2105 GMT: Mehdi Karroubi’s website Tagheeris 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) Read the rest of this entry »
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.
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. Read the rest of this entry »
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.
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.
2030 GMT. Harrumph, harrumph. The Financial Times, which is vying with The Times of London to be the at-hand Government channel for “news”, uses several hundred words as a backdrop for this fist-shaking from “a senior British government official”:
It is important that IAEA inspectors are given access to Qom immediately. We regret that Iran is delaying this until October 25. We see no reason for a delay. What possible reason can there be for it?
Given that the IAEA and even most of the Obama Administration welcomed the agreement, one has to wonder whether this is the same “rogue” British official who gave the FT their recent non-story on “secret Iran nuclear arms plan”, whether this is a concerted London effort to play “tough cop” alongside a more conciliatory US, or whether Gordon Brown’s Government has decided it really doesn’t want meaningful negotiations.
1945 GMT: We’re not asleep. It’s just a very slow night for news, and we’re also suffering from a bit of fatigue after a heavy academic day.
However, I think you can look forward to some new analysis on Hashemi Rafsanjani by the morning. And we’re trying valiantly to track down the video of last night’s interview on CNN by Christiane Amanpour of Ray Takeyh, formerly of the National Security Council, and Seyed Mohammad Marandi of the University of Tehran. (Coincidentally, I’ve worked with both on academic projects.)
1705 GMT: Establishment Battles Resume? Parleman News is claiming that supporters of President Ahmadinejad have tried — and failed — to unseat Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani as the head of the Principlist majority group. If true, this could be a sign that the temporary reconciliation of conservative and principlist factions, prominent at the start of September with the approval of the Ahmadinejad Cabinet, may be breaking down.
And that in turn raises the question: is this split being fostered by the imminence of a National Unity Plan which may seek to marginalise Ahmadinejad?
1640 GMT: We think Hashemi Rafsanjani’s statement, which we noted here earlier, is important enough to warrant a separate entry.
1625 GMT: The Unity Gesture? EA’s Mr Smith predicted that this step would occur in the Supreme Leader’s speech at the end of Ramadan on 20 September. Looks like he was only two weeks off: “Iran is to release on bail around 20 people accused of post-election violence, including top reformists and an Iranian-American scholar.”
According to the Islamic Republic News Agency, citing a source inside Iran’s judiciary, those who may be freed include former Vice President Mohammed Ali Abtahi, journalist Mohammad Atrianfar, reformist leaders Shahab Tabatabaei, Saeed Shariati and Abdollah Momeni, and Iranian-American academic Kian Tajbakhsh.
1430 GMT: Pointless Analysis of Day. A Jeffrey Kuhner, the declared President of the “Edmund Burke Institute”, is allowed to take up space in The Washington Times with this: “War with Iran is now inevitable. The only question is: Will it happen sooner or later?”
1240 GMT: Good Cop, Bad Cop. Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani has provided the critical counterpoint to the positive signals from this morning’s briefing by IAEA head Mohammad El-Baradei (0905-0920 GMT):
The [IAEA] is an international authority which should supervise all nuclear activities of states, but the agency’s records indicate that it was not successful in this regard for political reasons. The agency acted successfully with regard to nuclear activities in certain places like Japan, but it bowed [to pressure] where it faced political barriers and proved unsuccessful.
The head of Iran’s nuclear programme, Ali Akhbar Salehi, sounded a different tune after his press conference with El Baradei. Confirming the late October inspection date for the second enrichment plant and discusions on “third-party enrichment”, he said, “As far as safeguards are concerned, Iran’s nuclear issue has been fully resolved.”
1200 GMT: Report that two members of the reformist student group Daftar-Tahkim-Vahdat (Unity Consolidation Bureau) are still in Evin Prison, with 16 released yesterday. Original reports were that there were 15 detainees, and all were freed.
0920 GMT: El Baradei calls for Iran to rejoin the Subsidiary Protocol (Code 3.1) of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which provides a stricter framework for inspection and monitoring. Iran left the Protocol in 2007 after a dispute with the IAEA over access to information on military programmes as well as the nuclear facilities.
1955 GMT: How to Claim Victory. The Times of London slaps the headline, “Iran bows to sanctions pressure to allow inspectors”, on its summary of the Geneva talks. Hmm…. There’s nothing in the article to suggest an Iranian concession to a meaningful sanctions threat, and having been up-close-and-personal with Press TV tonight, trust me, the Iranians aren’t bowing. Posturing, even swaggering a bit, but not bowing.
1945 GMT: And Now Obama. The President has given his seal of approval to the US line: a “constructive start” but if Iran does not live up to its obligations, US will move to “increase pressure”. He signalled that Mohammed El Baradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, will soon visit Iran. “Hard work lies ahead.”
1935 GMT: The Deal? Meanwhile, the Western media continues to miss the announcement, enthusiastically proclaimed by Press TV, that officials from Iran and the “5+1″ powers will have technical talks on 18 September on “third-party enrichment”.
A further signal why this is important: “Russia is ready to further enrich Iran’s uranium stocks for use as fuel in a civilian research reactor, depending on approval from the United Nations, a person familiar with the matter said today.”
1920 GMT: Hold the Line. As the US Government prepares to consider its position after today’s talks, no doubt in a domestic environment with critics screeching “appeasement”, Hillary Clinton amplified the American statement (see 1753 GMT):
It was a productive day, but the proof of that has not yet come to fruition, so we’ll wait and continue to press our point of view and see what Iran decides to do….We want to see concrete actions and positive results. And I think that today’s meeting opened the door, but let’s see what happens.
1830 GMT: Another twist in the line of Foreign Minister Mottaki over the revelation of the second enrichment plant. Having put forward the case of four Iranian officials and scientists who have “disappeared” since 2007 (see 1350 GMT), Mottaki told the Council for Foreign Relations, “We think in Pittsburgh President Obama was misled based on wrong information and wrong analysis. The wrong analysis was provided by the British. Wrong information by certain terrorist groups.”
It appears that, even though this issue has been overtaken by today’s talks, Mottaki’s statement points to a wider strategy: blame the British for being “hard-line” while praising the US as “flexible” and willing to negotiate if they are not misled by their partners (see 1710 GMT).
1723 GMT: In contrast to the forceful moves by the Iranians, the US post-talk statement is, well, weak: “[Undersecretary Burns] addressed the need for Iran to take concrete and practical steps that are consistent with its international obligations and that will build international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of it program.”
At the start of the year we closely tracked the political battle between the White House and military commanders, notably General David Petraeus, over the deployment of additional US troops to Afghanistan. This was nominally resolved at the end of March by a “compromise” agreement (even though the military got almost all of the troop request) in which Obama announced a new strategy of military measures supporting non-military measures to build up the country.
The situation was not resolved, either inside Washington or in Afghanistan, and we are back in another cycle of reports, spin, and power moves over another escalation in the US military commitment. One curious absentee, however, is Petraeus, who has not been far from media-shy in the past. Tom Englehardt digs beneath the surface for the story:
How Top Generals May Trap Obama in a Losing War
Front and center in the debate over the Afghan War these days are General Stanley “Stan” McChrystal, Afghan war commander, whose “classified, pre-decisional” and devastating report — almost eight years and at least $220 billion later, the war is a complete disaster — was conveniently, not to say suspiciously, leaked to Bob Woodward of the Washington Post by we-know-not-who at a particularly embarrassing moment for Barack Obama; Admiral Michael “Mike” Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who has been increasingly vocal about a “deteriorating” war and the need for more American boots on the ground; and the president himself, who blitzed every TV show in sight last Sunday and Monday for his health reform program, but spent significant time expressing doubts about sending more American troops to Afghanistan. (“I’m not interested in just being in Afghanistan for the sake of being in Afghanistan… or sending a message that America is here for the duration.”)
On the other hand, here’s someone you haven’t seen front and center for a while: General David Petraeus. Read the rest of this entry »
2105 GMT: Mehdi Karroubi’s website Tagheer is back on-line (see 1438 GMT).
1850 GMT: Spoiler Alert. And while Tehran is being encouraging about the draft enrichment agreement, the “Western” campaign to undercut it has already begun.
2030 GMT. Harrumph, harrumph. The Financial Times, which is vying with The Times of London to be the at-hand Government channel for “news”, uses several hundred words as a backdrop for 
1955 GMT: How to Claim Victory. The Times of London slaps the headline, “Iran bows to sanctions pressure to allow inspectors”, 
At the start of the year we closely tracked the political battle between the White House and military commanders, notably General David Petraeus, over the deployment of additional US troops to Afghanistan. This was nominally resolved at the end of March by a “compromise” agreement (even though the military got almost all of the troop request) in which Obama announced a new strategy of military measures supporting non-military measures to build up the country.
Entries (RSS)