisoned Mousavi advisor, has finally spoken to his family in a two-minute phone call.

1445 GMT: Defending the Executions. A quiet news day has been interrupted by a statement from the head of Iran’s judiciary, Sadegh Larijani, justifying Thursday’s executions of Mohammad Reza Ali Zamani and Arash Rahmanipour.

1015 GMT: Colleagues at Iran Review in Tehran have notified us of a series of analyses, from their staff and from the Iranian press, offering insight into Iranian positions on Afghanistan, on the West’s approach to Tehran’s nuclear programme and Russia’s position, and on Iraq’s forthcoming elections.

0935 GMT: Fist-Shaking of the Day. Officials in the Obama Administration use their favourite reporters at The Washington Post and The New York Times, to show they are getting very tough with Iran.

With further sanctions on Tehran complicated both by the resistance of other countries and by differing views of the White House and the US Congress, “military officials” have proclaimed that anti-missile defences are being accelerated in Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Kuwait.

There are other motives in the posturing. An administration official declares, “Our first goal is to deter the Iranians” if Tehran gets a bit miffed about tougher sanctions. That’s a pretty weak line, since Iran is unlikely to launch an overt military attack (to my knowledge, Tehran has not done so since the 1979 Islamic Revolution). The official’s second aim, “to reassure the Arab states”, is more a pointer to the ongoing political battle between Iran and the US for influence in the region. The third objective, however, may be the most significant, beyond the appearance of toughness, “There is certainly an element of calming the Israelis as well.”

0850 GMT: Spinning Hashemi. Iran’s state outlet, Press TV, gives the “appropriate” reading for Hashemi Rafsanjani’s cautious, balanced statement on the marches of 22 Bahman (11 February). Setting aside any notion of a challenge to the regime, the website headlines, “Hashemi-Rafsanjani: February 11 rallies will foil outside ploys”.

0820 GMT: The website of the Holland-based Radio Zamaneh, a key location for news and analysis in the post-election crisis, has been attacked by the “Iranian Cyber Army”, the same group that diverted traffic from the Green website Mowj-e-Sabz,   Twitter, and the Chinese service Baidu.

0805 GMT: Another Show of Defiance. More than 2000 people — detainees’ families, Mothers of Mourning, and supporters — reportedly gathered outside Evin Prison on Saturday night to call for an end to executions.

After the killing of two detainees on Thursday and rumours of more hangings, the demonstrators demanded not only an end to executions but also the unconditional release of all political prisoners. The families of prisoners were told that 23 detainees would be freed, and a few were released, including a 23 year-old woman who expressed her thanks to the crowd.

0800 GMT: The biggest news story on Saturday was the statement of Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, responding to the regime’s threats, trials, and executions, as they maintained their criticism of the Government and called on followers to march on the anniversary of the 1979 Revolution, 22 Bahman (11 February). We have posted a separate analysis.

Amidst our continuing discussions of the relationship between the Green movement and those outside Iran, we have also posted an incisive comment from Mahmood Delkhasteh, proposing the policy of “active neutrality”.

And we have posted a video of a Tehran University academic, speaking on Al Jazeera English, defending last Thursday’s executions of two political prisoners.

The headline is a bit misleading, since the core issue is whether (in fact, how rather than whether) the Obama Administration will be pursuing and presenting additional sanctions against Iran: “The White House is crafting new financial sanctions specifically designed to punish the Iranian entities and individuals most directly involved in the crackdown on Iran’s dissident forces, said…U.S. officials, rather than just those involved in Iran’s nuclear program.”

The presentation, however, is telling. For weeks, the set-up for sanctions — for example, in the articles of David Sanger and William Broad in The New York Times — has been that they were essential to punish Iran for breakdown of enrichment talks and Tehran’s move toward a military nuclear capability. Now, for the first time, the message is not just that “rights” should take priority but that there may be a change of power in Iran: “The Obama administration is increasingly questioning the long-term stability of Tehran’s government and moving to find ways to support Iran’s opposition ‘Green Movement’.”

Read it: the authority of President Ahmadinejad is no longer assumed, even bolstered, by the US approach. An Administration source declares, “The Green Movement has demonstrated more staying power than perhaps some have anticipated. The regime is internally losing its legitimacy, which is of its own doing.”

So which US officials are now tying “targeted sanctions” to this shift away from Ahmadinejad and visions of a new leadership? Here’s the big clue:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gathered over coffee at the State Department this week with four leading Iran scholars and mapped out the current dynamics, said U.S. officials. One issue explored was how the U.S. should respond if Tehran suddenly expressed a desire to reach a compromise on the nuclear issue. Mrs. Clinton asked whether the U.S. could reach a pact without crippling the prospects for the Green Movement.

In September, Clinton and her advisors had a similar discussion. The leading Iran scholars on that occasion? “The Carnegie Endowment’s Karim Sadjadpour, the New America Foundation’s Afshin Molavi, the National Iranian American Council’s Trita Parsi, the Council on Foreign Relations’ Ray Takeyh, the Woodrow Wilson’s Haleh Esfandiari, Brookings’ Suzanne Maloney, and George Mason University’s Shaul Bakhash.”

In recent weeks, Parsi’s NIAC has been pushing the approach of targeted sanctions linked to rights, not the nuclear issue, and Takeyh has been promoting a rights-first policy. So I suspect that The Wall Street Journal article is declaring a convergence between the Obama Administration and the private sphere.

If so, welcome back Green movement. And President Ahmadinejad may have lost his nuclear prop from Washington.

2320 GMT: Another Rights-First Shot from the Obama Administration. Despite (possibly because of) the recent sanctions-related rush of spin in US newspapers, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took a moment to focus on Iran’s political conflict today, criticising the regime’s “ruthless repression” of protesters: “We have deep concerns about their behavior, we have concerns about their intentions and we are deeply disturbed by the mounting signs of ruthless repression that they are exercising against those who assemble and express viewpoints that are at variance with what the leadership of Iran wants to hear.”

2220 GMT: Have You Made “The List”? Fars News has published the names of the 60 organisations and media outlets “outed” by Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence as unacceptable for contact by Iranians.

There are a lot of familiar faces, given that many of these dangerous groups were listed in indictments in the Tehran trials in August: Georges Soros’ Open Society Institute is here, as is the Carnegie Foundation, Ford Foundation and the Woodrow Wilson Center, whose scholar Haleh Esfandiari was detained by the Iranians in 2007. Both the National Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute get a mention. So doe the Council on Foreign Relations, the Hoover Institute in California, Freedom House, and of course the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. The National Endowment for Democracy, funded but not run by the US Government, also gets a citation, and Human Rights Watch is a definite no-go area.

Looks like we’ve missed out — in the United Kingdom, the conference centre at Wilton Park, where foreign agents must gather to plan regime change, is mentioned as is the “Centre for Democracy Studies”.

Just one question, if anyone at the Ministry of Intelligence is on Overnight Foreigner Watch: why does Yale get to be the one university to receive the Great Satan’s Helper prize? (And, yes, we’re already getting furious e-mails from our Harvard friends.)

2200 GMT: Have just arrived in Beirut, where I will be learning from the best specialists on the Middle East and Iran this week. Thanks to EA staff for finding journalist Maziar Bahari’s interview with Britain’s Channel 4. We’ve now posted the video of Bahari, who was detained for four months after the Presidential election.

2000 GMT: Britain’s Channel 4 News has just broadcast a moving interview with journalist Maziar Bahari who was held in Evin prison for 119 days. We’ll post a link when it becomes available. Chief political correspondent Jon Snow also referred back to his exclusive interview with President Ahmadinejad which took place in Shiraz just before  Christmas. Ahmadinejad denied troops were intimidating opponents and warned the West not to assume his country was weak.

NEW Latest Iran Video: Maziar Bahari on Britain’s Channel 4
NEW Iran: Five Expatriate Intellectuals Issue “The Demands of the Green Movement”
NEW Latest Iran Video: Interview with Committee of Human Rights Reporters (3 January)
NEW Iran: In Defence of Mousavi’s “5 Proposals”
NEW Iran: The Genius of Washington’s “Strategic Leaking” on Nukes & Sanctions
Iran: Authority and Challenge — Bring Out the (Multi-Sided) Chessboard
The Latest from Iran (3 January): Re-positioning

1540 GMT: I’m en route to a conference in the Middle East (more news tomorrow) so updates may be limited today. The EA team is minding the shop so keep sending in information and analysis.

1500 GMT: The Foreign Menace (see if you are on the list). The Islamic Republic News Agency has just published a long interview with the Deputy Minister for International Affairs in the Ministry of Intelligence ministry. He lists 62 foreign research centres and media outlets, with which all contact by Iranians is considered forbidden. The list includes Yale University, Brookings Institute, Saban Centre, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, New American Foundation, various Iran human rights groups, BBC, Voice of America, and RaheSabz.net.

1415 GMT: Regime Spokesman of Day. Hats off to Kaveh Afrasiabi, who at no point lets analysis get in the way of his re-presentation of the Mousavi statement, “Iran: From Confrontation to Reconciliation” in Asia Times.

Afrasiabi, who has been a loud proclaimer of President Ahmadinejad’s legitimacy since 12 June, wears the shoes of Presidential candidate Mohsen Rezaei in announcing a Mousavi “retreat” (perhaps needless to say, he does not consider the actual statement). He is pleased to report that many figures, including former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, are now behind “unity” So expect “a qualitative turn-around from the tumult of the past seven months”.

And those who haven’t read Afrasiabi’s script? No worries, for the Green movement, given “an opportunity to drum up its democratization demands” with the death of Grand Ayatollah Montazeri”, has been stopped by “a serious miscalculation” with its resort to violence on Ashura

1340 GMT: Engagement Revised. A delegation from the European Parliament has postponed its trip to Iran.

1330 GMT: Reuters is reporting from Iran state television the assertion of Minister of Intelligence Heydar Moslehi: “Several foreigners are among those who were arrested on the day of Ashura….They were leading a psychological war against the system….They entered Iran two days before Ashura.”

1020 GMT: Irony Defined. Press TV’s website features this headline, “Iran deplores French crackdown on protesters”.

Still not convinced of our definition? Here is the opening sentence: “Iran’s Foreign Ministry has lashed out at France over resorting to violence in dealing with protesters in the country, describing it as violation of human rights.”

0930 GMT: A Platform for the Green Movement? Five Iranian intellectuals abroad — Abdolkarim Soroush, Akbar Ganji, Mohsen Kadivar, Abdolali Bazargan, Ataollah Mohajerani — have put out a statement of objectives. We are summarising in a separate entry.

0920 GMT: Where’s Mahmoud? President Ahmadinejad is focusing on Iran’s regional ties, especially in areas like energy and transportation. He is in Tajikistan before moving to Turkmenistan.

0910 GMT: We’ve posted the video of an interview with Saeed Habibi, a senior member of the Committee of Human Rights Reporters who is in hiding in Iran.

0720 GMT: The Clerical Opposition? We are looking for further information on the tantalising report, offered late Sunday, that Ayatollah Bayat-Zanjani has met separately with Ayatollah Mousavi-Ardebili and with Ayatollah Sanei in Qom.

0710 GMT: Another low-key start to the political day in Iran, as it appears that the regime ponders — amidst its threats — how to deal with the persistence of protests, the Green opposition gathers itself — amidst arrests — for the next big show of resistance, Mir Hossein Mousavi watches the response to his 5-proposal statement, and conservative/principlist politicians and clerics look for support for their alternative approach.

We have two guest analyses. Babak Siavoshy puts forth a defence of Mousavi’s statement, while Gary Sick praises the “strategic leaking” of Barack Obama amidst domestic pressure for US sanctions against Iran and its nuclear programme.

Meanwhile, a Sunday testimony both to Iran’s ascent up the US news agenda and the problems, as well as the possibilities, that this brings. One of the showpiece Sunday talk shows, ABC’s This Week, turned over part of its Roundtable to a discussion of recent protests in Iran.

Unfortunately, after paying token attention to the internal developments — “Every time this cycle happens, the Iranian opposition seems to come back stronger and stronger” — David Sanger of The New York Times promoted his Sunday article (see yesterday’s updates) and declared, “The first priority is the nuclear programme.” Cue another round of chit-chat among the talking heads on sanctions and the reduction of Iran’s political battle to “Is it more or less likely for the Iranian regime to want a deal with the West?”

222055 GMT: The Mojahedin of Islamic Revolution, following the earlier endorsement of the Islamic Iran Participation Front of the Mousavi post-Ashura statement (1420 GMT), have issued their response to the declaration.

NEW Iran: Authority and Challenge — Bring Out the (Multi-Sided) Chessboard
Iran Video of Week: Ahmadinejad 0, Tractor 1
Iran: The Non-Violent “Watershed” of the Mousavi Statement (Shahryar)
Iran: A Gut Reaction to Mousavi’s “Martyrdom v. Compromise” Statement (Lucas)
Iran Document: Mousavi’s “5 Stages to Resolution” Statement (1 January)
The Latest from Iran (2 January): The Ripples of the Mousavi Statement

2000 GMT: The Regime’s Fist-Waving. Edward Yeranian of the Voice of America has a useful summary of today’s denunciations of protesters, invocation of “foreign agents”, and threats of prosecution from Minister of Interior Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar (1645 GMT) and the head of Iran’s judiciary, Sadegh Larijani. Press TV continues to play up the Larijani combination of assurance (“fair trial”) and warning (“investigate the events quickly and firmly”).

1800 GMT: Green 88 members Mohammad Rafati and Mohammad Keighobadi have been arrested.

1645 GMT: Your Daily US-UK-Israel-MKO Announcement. It’s Minister of Interior Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar reciting the litany today: “The rioters are encouraged and supported by Britain, the US and the Zionist regime. The involvement of the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO), enemies and those who seek to take revenge on the Islamic establishment during the past 30 years is quite clear.”

Can’t say this wins award for originality, although Mohammad-Najjar’s promise that some MKO members will soon appear in court — reportedly some Ashura detainees went on trial today — has an ominous hint of a new scene in the staged drama.

1625 GMT: More Tough Shows for the Media. On a day when Governments in Washington and Tehran have been spinning tales away from the central front of the internal conflict in Iran, it did not take long for this one to get a headline.

This morning Press TV gave up space to a bit of tough puffery from the Iranian military, with Brigadier General Ahmad-Reza Pourdastan announcing a large military exercise next month to “improve the force’s defensive capabilities” and “boost the region’s security”.

No big prizes for breaking the political code in this move: facing diplomatic pressure and possibly more sanctions on the nuclear issue and looking more than a bit shaky at home, Tehran puts up a show of strength against the ever-present “foreign enemies”. CNN has already obliged, recycling the Press TV report and immediately putting it in the context of the US and Israeli portrayal of “time running out” to address Iran’s “threat”.

Meanwhile, the media’s set-up of a case for more sanctions on Iran continues. The New York Times advertisement for the pro-sanctions forces in the Obama Administration (see 0840 GMT), who are working with pro-sanctions forces in Israel, has turned into a magic media circle, with Israel’s Haaretz citing the article and bolstering the line: if there are more sanctions, then no Israeli military action.

1455 GMT: The Exam Strike. For the second day in a row, students at Amir Kabir University in Tehran have protested by refusing to sit their examinations.

1425 GMT: A Victory for the Regime. Amidst the political and religious challenges it is facing, the Iranian authorities have succeeded in curbing Ayatollah Ali Mohammad Dastgheib. After days of attacks on the Qoba Mosque in Shiraz, the Government has confiscated Dastgheib’s offices and restricted the cleric’s movements.

1420 GMT: Boosting the Mousavi Initaitive. The reformist Islamic Iran Participation Front has issued a statement of enthusiastic support for the Mousavi five-point resolution in the post-Ashura statement.

1245 GMT: Regime Divisions (cont.). Ayande News criticises the attempt by Ayatollah Mohammad Yazdi, in the name of the Qom Seminary Teachers Association, to denounce the marja (eminent cleric) status of Ayatollah Sane’i (see yesterday’s updates).

Ayande has also launched a full-blooded attack on the editor of Kayhan, the “hard-line” Hossein Shariatmadari, accusing him of past duplicity (opposing Ayatollah Khamenei) and current misinformation (minimising the number of anti-regime demonstrators in protests).

Now here’s the intriguing part: Ayande has been claimed to be linked to the Presidential candidate Mohsen Rezaei, who just wrote the Supreme Leader asking for reconciliation with a “retreating” Mir Hossein Mousavi. Is this the other part of the initiative, an assault upon those, including allies of President Ahmadinejad, who would block such a deal?

1230 GMT: Breaking the Freedom Movement. Iran’s authorities have detained three more senior members of the party: Amir Khorram, Mohsen Mohagheghi, and Sara Tavassoli (daughter of the director of the Freedom Movement’s offices).

1200 GMT: Let’s Crush Them (But Do It Fairly). Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting is featuring a story of the head of Iran’s judiciary, Sadegh Larijani, speaking about “fair trials” for those who have caused “fitna” (secular sedition).

1150 GMT: More Media Follies. This time it’s Paul Harris of The Observer of London who goes Nuclear Critical. His attention to Iran is part of a wider piece on the challenges for President Obama, but the headline points to Tehran Emergency: “Barack Obama talks tough on terror as Iran raises nuclear stakes”. Harris bases this diplomatic Red Alert on:

— “A deadline for Iran to accept a UN-brokered deal passed on Thursday and raised the prospect of a fresh round of sanctions against Tehran” (as we noted months ago, the Obama Administration was going to let any deadline slip because it has not declared a break-down of the nuclear discussions);

— “A senior Iranian figure said the west had just one month to come up with a better deal for it to swap its low-enriched uranium for nuclear fuel” (as we noted yesterday, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki’s “ultimatum” was more a rhetorical defence against likely sanctions and an intervention in the domestic crisis, trying to boost the Government with “nationalist” sentiment)

— “Many experts, however, think any resolution to the situation is unlikely.” (no names, no details)

What “distinguishes” Harris’ analysis, however, is not an omission of Iran’s domestic situation but a distortion of it. He makes a point of noticing “last week, tens of thousands of supporters of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s regime demonstrated in Tehran in organised protests against foreign interference in Iran’s affairs” — you see, this is not only a Iranian Government on the verge of nuclear weapons, but one with popular support — but he never mentions the anti-regime protests that took place only three days earlier.

1140 GMT: The Domestic Troubles. Testimony to our New Year analysis about the complex challenges to the Ahmadinejad Government — “Iran’s parliament rejected on Sunday the government’s request to withdraw a bill aimed at gradually cutting energy and food subsidies”.

The Government put forth the subsidy reduction plan as a key plank in its economic programme last autumn. In November, however, the Parliament linked any cut to the overall budget, requiring the Government to put the money into a special account for public spending.

At that point, Ahmadinejad called for the withdrawal of the entire proposal. He got his answer — economically and politically — today.

1025 GMT: Handling the Mousavi Statement. A bizarre article from Press TV’s website, “Mousavi’s statement draws varied reactions” — instead of considering the political responses that we have noted in our analyses, the article opens with this clumsy attempt at belittling the opposition leader: “The Tehran Municipality has been clearing the Iranian capital of graffiti containing negative comments about defeated presidential candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi.”

The last paragraphs do try to set out a party line, but even this is uncertain: “Some, such as Mohsen Rezaei, another defeated presidential candidate, described the declaration as a “retreat” from the position of denying the legitimacy of Ahmadienjad’s administration. Others however, condemned the statement, repeating their earlier calls for judicial action against the “leaders of Fitna (Arabic for anarchy).”

1020 GMT: Iranian television is reporting that the first trials, held in Revolutionary Court, of those arrested on Ashura (27 December) have begun.

1010 GMT: Latest Arrests. Journalist Rouzbeh Karimi and his wife, lawyer Forough Mirzaee, have been detained.

0840 GMT: US Sanctions and the Nuclear-First Approach. After weeks in which the White House seemed to shift to a rights-first vision of Iran, a faction in the Obama Administration appear to have re-staked the “All about Nukes, All about Sanctions” ground.

An article by The New York Times‘ David Sanger and William Broad, the go-to reporters for the nukes/sanctions officials, bluntly opens with the statement that the recent internal tension and demands of the Green movement are again pawns in the nuclear game:

As President Obama faces pressure to back up his year-end ultimatum for diplomatic progress with Iran, the administration says that domestic unrest and signs of unexpected trouble in Tehran’s nuclear program make its leaders particularly vulnerable to strong and immediate new sanctions….

Although repeated rounds of sanctions over many years have not dissuaded Iran from pursuing nuclear technology, an administration official involved in the Iran policy said the hope was that the current troubles “give us a window to impose the first sanctions that may make the Iranians think the nuclear program isn’t worth the price tag.”

Beyond the relegation of the internal conflict in Iran to a supporting role in other campaigns, what is bizarre about this public-relations piece is that it promotes sanctions even though the possibility of any supposed Iranian nuclear weapon has diminished in recent months:

Obama administration officials said they believed that the bomb-development effort was seriously derailed by the exposure three months ago of the country’s secret enrichment plant under construction near the holy city of Qum….

In addition, international nuclear inspectors report that at Iran’s plant in Natanz, where thousands of centrifuges spin to enrich uranium for nuclear fuel, the number of the machines that are currently operating has dropped by 20 percent since the summer, a decline nuclear experts attribute to technical problems. [Note: EA pointed this out in the autumn; Sanger and Broad ignored the technical issue until the article today.]

The illogic and the (cynical?) political manoeuvring is beside the main point, however. This articles and others, such as a recent piece in The Washington Post that Israel was quite happy to go with the sanctions route, all point to the Administration’s acceptance of sanctions measures that will be passed by the US Congress within the next month.

0820 GMT: As the drama of public conflict recedes for the moment — although the regime continues to arrest activists, journalists, and key organisers —and is replaced by the political manoeuvres both inside and outside the Iranian establishment, we have posted an analysis, “Bring Out the (Multi-Sided) Chessboard”.

In his Afghan “surge” speech at West Point last week, President Obama offered Americans some specifics to back up his new “way forward in Afghanistan.” He spoke of the “additional 30,000 U.S. troops” he was sending into that country over the next six months. He brought up the “roughly $30 billion” it would cost us to get them there and support them for a year. And finally, he spoke of beginning to bring them home by July 2011. Those were striking enough numbers, even if larger and, in terms of time, longer than many in the Democratic Party would have cared for. Nonetheless, they don’t faintly cover just how fully the president has committed us to an expanding war and just how wide it is likely to become.

A Gut Reaction to Obama’s Afghanistan-Pakistan Speech: The Halfway House of The Long War

Despite the seeming specificity of the speech, it gave little sense of just how big and how expensive this surge will be. In fact, what is being portrayed in the media as the surge of November 2009 is but a modest part of an ongoing expansion of the U.S. war effort in many areas. Looked at another way, the media’s focus on the president’s speech as the crucial moment of decision, and on those 30,000 new troops as the crucial piece of information, has distorted what’s actually underway.

In reality, the U.S. military, along with its civilian and intelligence counterparts, has been in an almost constant state of surge since the last days of the Bush administration. Unfortunately, while information on this is available, and often well reported, it’s scattered in innumerable news stories on specific aspects of the war. You have to be a media jockey to catch it all, no less put it together.

What follows, then, is my own attempt to make sense of the nine fronts on which the U.S. has been surging, and continues to do so, as 2009 ends. Think of this as an effort to widen our view of Obama’s widening war.

Obama’s Nine Surges

1. The Troop Surge: Let’s start with those “30,000” new troops the president announced.

First of all, they represent Obama’s surge, phase 2. As the president pointed out in his speech, there were “just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan” when he took office in January 2009. In March, Obama announced that he was ordering in 21,000 additional troops. Last week, when he spoke, there were already approximately 68,000 to 70,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. If you add the 32,000 already there in January and the 21,700 actually dispatched after the March announcement, however, you only get 53,700, leaving another 15,000 or so to be accounted for. According to Karen DeYoung of the Washington Post, 11,000 of those were “authorized in the waning days of the Bush administration and deployed this year,” bringing the figure to between 64,000 and 65,000. In other words, the earliest stage of the present Afghan “surge” was already underway when Obama arrived.

It also looks like at least a few thousand more troops managed to slip through the door in recent months without notice or comment. Similarly, with the 30,000 figure announced a week ago, DeYoung reports that the president quietly granted Secretary of Defense Robert Gates the right to “increase the number by 10 percent, or 3,000 troops, without additional White House approval or announcement.” That already potentially brings the most recent surge numbers to 33,000, and an unnamed “senior military official” told De Young “that the final number could go as high as 35,000 to allow for additional support personnel such as engineers, medevac units and route-clearance teams, which comb roads for bombs.”

Now, add in the 7,500 troops and trainers that administration officials reportedly strong-armed various European countries into offering. More than 1,500 of these are already in Afghanistan and simply not being withdrawn as previously announced. The cost of sending some of the others, like the 900-plus troops Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili has promised, will undoubtedly be absorbed by Washington. Nonetheless, add most of them in and, miraculously, you’ve surged up to, or beyond, Afghan War commander General Stanley McChrystal’s basic request for at least 40,000 troops to pursue a counterinsurgency war in that country.

2. The Contractor Surge: Given our heavily corporatized and privatized military, it makes no sense simply to talk about troop numbers in Afghanistan as if they were increasing in a void. You also need to know about the private contractors who have taken over so many former military duties, from KP and driving supply convoys to providing security on large bases. There’s no way of even knowing who is responsible for the surge of (largely Pentagon-funded) private contractors in Afghanistan. Did their numbers play any part in the president’s three months of deliberations? Does he have any control over how many contractors are put on the U.S. government payroll there? We don’t know.

Private contractors certainly went unmentioned in his speech and, amid the flurry of headlines about troops going to Afghanistan, they remain almost unmentioned in the mainstream media. In major pieces on the president’s tortuous “deliberations” with his key military and civilian advisors at the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times, all produced from copious officially inspired leaks, there wasn’t a single mention of private contractors, and yet their numbers have been surging for months.

A modest-sized article by August Cole in the Wall Street Journal the day after the president’s speech gave us the basics, but you had to be looking. Headlined “U.S. Adding Contractors at Fast Pace,” the piece barely peeked above the fold on page 7 of the paper. According to Cole: “The Defense Department’s latest census shows that the number of contractors increased about 40% between the end of June and the end of September, for a total of 104,101. That compares with 113,731 in Iraq, down 5% in the same period… Most of the contractors in Afghanistan are locals, accounting for 78,430 of the total…” In other words, there are already more private contractors on the payroll in Afghanistan than there will be U.S. troops when the latest surge is complete.

Though many of these contractors are local Afghans hired by outfits like DynCorp International and Fluor Corp., TPM Muckracker managed to get a further breakdown of these figures from the Pentagon and found that there were 16,400 “third country nationals” among the contractors, and 9,300 Americans. This is a formidable crew, and its numbers are evidently still surging, as are the Pentagon contracts doled out to private outfits that go with them. Cole, for instance, writes of the contract that Dyncorp and Fluor share to support U.S. forces in Afghanistan “which could be worth as much as $7.5 billion to each company in the coming years.”

3. The Militia Surge: U.S. Special Forces are now carrying out pilot programs for a mini-surge in support of local Afghan militias that are, at least theoretically, anti-Taliban. The idea is evidently to create a movement along the lines of Iraq’s Sunni Awakening Movement that, many believe, ensured the “success” of George W. Bush’s 2007 surge in that country. For now, as far as we know, U.S. support takes the form of offers of ammunition, food, and possibly some Kalashnikov rifles, but in the future we’ll be ponying up more arms and, undoubtedly, significant amounts of money.

This is, after all, to be a national program, the Community Defense initiative, which, according to Jim Michaels of USA Today, will “funnel millions of dollars in foreign aid to villages that organize ‘neighborhood watch’-like programs to help with security.” Think of this as a “bribe” surge. Such programs are bound to turn out to be essentially money-based and designed to buy “friendship.”

4. The Civilian Surge: Yes, Virginia, there is a “civilian surge” underway in Afghanistan, involving increases in the number of “diplomats and experts in agriculture, education, health and rule of law sent to Kabul and to provincial reconstruction teams across the country.” The State Department now claims to be “on track” to triple the U.S. civilian component in Afghanistan from 320 officials in January 2009 to 974 by “the early weeks of next year.” (Of course, that, in turn, means another mini-surge in private contractors: more security guards to protect civilian employees of the U.S. government.) A similar civilian surge is evidently underway in neighboring Pakistan, just the thing to go with a surge of civilian aid and a plan for a humongous new, nearly billion-dollar embassy compound to be built in Islamabad.

5. The CIA and Special Forces Surge: And speaking of Pakistan, Noah Shachtman of Wired’s Danger Room blog had it right recently when, considering the CIA’s “covert” (but openly discussed) drone war in the Pakistani tribal borderlands, he wrote: “The most important escalation of the war might be the one the President didn’t mention at West Point.” In fact, the CIA’s drone attacks there have been escalating in numbers since the Obama administration came into office. Now, it seems, paralleling the civilian surge in the Af/Pak theater of operations, there is to be a CIA one as well. While little information on this is available, David E. Sanger and Eric Schmitt of the New York Times report that in recent months the CIA has delivered a plan to the White House “for widening the campaign of strikes against militants by drone aircraft in Pakistan, sending additional spies there and securing a White House commitment to bulk up the C.I.A.’s budget for operations inside the country.”

In addition, Scott Shane of the [New York] Times reports:

The White House has authorized an expansion of the C.I.A.’s drone program in Pakistan’s lawless tribal areas, officials said…, to parallel the president’s decision… to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. American officials are talking with Pakistan about the possibility of striking in Baluchistan for the first time — a controversial move since it is outside the tribal areas — because that is where Afghan Taliban leaders are believed to hide.

The Pakistani southern border province of Baluchistan is a hornet’s nest with its own sets of separatists and religious extremists, as well as a (possibly U.S.-funded) rebel movement aimed at the Baluchi minority areas of Iran. The Pakistani government is powerfully opposed to drone strikes in the area of the heavily populated provincial capital of Quetta where, Washington insists, the Afghan Taliban leadership largely resides. If such strikes do begin, they could prove the most destabilizing aspect of the widening of the war that the present surge represents.

In addition, thanks to The Nation magazine’s Jeremy Scahill, we now know that, from a secret base in Karachi, Pakistan, the U.S. Army’s Joint Special Operations Command, in conjunction with the private security contractor Xe (formerly Blackwater), operates “a secret program in which they plan targeted assassinations of suspected Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives, ‘snatch and grabs’ of high-value targets and other sensitive action inside and outside Pakistan.” Since so many U.S. activities in Pakistan involve secretive, undoubtedly black-budget operations, we may only have the faintest outlines of what the “surge” there means.

6. The Base-Building Surge: Like the surge in contractors and in drone attacks, the surge in base-building in Afghanistan significantly preceded Obama’s latest troop-surge announcement. A recent NBC Nightly News report on the ever-expanding U.S. base at Kandahar Airfield, which it aptly termed a “boom town,” shows just how ongoing this part of the overall surge is, and at what a staggering level. As in Iraq from 2003 on, billions of dollars are being sunk into bases, the largest of which — especially the old Soviet site, Bagram Air Base, with more than $200 million in construction projects and upgrades underway at the moment — are beginning to look like ever more permanent fixtures on the landscape.

In addition, as Nick Turse of TomDispatch.com has reported, forward observation bases and smaller combat outposts have been sprouting all over southern Afghanistan. “Forget for a moment the ‘debates’ in Washington over Afghan War policy,” he wrote in early November, “and, if you just focus on the construction activity and the flow of money into Afghanistan, what you see is a war that, from the point of view of the Pentagon, isn’t going to end any time soon. In fact, the U.S. military’s building boom in that country suggests that, in the ninth year of the Afghan War, the Pentagon has plans for a far longer-term, if not near-permanent, garrisoning of the country, no matter what course Washington may decide upon.”

7. The Training Surge: In some ways, the greatest prospective surge may prove to be in the training of the Afghan national army and police. Despite years of American and NATO “mentoring,” both are in notoriously poor shape. The Afghan army is riddled with desertions — 25% of those trained in the last year are now gone — and the Afghan police are reportedly a hapless, ill-paid, corrupt, drug-addicted lot. Nonetheless, Washington (with the help of NATO reinforcements) is planning to bring an army whose numbers officially stand at approximately94,000 (but may actually be as low as 40-odd thousand) to 134,000 reasonably well-trained troops by next fall and 240,000 a year later. Similarly, the Obama administration hopes to take the police numbers from an official 93,000 to 160,000.

8. The Cost Surge: This is a difficult subject to pin down in part because the Pentagon is, in cost-accounting terms, one of the least transparent organizations around. What can be said for certain is that Obama’s $30 billion figure won’t faintly hold when it comes to the real surge. There is no way that figure will cover anything like all the troops, bases, contractors, and the rest. Just take the plan to train an Afghan security force of approximately 400,000 in the coming years. We’ve already spent more than $15 billion on the training of the Afghan Army and more than $10 billion has gone into police training — staggering figures for a far smaller combined force with poor results. Imagine, then, what a massive bulking up of the country’s security forces will actually cost. In congressional testimony, Centcom commander General David Petraeus suggested a possible price tag of $10 billion a year. And if such a program works (which seems unlikely), try to imagine how one of the poorest countries on the planet will support a 400,000-man force. Afghan President Hamid Karzai has just suggested that it will take at least 15-20 years before the country can actually pay for such a force itself. In translation, what we have here is undoubtedly a version of Colin Powell’s Pottery Barn rule (“You break it, you own it”); in this case, you build it, you own it. If we create such security forces, they will be, financially speaking, ours into the foreseeable future. (And this is even without adding in those local militias we’re planning to invest “millions” in.)

9. The Anti-Withdrawal Surge: Think of this as a surge in time. By all accounts, the president tried to put some kind of limit on his most recent Afghan surge, not wanting “an open-ended commitment.” With that in mind, he evidently insisted on a plan, emphasized in his speech, in which some of the surge troops would start to come home in July 2011, about 18 months from now. This was presented in the media as a case of giving something to everyone (the Republican opposition, his field commanders, and his own antiwar Democratic Party base). In fact, he gave his commanders and the Republican opposition a very real surge in numbers. In this regard, a Washington Post headline says it all: “McChrystal’s Afghanistan Plan Stays Mainly Intact.” On the other hand, what he gave his base was only the vaguest of promises (“…and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011”). Moreover, within hours of the speech, even that commitment was being watered down by the first top officials to speak on the subject. Soon enough, as the right-wing began to blaze away on the mistake of announcing a withdrawal date “to the enemy,” there was little short of a stampede of high officials eager to make that promise ever less meaningful.

In what Mark Mazzetti of the Times called a “flurry of coordinated television interviews,” the top civilian and military officials of the administration marched onto the Sunday morning talk shows “in lockstep” to reassure the right (and they were reassured) by playing “down the significance of the July 2011 target date.” The United States was, Secretary of Defense Gates and others indicated, going to be in the region in strength for years to come. (“…July 2011 was just the beginning, not the end, of a lengthy process. That date, [National Security Advisor] General [James] Jones said, is a ‘ramp’ rather than a ‘cliff.’”)

How Wide the Widening War?

When it came to the spreading Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan, the president in his speech spoke of his surge goal this way: “We must reverse the Taliban’s momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government.” This seems a modest enough target, even if the means of reaching it are proving immodest indeed. After all, we’re talking about a minority Pashtun insurgency — Pashtuns make up only about 42% of Afghanistan’s population — and the insurgents are a relatively lightly armed, rag-tag force. Against them and a minuscule numberof al-Qaeda operatives, the Pentagon has launched a remarkable, unbelievably costly build-up of forces over vast distances, along fragile, extended supply lines, and in a country poorer than almost any other on the planet. The State Department has, to the best of its abilities, followed suit, as has the CIA across the border in Pakistan.

All of this has been underway for close to a year, with at least another six months to go. This is the reality that the president and his top officials didn’t bother to explain to the American people in that speech last week, or on those Sunday talk shows, or in congressional testimony, and yet it’s a reality we should grasp as we consider our future and the Afghan War we, after all, are paying for.

And yet, confoundingly, as the U.S. has bulked up in Afghanistan, the war has only grown fiercer both within the country and in parts of Pakistan. Sometimes bulking-up can mean not reversing but increasing the other side’s momentum. We face what looks to be a widening war in the region. Already, the Obama administration has been issuing ever stronger warnings to the Pakistani government and military to shape up in the fight against the Taliban, otherwise threatening not only drone strikes in Baluchistan, but cross-border raids by Special Operations types, and even possibly “hot pursuit” by U.S. forces into Pakistan. This is a dangerous game indeed.

As Andrew Bacevich, author of The Limits of Power, wrote recently, “Sending U.S. troops to fight interminable wars in distant countries does more to inflame than to extinguish the resentments giving rise to violent anti-Western jihadism.” Whatever the Obama administration does in Afghanistan and Pakistan, however, the American ability to mount a sustained operation of this size in one of the most difficult places on the planet, when it can’t even mount a reasonable jobs program at home, remains a strange wonder of the world.

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

In The New York Times this morning, David Sanger publishes an article, “Iran Is Said to Ignore Effort to Salvage a Nuclear Deal”, which gives half the story on the current tangled state of the negotiations over uranium enrichment.

Half the story because Sanger’s story is effectively a US Government press release. Here is the narrative of unnamed officials:

The Obama Administration…has told Iran’s leaders in back-channel messages that it is willing to allow the country to send its stockpile of enriched uranium to any of several nations, including Turkey, for temporary safekeeping….But the overtures, made through the International Atomic Energy Agency over the past two weeks, have all been ignored….Instead….the Iranians have revived an old counterproposal: that international arms inspectors take custody of much of Iran’s fuel, but keep it on Kish, a Persian Gulf resort island that is part of Iran….

That proposal had been rejected because leaving the nuclear material on Iranian territory would allow for the possibility that the Iranians could evict the international inspectors at any moment. That happened in North Korea in 2003, and within months the country had converted its fuel into the material for several nuclear weapons.

This version of events intersects not only with developments around El Baradei’s latest proposal — Turkey takes Iran’s reprocessed uranium from Russia and reshapes it into metal plates — but also the reports that Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov was in Tehran pushing a deal. The article is also notable for revealing the Kish proposal, which had not surfaced before.

The downside of the article, however, is that it misses the other half of the narrative. Yesterday Tehran’s officials put out a counter-proposal for reprocessing outside Iran, in a two-stage delivery to Russia. Each shipment of uranium would be 400 kilogrammes; the total of 800 kilogrammes is about half of Iran’s stock. That proposal, which could be a response to Ryabkov’s intervention, may just be a case of the Iranian Government spinning out the discussions, but it is a far cry from an outright rejection.

Indeed, it is troubling that Sanger’s article is riddled with distorting exaggerations. His claim that US officials “had now all but lost hope that Iran would follow through with an agreement reached in Geneva on Oct. 1 to send its fuel out of the country temporarily” overstates the situation — Tehran’s officials did not accept a plan but agreed to further technical talks in Vienna. Thus his follow-up, “Iranian officials told the energy agency on Oct. 29 that they could not agree to the deal that their own negotiators had reached“, is an unhelpful simplification.

That would not be a major problem if this was just loose reporting. The worry is that this is also the perception of US officials:

“If you listen to what the Iranians have said publicly and privately over the past week,” one senior administration official said Sunday, “it’s evident that they simply cannot bring themselves to do the deal.”

Even the most casual of EA readers would have picked up by now that there is not a single Iranian view on the negotiations. Instead, there is a heated debate within the regime on how to conduct the talks with the US. The Washington narrative in Sanger’s article misses this, ignoring for example that President Ahmadinejad is pressing for a continuation of discussions despite hostility from within the Iranian Parliament and possibly from the Supreme Leader’s office.

If true, this misperception carries the consequence that it may be the Obama Administration rather than Tehran which breaks off the talks. This does not mean that it is giving up a likely agreement — again, Ahmadinejad’s primary objective may be to stay at the table rather than signing a deal — but it will lead to Iran blaming Washington for the collapse (and there will be supporters for this view, such as Erdogan in Turkey) and undercut the possibility of China and Russia supporting the harsh sanctions that the US Congress will demand.

Yet even this is secondary to the wider significance of the Administration’s fuzzy view. Simply put, if the statements in Sanger’s piece are accurate, Obama officials have a poor understanding of the internal dynamics in Iran after 12 June, with little comprehension of the fault-lines within the Establishment. In the end, they fail to understand that the nuclear issue is, first and foremost, a pawn in a much bigger chess match inside Iran.

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

2105 GMT: Mehdi Karroubi’s website Tagheer is back on-line (see 1438 GMT).

1945 GMT: We cannot corroborate but it is being reported that flyers of Karroubi’s webcast statement (see separate entry) are being put up across Tehran.

1935 GMT: Families of political prisoners have announced that they will demonstrate on Wednesday, protesting the continued imprisonment of their relatives. If the authorities do not heed the protest, the families will continue demonstrations and begin a mass hunger strike.

1925 GMT: Kalemeh, the website associated with Mir Hossein Mousavi, has published its account of the appearance of Mousavi advisor Alireza Beheshti at the Tehran Media Fair yesterday. Beheshti was with his wife and daughter, as well as supporters, when they were surrounded by 50 to 60 people who began yelling loudly against Beheshti. Kalemeh invokes the memory of Beheshti’s father, the assassinated Ayatollah, claiming that many were reminded of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq’s chant of “Down with Beheshti”. (English summary on Mousavi Facebook page)

1515 GMT: Radio Farda is reporting that 50 striking workers at Ahvaz Pipe Mills were arrested today. Employees have not paid for 10-14 months.

1445 GMT: Mediawatch. Credit to the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, and Time magazine for picking up on the internal dynamics affecting Iran’s decision on the enrichment deal, with varying degrees of success.

Borzou Daragahi in the LA Times is the most effective, noting Ali Larijani’s criticism of the proposal. He conflates this, however, with a statement from another high-ranking member of Parliament “close to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad”, Alaeddin Boroujerdi — Boroujerdi’s shot fits more with moves by the Iranian Government to get better terms, while Larijani’s is a direct attack against the negotiations.

David Sanger in The New York Times opens with a reference to Larijani but gets distracted by the Western perspective — “even some of President Obama’s aides are wary that Iran is setting a trap”. Andrew Lee Butters in Time asks the key question, “Why the delay?”, but struggles to understand the internal situation.

1438 GMT: Coincidence? While Karroubi seizes the political initiative, his on-line newssite, Tagheer, is down.

1435 GMT: We’ve posted the video of Mehdi Karroubi, with English translation, drawing lessons from the events at the Iran Media Fair: “We will not retreat.”

1355 GMT: A Signal? State television is quoting the Supreme Leader’s blame upon foreign agents, seeking Shiite-Sunni conflict, for recent violence: “The bloody actions being committed in some Islamic countries, including Iraq, Pakistan and in some parts of the country (Iran), are aimed at creating division between the Shiites and Sunnis…..Those who carry out these terrorist actions are directly or indirectly foreign agents.”

This is a far from surprising statement for Ayatollah Khamenei, but the timing, given our current thoughts about a move to cut off engagement with the West, may be significant.

1345 GMT: Playing for Time. Amidst what could be an extraordinary political story in Iran over the enrichment deal (see analysis in separate entry), Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki offered a very ordinary, non-commital statement today, “Iran’s decision on the provision of necessary fuel for the Tehran reactor will be announced in the next few days. There are two options on the table … either to buy it or to give part of our fuel for further processing abroad.”

0930 GMT: We’ve posted an analysis from Iran, courtesy of Iran Review, pointing to Tehran’s move for closer relations with Pakistan in the aftermath of the Sistan-Baluchestan bombings.

0735 GMT: The Story to Watch Today. If we’re right, Iran may be on the verge of one of the most important political decisions — with effects inside and outside the country — since 12 June. Weekend statements by Speaker of the Parliament Ali Larijani and Mohammad Reza Bahonar point to the Supreme Leader’s intervention to block the Vienna nuclear agreement and engagement with the US. If this happens, the even bigger effect could be on the legimitacy of President Ahmadinejad. We’ve got the story in a separate entry.

0720 GMT: National Unity Latest. No words for days since the National Unity Plan supposedly went to the Supreme Leader for his consideration. Mizan Press has a useful summary of the political situation, without offering any new details.

0710 GMT: Nuclear Hype. While Iranian state media plays up Washington’s alleged backed of “terrorist” organisations, “Western” media — with the considerable assistance of unnamed Government officials and diplomats — plays up Iran’s imminent Bomb.

In this case, the drum-thumper is Reuters and “imminent” is 18 months. There’s no evidence in the article, only the bland assertion of one of the officials, “It’s not a formal assessment or formal agreement but a rough agreement that we can all work with more or less.”

Actually, “imminent” is not so imminent in this case, perhaps indicating a bit of breathing space for Obama-led engagement as Tehran considers an enrichment deal — previous media spin has been of an Iranian bomb within a year. Still, we offer this naive question:

Given that Iran cannot even enrich uranium to 20 percent for a medical research reactor — the technical reality behind Tehran’s consideration of third-party enrichment — wouldn’t this indicate obstacles to enrichment of uranium to the 90 percent needed for a weapon?

0650 GMT: More Finger-Pointing at US over Jundallah. Last week La Stampa and Enduring America featured the comments of the retired head of Pakistan’s intelligence service, Lieutenant Hamid Gul, linking the Baluch insurgent group Jundallah and last week’s deadly suicide bombing to American intelligence services.

Now Iranian state media are headlining the assertion of the former chief of staff of the Pakistani army, General Mirza Aslam Beg: “Helping the Rigi terrorist group launch terrorist attacks against Iranian civilians and military personnel in the border regions is one of the main strategies pursued by the US to confront Iran.”

The Islamic Republic News Agency is featuring the interview, which also includes Beg’s praise for “the positive steps Iran has taken in Afghanistan and its all-out cooperation with Pakistan”, and Press TV is also pushing it.

0630 GMT: The excitement and uncertainty stirred up by Mehdi Karroubi’s appearance on Friday at the Tehran Media Fair continued on Sunday, as rumors swirled around possible Green demonstrations and Government reactions. The most prominent story in the end, given that Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mohammad Khatami did not follow up Karroubi’s attendance, concerned Mousavi advisor Alireza Beheshti at the Fair. The cycle of Friday — arrival, chants of Green support, a response from those backing the Government, Behesti’s departure, and opposition celebration of another symbolic victory — was repeated.

The events of the last 72 hours are now getting some attention outside Iran. Ramin Mostaghim and Borzou Daragahi, writing in The Los Angeles Times, pick up on the Karroubi episode and also note earlier stories such as the political back-and-forth over the “Kayhan guestbook” (see our updates throughout last week).

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

2255 GMT: Steady as she goes with the Western media mulling over the significance of Iran’s delay on acceptance of the uranium enrichment deal. The truth is that, given the intracacies (and perhaps disorders) of Tehran’s decision-making system, we won’t know for a while. For now, it’s a matter of reading clues, and the strongest — with Iranian state TV putting out the line of a “positive response” — is that the Iranian Government is gradually putting the proposal through the system.

But we’ll stand by our initial projection this morning (0630 GMT): the bigger story is inside Iran. Mehdi Karroubi’s appearance at the Media Fair, with the loud and fervant chants of his supporters and  the scuffles with bystanders and security forces, will ripple throughout Tehran’s political circles. Once again, Karroubi has not backed down (altogether now — Bring. It. On.), so once again the opposition movement has a boost amidst the Government’s ad hoc but still notable shows of force. Indeed, the reformists now get the convergence of the negative, with the arrest of the 60 party members and relatives on Thursday, and the positive with Karroubi’s mobilising of public sentiment.

1748 GMT: We’re taking a Friday night concert break so will be back later with a round-up on all the news from Iran’s nukes to Karroubi at the Media Fair.

1745 GMT: The official statement from the International Atomic Energy Agency says, “Iran informed the Director General today that it is considering the proposal in depth and in a favourable light, but it needs time until the middle of next week to provide a response. The Director General hopes that Iran’s response will equally be positive, since approval of this agreement will signal a new era of cooperation.”

1730 GMT: Fereshteh Ghazi has posted a series of updates on the status of the 60 people arrested — some freed, some still detained — last night.

1645 GMT: Oh, You Teases. Having made the world wait all day for a reply to the deadline for acceptance of the third-party enrichment plan, the Iranian Government is indicating it will formally respond to the proposal next week, says Press TV. Tehran is still putting out the public line that it would prefer to buy uranium directly from other countries.

This could be a tactic to make the West wait and show some Iranian independence, both to home and foreign audiences. Equally, it could be the product of an Iranian system which is in a bit of disarray and confusion over internal and external events.

1630 GMT: Quick update on Friday Prayers. Not much to report from Tehran: Hoatoleslam Kazam Sadighi, very much a supporting cleric in the FP line-up, used the address to call for a “second cultural revolution” in Iran’s universities. That message follows the line laid down by the Supreme Leader in a speech in August.

1430 GMT: Fars News, betraying worry about the significance of Mehdi Karroubi’s appearance at the Media Fair, have rushed out an article which claims people, chanting “Death to the hypocrite!”, chased Karroubi from the exhibition. A photograph smacking of Photoshop shows Karroubi being struck in the head by a shoe as he tries to get into a car. Fars also claim, “One of the bodyguards of this failed presidential candidate fired into the air to disperse the crowd, an act that is rarely carried out by bodyguards of personalities in this country.” (English summary from HomyLafayette)

1420 GMT: Norooz reports that 60 people were arrested at last night’s prayers for detained reformist Shahabeddin Tabatabei. The newspaper provides the names of many of those detained.

1415 GMT: We’ve posted two videos of the enthusiastic reception for Mehdi Karroubi’s arrival at the Iran Media Fair in Tehran today.

1245 GMT: Report that Mohammad Reza Jalaiepour, detained earlier in the post-election crisis and arrested against last night, has been released.

1230 GMT: Mehdi Karroubi has entered the Iran Media Fair to chants from supporters. Parleman News adds that there are reports of scuffles started by pro-Ahmadinejad groups. Karroubi was escorted outside, though it is unclear whether by his followers or by security forces in an effort to protect him.

1200 GMT: Stalling, Game-Playing, etc. State television is reporting that the Iranian Government is balking at signing the uranium enrichment agreement today. An official says, “Now we are awaiting a positive and constructive response on Iran’s proposal from the other party on providing nuclear fuel for Tehran’s reactor. The other party is expected to avoid past mistakes in violating agreements … and to gain Iran’s trust.”

1155 GMT: Grand Ayatollahs Montazeri and Sane’i have added their voices to those condemning last night’s arrests of 30 Islamic Iran Participation Front members and relatives.

1100 GMT: Union Battles. Meanwhile, on the economic front, there are signs of further unrest for the Government. A strike in Ahvaz received some attention, and an EA reader has just tipped us off the following, adapted from the Persian2English blog:

Members of the board of directors for Haft-Tappeh’s sugar cane labour association are on the verge of getting fired or being imprisoned.

According to reports, threats and pressure on board members and labour workers from Shoosh intelligence service has increased. Since the morning of Wednesday October 21, company guards, who worked under the control of Shoosh intelligence service, prohibited four members of the board from going to work. Three were sentenced to six months of jail time with physical punishment and six months of jail time with partial bail, and one was sentenced to four months of jail time with physical punishment and eight months of jail time with partial bail.

Mr. Ali Nejati, the head of the board of directors of the sugar cane labour association was fired and prohibited from going to work. Over the past six months he has not received any payments or benefits.

1040 GMT: An EA correspondent follows up on our story about the Iran Media Fair, in which the Kayhan “hard-line” newspaper reportedly had to remove its guestbook and flag after they were decorated with pro-Mousavi slogans and Green ribbons:

I went there the first day, Tuesday. The large Kayhan booth had a gaggle of journalists around a table. Different people were taking turns signing the guestbookit. One signed it with a Mousavi slogan, the next with an Ahmadinejad slogan, repeat, rinse.

It was orderly, everyone was pushing up and taking pictures of the guestbook. That went on for at least 3 hours. I left, and perhaps then they “removed” it, but what was more remarkable was that the whole thing seemed playful when I was watching it. That kind of stuff happens here, more often than the bad stuff, actually.

1000 GMT: Still waiting for news of Friday Prayers in Tehran. Meanwhile, the families of political prisoners have condemned last night’s arrests of 30 members of the Islamic Iran Participation Front: “If you have no mercy on our innocent children, at least have mercy on your religion; stop ruling in the name of Islam and stop dishonouring Islam.”

0855 GMT: On a more serious note with our friends at The New York Times: it appears they are still intent on trying — through naivete, mischief, or really bad journalism — to demolish the draft agreement for third-party enrichment of Iran’s journalism.

All week David Sanger has been led by the nose to proclaim that Iran was walking out of the talks (not true) and that Tehran was already plotting to circumvent the agreement (speculative propaganda fed to him by “Western officials”). Now Robert Worth chips in with “Iranian Lawmaker Dismisses Uranium Plan”.

To give Worth some credit, at least this incident — unlike Sanger’s — did happen. As we noted yesterday, Reuters was pushing the story that Deputy Speaker of Parliament Mohammad Reza Bahonar said that the deal to send Iran’s uranium to Russia for processing was “not acceptable”.

But we also noted that Bahonar has nothing to do with the Iranian Government’s consideration of the proposal — he is a member of Parliament sniping from the outside. And we suggested that the comments of Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran’s lead negotiator in the Vienna talks, might be far more important, as he signalled that Tehran would accept the agreement.

On reflection, intrepid New York Times colleagues, go ahead and steal from us (see 0840 GMT). Because channeling off-the-record comments and Reuters’ unchecked reports isn’t doing anyone any good.

0840 GMT: In a separate entry, we’ve just had a bit of fun with Michael Slackman of The New York Times, who seems to have stolen our line on Mehdi Karroubi for his story this morning.

0815 GMT: The deputy head of security forces in Sistan-Baluchestan, describing Sunday’s bombing, has repeated claims that the attacks are part of “the U.S. plan to create insecurity in our country”.

0630 GMT: For the international media, “Iran” today means attention to the Vienna talks, where the Iranian regime and the “5+1″ powers face a deadline to accept the draft agreement on third-party enrichment of Tehran’s uranium. Make no mistake, however: the bigger stories are inside Iran.

The significance of last night’s arrests of members of the reformist Islamic Iran Participation Front, gathered to pray for detainee Shahabeddin Tabatabei (see yesterday’s updates), is still not fully known. This was of course a spiteful move against Government opponents, but is it a one-off raid or part of a wider, renewed campaign to break the Green Wave and anyone associated with it? Have President Ahmadinejad and the Iranian security services, whom we believe have been on the back foot since Sunday’s bombings, decided to re-assert themselves or is this more a sign of a disjointed regime lashing out in an ad hoc fashion?

The answers should emerge in Government activities over the next 72 hours. Today is the Iranian weekend but still there may be clues in hostility directed at Mir Hossein Mousavi, Mehdi Karroubi, and their followers. Even then, questions would remain. How does the regime deal with the rising discontent from senior clerics? And will the pro-Ahmadinejed forces go even farther — with political moves and “information” — to blunt the National Unity Plan of conservatives and principlists?

Answers are unlikely to come from Friday Prayers, which are likely to be a relatively low-key affair. And President Ahmadinejad spent Thursday night talking to academics in general terms about the necessity of building “community” for progress and excellence.

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

1850 GMT: Spoiler Alert. And while Tehran is being encouraging about the draft enrichment agreement, the “Western” campaign to undercut it has already begun.

David Sanger of The New York Times, who seems to hang around in a hallway until a Government official tells him how to interpret a story, has fired the warning shot. After headlining, “Iran Agrees to Draft of Deal on Exporting Nuclear Fuel”, Sanger swings a journalistic hammer at the apparent success. Making clear that “Western suspicions that Iran is secretly developing a nuclear weapon despite its repeated denials”, rather than say, Iran’s approach to the IAEA over its medical research reactor, “are at the heart of the negotiations”, he “reports”:

If the 2,600 pounds of fuel leave Iran in batches…experts warn, Iran would be able to replace it almost as quickly as it leaves the country….The estimate that Iran has about 3,500 pounds of low-enriched uranium “assumes that Iran has accurately declared how much fuel it possesses, and does not have a secret supply,” as one senior European diplomat [French? See 1835 GMT] put it….[President Obama] has not made the cessation of enrichment a prerequisite to talks, and the work is still under way, in violation of three United Nations Security Council resolutions.

Perhaps needless to say, Sanger doesn’t name any of his “experts”. Because this is not an analysis, it’s a scare story. [Remember, it was Sanger who only on Monday was saying that Iran was threatening to walk out of the talks.] You Just Can’t Trust the Big, Bad Iranians.

Well, perhaps not. But I’m not sure You Can Trust the Objective New York Times either.

1835 GMT: Iran Presses Its Nuclear Advantage. Ali Aghbar Soltanieh has offered a revealing summary of the Vienna talks to the Iranian Student News Agency. First, he made clear that Tehran would be holding Moscow close as the talks progressed:

We have announced that we are willing to cooperate with Russia within the framework of an agreement. Although certain other countries, including the U.S. and France, have been mentioned in the draft agreement, the main party in the agreement will be Russia.

Then Iranian diplomats celebrated an apparent victory over France. Not only had Paris been a vehement critic of Iran’s nuclear programme in the run-up to the talks, but Iran — as our readers noticed — has a long-standing grievance against Paris over money paid for pre-1979 nuclear projects that were never completed. According to ISNA, “The French delegation apologized to Iran on Wednesday for their country’s past conduct toward Iran and asked IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei to make an effort to put France back in the draft agreement with Tehran.”

1635 GMT: Not So Quiet Anymore. This may be the most significant piece of news that will go unnoticed this week.

This morning we wrote, “Watch Qom….The Grand Ayatollahs and Ayatollahs — Dastgheib, Bayat-Zanjani, Sane’i, Safi Golpaygani — are pressing for reforms to meet the post-election challenge, and he adds that none of those clerics are fans of Ahmadinejad. Just as significant, they do not operate in a vacuum but interact with secular’ players in the political game.”

Mehr News now reports:

Majlis Cleric Committee members are going to visit Ayatollah Mohammad Reza Mahdavi Kanni, MP Mohammad Taqi Rahbar said on Wednesday. The committee members, during their meeting, will discuss the incidents that followed up the June 12 presidential election and the proposal for the establishment of a national election committee, Rahbar, who also heads the committee, added.

The National Election Committee, put forward by 2009 Presidential candidate Mohsen Rezaei, may not be as prominent in discussions as the National Unity Plan, but it has still provoked heated opposition, both from those who think President Ahmadinejad’s legitimacy is being questioned and those who believe it would curb the powers of the Supreme Leader. Conversely, it is galvanising senior clerics who are looking to press their challenge against the post-election abuses of the regime.

1445 GMT: A relatively quiet afternoon. There are rumours and uncertainty over whether or not President Ahmadinejad went to Tehran University today (see 1050 GMT). In the Parliament, there are twists over the complaint that pro-Ahmadinejad MPs were going to file about post-election behaviour by their opponents; the latest story is that Mir Hossein Mousavi is not named.

Meanwhile Press TV is featuring the story that the IAEA has passed the draft plan for uranium enrichment to national delegations for confirmation. It adds no details to reports from Western journalists.

1135 GMT: With many thanks to an EA reader, we’ve posted the news of a Dutch human rights awards for lawyer Shadi Sadr.

1055 GMT: Breakthrough? According to reporters in Vienna, International Atomic Energy Agency head Mohammad El Baradei has declared that a draft agreement on Iran’s uranium enrichment has been reached. Deadline for confirmation by states is Friday.

1050 GMT: We’re chasing the report that President Ahmadinejad has made a surprise visit to Tehran University and has been greeted by student protests.

1045 GMT: We’ve updated our page on the Supreme Leader’s health after his appearance with female scholars yesterday.

0900 GMT: Following up our analysis of the effect of Sunday’s bombing on Iranian politics and its relations with countries such as the US, we’ve posted an analysis by Josh Mull posing questions over the alleged link between the Baluch insurgent group Jundallah and the US Government.

0750 GMT: As the death toll from Sunday’s bombing rose to 57, the UN Security Council “underlined the need to bring perpetrators, organisers, financiers and sponsors of this reprehensible act of terrorism to justice and urged all states … to co-operate actively with the Iranian authorities in this regard”.

0735 GMT: And just to add one more not-so-weak signal of both opposition potential and Government uncertainty from the last 48 hours. The videos from the University protests are striking: a Government representative shows up at a discussion to face loud protests and even a thrown shoe; 1000s gather despite the threat of academic punishment if not detention.

0645 GMT: Never underestimate the importance of timing. For all the plans and resources that a Government might have, the convergence of events can put a question mark over its efforts. For all the challenges that an opposition faces, developments far removed from their immediate concerns can provide opportunities.

And so, 96 hours after the Supreme Leader’s reappeared, 72 hours after the bombings in southeastern Iran, 48 hours after the opening of the technical talks on Iran’s nuclear programme, the Ahmadinejad Government — which had been reasserting its position after the 18 September demonstrations — seems to be drifting in the political arena. And, to add to its concerns, those who might take advantage are not just the Green Wave; “conservatives” and “principlists” who back the National Unity Plan that has gone to the Supreme Leader know that its first effects will be upon the authority of the President.

Ironically, the present show of strength for Ahmadinejad and Co. is in Vienna rather than Tehran. Iran’s diva-ish manoeuvres yesterday, apparently refusing to show up for talks and then pursuing bilateral talks with the US to limit or exclude France in any plan, put the message that any “third-party enrichment” will not be imposed on Tehran but will be framed to meet its concerns. Whether this is because Iran wants a direct return of processed uranium from Russia or — as a reader helpfully evaluates — because it is punishing France for holding Iranian payments for pre-1979 nuclear contracts that were never fulfilled, the Iranian Government is dividing the “5+1″ countries while maintaining engagement with Washington.

The regime’s response to Jundallah’s Sunday attacks is not so secure. Politically, the line set out by Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki yesterday was quite clever, looking to turn the bombing into co-operation with the Pakistani Government. The Revolutionary Guard appears to be spiralling into threats of vengeance, not only against Jundallah but against any foreign Government that comes to mind. The Guard’s latest demand, that Pakistan allow Iranian troops to enter the country and hunt down insurgents, seems to be pointless bluster, as Islamabad will turn down the request quickly, if not sharply. This follows statements by Guard commander General Jafari, with the promise to retaliate against the US and Britain, that could have put the Government’s political strategy — based on engagement despite Sunday’s events — into disarray.

Possibly Ahmadinejad and the Guard are pursuing a good cop/bad cop strategy. Even so, the eyes of the Iranian military seem to have been diverted from the internal political situation. And with the Government occupied with other matters, there has been a curious silence — both with respect to the Green movement and with respect to the National Unity Plan — since last week.

This does not mean that the Government’s power to assert its authority has been diminished. To the contrary, yesterday’s announcement that the Iranian-American scholar Kian Tajbakhsh would spend 12 to 15 years in jail (a sentence passed several days ago) was meant to show that the fist was still clenched against supposed opponents at home and abroad.

Still, the space for political manouevre — the space the regime hoped to close down with its threats, surveillances, and disruptions of communication — has reopened. We still await the responses and unfoldings around Mir Hossein Mousavi’s Sunday statement. Meanwhile, a well-placed EA source gives us another, equally important dimension.

This source advises, “Watch Qom”. His interpretation is that the Grand Ayatollahs and Ayatollahs — Dastgheib, Bayat-Zanjani, Sane’i, Safi Golpaygani — are pressing for reforms to meet the post-election challenge, and he adds that none of those clerics are fans of Ahmadinejad. Just as significant, they do not operate in a vacuum but interact with “secular” players in the political game. So the vehement attack of the “conservative” member of Parliament Ali Motahari on the legitimacy of the President is not just because of Motahari’s personal animosity and his connection with the Larijani brothers; it is also because Motahari, the son of an Ayatollah, is working with and reaction to another wave, this one from the Qom seminary.

It is 14 days to 13 Aban (4 November).

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 1930 GMT: Talks have ended for the day, to be resumed tomorrow. IAEA head El-Baradei said that negotiations were moving forward though more slowly than he had expected.

Julian Borger of The Guardian has a useful summary.

UPDATE 1825 GMT: Yep, that’s where the not-so-silly games are heading. Iran, wanting France out of the loop, is talking directly to the US delegation, according to Lara Setrakian of ABC News.

Press TV gives more details: An Iranian source confirms the “positive and constructive” bilateral discussions, adding, “It was agreed that more studies should be held on…renewing the secondary, control and electronic facilities” of the medical research reactor, the source added.

UPDATE 1810 GMT: Oh my, the Iranians are playing silly games now. Having wound up the media with their pre-talk threats, Tehran’s delegation decided today to give France a poke in the eye by never showing up at discussions. Other diplomats are insisting that this is not a walkout, and the French Foreign Ministry maintains, “It is a meeting of experts, in which we are participating.” However, Iranian officials via Press TV are declaring, “The elimination of France from the deal’s draft is certain.”

There is a likely explanation for this rather comic manoeuvring. Under the “third-party enrichment” proposal backed by the US, Iranian uranium is to be enriched by Russia and then sent to France to be shaped into metal plates. Tehran may be insisting that Paris is cut out of the process, with Russia sending the uranium, raised to 19.75 percent, directly back to Iran.

Some of the media coverage of yesterday’s opening of the Vienna technical talks on Iran’s uranium enrichment was beyond hopeless.

It was unsettling to see international broadcasters suddenly and excitedly discovering that there were talks and then, when those talks did not produce an outcome within hours, suddenly and not-so-excitedly proclaiming disappointment. At least, however, that produced comic moments such as CNN’s Matthew Chance, like a boy discovering there was no candy in the shop, sinking from “lot of anticipation” to “jeez…all day silence…now the talks have broken up”.

Far worse this morning is the spectacle of reporters, despite having some time to collect information and consider, repeating distracting and irrelevant spin as “analysis”. The Wall Street Journal goes off on a tangent into nuclear Never-Never Land, “Iran Drops Deal to Buy Uranium in France”. Swallowing Iran’s eve-of-talks posturing rather than understanding it, The New York Times and David Sanger declare, “Iran Threatens to Back Out of Fuel Deal” with Tehran’s “veiled public threats”.

Really? Then how does Sanger explain the comment of the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohammad El Baradei, “We’re off to a good start” in the second paragraph of his story? Maybe he could reflect a bit more on the quote handed to him by “a participant” (fourth paragraph):

This was opening-day posturing. The Iranians are experienced at this, and you have to expect that their opening position isn’t going to be the one you want to hear.

The real story, which EA has reported since Glenn Kessler’s breakthrough story in The Washington Post last month, is that the deal to ship 80 percent of Iran’s low-enriched uranium for processing in Russia and to use that uranium in a medical research facility (rather than for bombs) is on the table. Yesterday’s public chest-puffing by Tehran does not change that agenda.

Indeed, both Time magazine and Sanger add details to that deal (although Time, in particular, does not have the professional decency to acknowledge Kessler’s original article). Approaching the IAEA, Iran revived the idea — broached by other countries months earlier — of third-party enrichment of its uranium stock for the medical facility, and the Obama Administration ran with it during the President’s trip to Moscow in early July. The top US official for nonproliferation, Gary Samore, put the proposal to the Russians.

Discreet talks between Iran, the IAEA, Russia, France (which would shape the enriched uranium as metal plates before it was returned to Tehran), and the U.S. followed. On three occasions, twice with El Baradei and once with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, President Obama stepped in to confirm and advance the initative. The deal was considered at the first direct talks between Iran, the US, and the other “5+1″ countries at Geneva on 1 October, producing the agreement for further technical discussions in Vienna.

The very fact that the Administration would be is leaking so much information to well-placed reporters should indicate that the real story here is that the US, irrespective of Iran’s public posturing, is going to persist with this proposal. That trumps any misleading headlines from journalists who yearn for drama to break “all day silence” and are prone, beyond the details in their own articles, to the image of a talk-stalling, deal-breaking Iran.